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.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (20475)	6/22/2001 1:42:34 PM
From: Rocky Reid	Respond to of 60323

>>And at what point does digital pass emulsion as far as resolution?<< The consencus I've read is about 8 megapixel. At this point, digital contains more "dots" or "pixels" of information than 35mm film. But the current crop of 4 megapixel should be very good and indistinguishable from 35mm film in most cases. The only exception would be for prining anything larger than an 11" x 14"..at this size you would probably still be able to pick out the film from the digital.

To: Road Walker who wrote (20475)	6/22/2001 2:20:30 PM
From: Ausdauer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

John, I am not sure when we pass emulsion film as far as resolution is concerned... ...but we must be pretty close. From a practical standpoint, however, there still needs to be a convenient way to display these multi-megapixel images on photographic paper. As much as I love my Epson printer, my Canon EOS 35mm camera sets the bar pretty high. Inkjet just isn't there yet. The Canon G1 has several nice features. Very solid construction with a crisp LCD screen, a bundled Lithium battery, 16 MB of SanDisk CF storage, very brief (almost imperceptible) shutter lag, relatively rapid shot-to-shot time thanks to an internal buffer, and very high image resolution. On the fine (large) resolution setting with mild JPEG compression the file sizes are about 1 MB each. I can fit 130 or so images on a 128 MB SanDisk CF. There is also a Quicktime movie mode that takes 30 second clips at 320x240 resolution. These eat up about 5 MB of storage space each. The only problem is that the zoom, the autofocus and autoexposure become fixed at one value once you start a movie clip. Also, the resolution leaves much to be desired. You have to view it in a relatively small window on your PC (about 2 1/2" x 4") for it to be sharp. Aus

To: Road Walker who wrote (20475)	6/23/2001 9:12:32 AM
From: dtrekker99	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

John "And at what point does digital pass emulsion as far as resolution?" This is a more complex question than it might seem. My Fujifilm 4700 2.3mp produces photos of higher detail than my little point and shoot film Pentax. When comparing prints, the digital clearly show more detail. Most folks seem to use an APS, disposable, or point and shoot film camera. I think for many of these people, digital has effectively passed film. On the other end of the spectrum are photographers who use large format film cameras. For these photographers, digital still has a long ways to go. The middle ground of film cameras is where much of todays comparison focuses, and the digital versus film debate will probably go on until the film diehards grow very old. In the meantime, for the larger low end market maybe we are already there? From an investors perspective, I believe that getting a decent 2-3mp digital camera to market for under a hundred dollars will be a more significant advance than a 20mp monster that bests professional level film cameras. Gary