Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: So digital can do it all?

Subject: [OM] Re: So digital can do it all?
From: Jan Steinman <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:47:04 -0800
>From: petertje@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>I'm a fan of the following way of thinking.  When you enlarge a picture that's 
>been taken with film, there's a certain threshold where the grain starts 
>showing up.  If the film is any good, this appears pleasing to humans because 
>it's irregular.  When you do the same with digital, it appears unpleasing 
>because of the regular raster.  No in-camera or post processing can change 
>this.

If you re-sample the image with the proper tool, you don't so much get the 
"regular raster" pattern, but you begin to see sensor noise. To me, this looks 
a bit like film grain.

There are also various ways of simulating film grain. I sell an image that was 
taken with ASA 800 film, with a clear blue sky. In this case, the grain was 
objectionable. So I sampled the sky at horizon and zenith, and filled the sky 
with a gradient. But then it looked artificial, so I added some noise back in.

But I do agree that film grain has its own quality that can be quite pleasing, 
and that would take considerable effort to simulate digitally.

>Another really bad thing is that some cameras store their pictures in JPEG 
>format.

Yes. But it is generally a reasonable compression ratio. Once you get them off 
the camera, the FIRST thing to do (assuming you want to mess with them, rather 
than accept them as-is) is to convert them to a non-lossy format.

> > >Film still allows more flexibility in how the
>> >original image is recorded...
>>
>> Again, we must agree to disagree.
>>
>> Any given film has ONE way it reacts to light. A digicam has an infinite
>> number of ways it reacts to light. You haven't convinced me otherwise.
>
>I think the actual sensor has only one way that it reacts to light.  What 
>happens afterwards (in the camera or on PC), is like what happens in the 
>darkroom.

Well, we're just playing with semantics here.

> > This is not rocket science. It is not my opinion. It is "Moore's Law,"
>> which has held true for 50 years of semiconductor technology advancement.
>
>I'm not entirely convinced Moore's Law holds for CCD.  I've heard the story of 
>how we'll all be using digicams within months from now, for far too many 
>times.  In the mean time, estimates are getting longer (2-3 years ?)

I've been on-track with my digicam predictions since my Apple QuickTake in 
1996. At the time, I wrote (possibly on this very list) that digicams would 
reach price-performance parity in about ten years. That's about 2-3 years from 
now.

So let's see... 2003 minus 1996 is 7 years is 4 2/3rds times Moore's Constant 
(18 months).

4 2/3rds doublings is a factor of about 25.

The Apple QuickTake of 1996 was 0.3 megapixels (640x480)

Times 25 is 7.8 megapixels.

Current high-end digicams are running 6-12 megapixels. I guess Moore wins again!

And in 2-3 years, we'll be seeing 12 megapixel cameras priced similarly to 35mm 
film cameras (price-performance parity) and high-end jobbies at 24-48 
megapixels that rival medium format film.

>Reminds me of the debate on how quickly computers will be able to think just 
>like human beings.

You have to be careful who you listen to. The pundits on late-night talk shows 
will say anything to sell their latest book.

As I've shown, my estimates are on-track for price-performance parity with 
film, but you claim the "estimates are getting longer". Perhaps you are getting 
your digicam-futures advice from late-night talk show "human thought computing 
experts!" :-)

I believe Carl Sagan estimated the human brain's capacity at about 1 terabyte 
in "Broca's Brain." Current computers max out at 2 gigabytes, a factor of 500, 
or about nine doublings. Applying Moore's law implies that matching capacity 
will take about 14 years.

This is not to say that I seriously believe computers will rival human thought 
in 14 years -- there are so many other factors involved beyond simply 
information capacity. But I don't think it will take place BEFORE 14 years from 
now! :-)

>I'd hate to have to take a pile of memory cards, or a PC.

One hardly needs a "pile of memory cards, or a PC" to take a digicam on even an 
extended trip. I can get over 2,000 snapshot quality images without changing 
cards! And if I want something other than "snapshot quality," I can change it 
on a per-image basis, rather than toting around an extra body or two, loaded 
with different film.

>OM stuff is far smaller, too.  (and the user interface is better, and it 
>doesn't feel like goddamn plastic)  :-)

Capice. Although the E-20 by no means feels like plastic (it is rather like the 
single-digit OM in construction), it is a bit of a brute to haul around. I'm 
anxiously awaiting 4/3rds to get quality digicams back to OM proportions.

Standard disclaimer: I still shoot a lot of film. I still love and use my large 
OM collection. I am not saying anyone is a bad person for being a "digicam 
resister." But I will continue to rebut inaccuracies and misstatements about 
digital -- hopefully in a non-theatening manner... :-)


-- 
: Jan Steinman -- nature Transography(TM): <http://www.Bytesmiths.com>
: Bytesmiths -- artists' services: <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Services>

< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz