28 Oct
2012
28 Oct
'12
6:05 p.m.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:29:13AM +0000, Pete Turnbull wrote:
On 28/10/2012 23:55, Chris Tofu wrote:
As long as you are talking b&w film and not colour films with dyes.
There are sadly many faded films now not to mention fungus that love
to eat organic dyes.
I know Im in for it asking such a question, but are there any
realistic benefits to film these days considering the expense?
Possibly two or three.
First, longevity. A properly processed and stored negative has a life
provably measured in at least tens of decades and probably several times
that, whereas you'll almost certainly have to re-write and transfer
digital images to other media and formats several times over such a
period.
Secondly, resolution. At least, medium format gives high resolution
more affordably than digital, even if you merely count pixels (which
actually is a poor measure of quality sometimes).
It will take a while before digital is affordable for comparable
digital backs on MF and LF yes.
A third might be authenticity. It's relatively easy to see if a
negative has been altered or retouched. The flipside is of course ease
of "improvement" to digital images.
I have one word. "Karsh". People have been manipulating film images
since the beginning, digital just made it easier.
I agree about the longevity of media. We all know what happened with the
domesday project in the UK, lunar landing video and 9t tape
turning into glue.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
- Diane
--
- db at FreeBSD.org db at db.net http://www.db.net/~db
Nowadays tar can compress using yesterdays latest technologies!