On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Taking liberties with your quote (above), I'll add the needed caveat
> directly: (1) It can take a lot of work (and money to buy the new imaging
> system e.g.: HDD to new DVDR) to transfer images from one format to another.
> I freely admit this, but expect this to become much easier (but not less
> expensive) in the future with the development of new (expensive) software and
> (new, expensive) storage techniques (read: devices).>>
> Said Mafud, kowtowing deeply, meanwhile offering profuse apologies to Chris
> for his unauthorized editing of Chris' statement.
*L* Ok, everyone seems to think that I'm knocking conventional film as a
storage medium for the masses, when I'm not. Film is nice. I like
film. Film is fun and good and sweetness and light and stuff like
that. <g> Negatives are good for a lot of things, including Granny
keeping her negs in a shoebox under the bed, though odds are she's lost
them years ago (not your granny, necessarily). <g> Film storage is good
for some things, digital storage for others. Digital equipment can be
expensive, but once you have the equipment you can shoot as much as you
want and not have to pay for film and developing, which can add up very
quickly. There's advantages to each system.
> If DVD becomes VDVD or ODVD (Video or Optically recorded DVD), that new
> system will cost more than some will pay. By the time VDVD or ODVD becomes
> cheap enough for all to afford it, what do you want to wager that another
> that new system, this time maybe LDVD (Laser DVD) won't be sprung on the
> consumer?
> And after LDVD? Another and another and another...
And who knows... your CD's might still be readable under these
systems. Please realize that I'm not saying that digital archiving is the
most cost-efficient, low-maintenance system that there is. I believe that
someday it probably will be, but definitely not yet. I'm only saying
that, for those people who can afford it and have the time to transfer the
images a few times in their life, digital storage has several advantages
over film.
> Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Granny reaches under her bed, pulls out one of
> her many shoeboxes...
...only to find that a mouse has nibbled away at most of the few negatives
of hers that had survived the fire, the move, and general neglect (with
absolutely no offense meant to Mafud's, or anyone else's, granny) <g>.
chris
P.S. Can we *please* label all of these as "OT"? I don't want to piss
more people off than I have to. :)
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
