I don't thinks so except for small improvements in usability. The point
was that there is only so much information on a piece of film. There is
no incentive to develop more scanner capability unless film is
developed further. A 4000 or 5400 dpi film scanner essentially gets
everything that is on film now. I doubt there is a lot of a lot of film
research money to further develop film. I think most of the research
effort will be to make it cheaper and more profitable. So it is very
unlikely that there will be more serious development of film scanners,
except of course to make them more profitable. That will be difficult
as sales volume continues to drop as people switch to digital cameras.
Winsor
Long Beach, California
USA
On Sep 17, 2004, at 2:25 PM, Simon Worby wrote:
>
> Winsor Crosby wrote:
>
>> Michael Reichmann on Luminous Landscape when he was comparing film and
>> digital got a couple of drum scans and compared them to his 4000 dpi
>> Nikon scans. There was not a heck of a lot of information left on the
>> film after 4000dpi.
>
> But are "affordable" films scanners likely to get much better than
> 4000 dpi in the relatively near future (say 10 years)?
>
> The thing that really puts me off going digital is the built-in
> obsolescence (anyone want my lovely 80286 c/w 40Mb HDD?). Perhaps
> films scanners are the same? But I have a feeling not (although I'm
> not sure why...)
>
> What do others think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Simon
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|