Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (22104)	4/3/2000 10:40:00 AM
From: Apollo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Empirical evidence on Digital cameras... article from Forbes, 3/20/2000 forbes.com snippet: Now, just as sales of digital cameras are on the verge of surpassing those of film cameras, a winner has emerged. The prize didn't go to Sony or Fuji or Kodak. It went to Sanyo. The unheralded Japanese maker has taken at least a 40% share of a $3 billion market that is growing at a rate of 60% a year. OK, your move. <ggg> Apollo

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (22104)	4/3/2000 12:15:00 PM
From: John Stichnoth	Respond to of 54805

Re SNDK--We're still looking forward to a tornado in digital cameras. (That's my erick lead) Hi, Mike-- I have been saying for the last year that we need to get to 4 megapixels to see the tornado. At 4 megapixels the regular-sized snapshot prints we get from our 200 ASA film will be virtually indistinguishable from digital photos. But, I have recently begun to wonder if we're in a bowling alley forever situation, or that maybe we still don't have a whole product. A couple thoughts-- 1. Consumers want to get the best quality digital photos, and want to be able to print them out themselves. That means better printers. They are now moving to 600x1200 resolution as the dominant printer sold, but they're not the dominant installed base yet. Maybe a tornado will have to wait for better printers. 2. Printer paper is still pretty expensive, eg., $30 per 50-sheet box. (I haven't checked this recently. Maybe someone can confirm; or I will next time I'm in CompUSA). 3. Web photo posting is pretty irrelevant to the tornado, it seems to me. Better monitors show 1024x768 resolution. That's less than 1 megapixel for a photo that would take up the whole screen. Related to that is that photos are normally shown on the web in jpeg format, which is a "lossy" compression format. (I haven't tried any of these "post your own photo" sites. Can someone confirm that they are jpeg? Or PM some of the sites to me and I'll check). The point is that digital photos have long been good enough for posting on the web. 4. The other issue, perhaps not addressed by adding pixels and printer resolution, is color depth. We don't hear this discussed very much, but until your digital photos come out with the very subtle colorations that film pictures produce . . . You get my point. (But, there may be a parallel here with CD's. Remember how bright their early sound was? Almost tinny. The quality of sound the CD's are giving us today is much better. Of course, that early tinny sound didn't stop CD's from tornadoing). A lot of "on the other hand"'s in this post. :o) Best, John EDIT--Saw Ausdauer's site. Pictures are 300,000 pixels.