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: roonz who wrote (27016)	6/28/2000 4:02:00 PM
From: JDN	Respond to of 54805

Dear Roonz: Which digital camera would you currently recommend? JDN

To: roonz who wrote (27016)	6/28/2000 4:26:00 PM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

What hasn't happened yet is the introduction of digital consumer cameras that can create images that have enough pixels to generate high-quality 8" x 10" output (photos). But, of course, they are coming soon. I think it is important to note that the question relative to SDNK prospects is not when and whether digital is "as good as" film. On many fronts, digital is far short of film at this point including: 1. Only the very highest resolution digital cameras are capable of even modest enlargement of the image, while quite cheap film cameras can do much better. 2. Digital images do not have the color breath or contrast of film. 3. Only very expensive digital cameras have high quality interchangeable lens, while these are available with very modestly priced film cameras. 4. While SNDK et al are making strides the cost of "going out for a day's shoot" with digital is astronomic if your idea of doing so with film involves 5-10 roles. 5. Very inexpensive film cameras can be used with a wide range of film speeds to adapt to a very wide range of light conditions and speed requirements, but digital cameras are, by and large stuck in the mid-range. 6. Digital cameras are very limited battery life, meaning much more equipment and expense for that "day's shoot". 7. Digital images have a characteristic problem with noise in dark areas. But, this needn't mean that digital cameras are far distant from a tornado. There certainly are many applications these days where the ultimate destination of the image is digital and where resolution and ultimate image quality are limited, e.g., web posting. And, some of the disadvantages of digital don't apply to some new usage patterns which digital encourages, e.g., the nearly instantaneous review and use of an image rather than waiting until the roll is full. My guess is that we have come far enough that we are likely to see some sort of tornado from applications where the target usage is digital, where the instant feedback is important, and just from people who want the latest toy (whether or not they will continue to use it for long). But, I sure won't look to see film disappearing in the next year or two.