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: Apollo who wrote (26914)	6/27/2000 8:02:00 PM
From: nosmo_king	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

SNDK: Stan, DownSouth, Mike and Art-- thanks very much for your thoughtful replies. Digital photography is awesome technology. I am very impressed with the products available, and love when I get photos of my nephews and nieces via e-mail... but I'd like to respond to the comments, all just IMHO. I agree that "better" is and should be defined for the various intended purposes or sub-sectors rather than as a sweeping generalization (thanks Mike for the examples). There's no question that digital photography is better for insurance adjusters etc. I am not a professional photographer, but a hobbiest (and one with poor vision/mild colorblindness to boot) who notices an obvious difference in image quality of the sub $1000 digital cameras when compared to a sub $500 dollar film camera, and the link that DS provided (thanks) compares film-scanned digital images and a 2.3 megapixel digital image: (the entire page): imaging-resource.com (the photographs): imaging-resource.com Other differences between digital and film: 1) Interchangeable lenses -- must reach up to at least $3K for this feature in digital cameras 2) Film "speed"-- most digital cameras under $1000 can achieve the equivalent of 400. For film, 800, 1600, 3200 and higher are possible (with reduction in resolution as expected, with higher film speeds). 3) Shutter speed/aperture. 1/750th of a second for digital, easily 2-4 times faster for film. f stops limited on both ends for digital compared with film cameras. 4) Film advance speeds, so to speak. Time between pictures with digital cameras measured in seconds (~10 secs), for film cameras, measured in frames-per-second. "Better" aspects of digital cameras abound as well, thanks in large part to flashmemory/SNDK. When purchasing a camera, I'm more interested in the 4 listed items, though, than the advantages of digital. I may be in a minority, it seems. But that wasn't my question. Rather, whether something is the "best" product (a better discontinous innovation) is, I thought, less important according to Moore's precepts, than whether a value chain can form, a tornado exists, high switching costs are present as well as BTE, etc. SNDK's memory seems to fulfill much of these criteria, as summarized by Apollo and others. Many think Mac's are "superior" to PC's, Betamax to VHS-- but that didn't matter as the mass adoption was to their competition. Appreciate your (all) patience in helping me to work out GG metrics, Thanks again, nosmo