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.

Non-Tech : Any info about Iomega (IOM)? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rocky Reid who wrote (35955)	11/16/1997 10:18:00 AM
From: Bill Fischofer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 58324

"Something magical happens" Yup, and vinyl captures nuances that CD listeners will never hear. But which would you invest in? If film is so wonderful, why is EK going through such turmoil? Digital won't completely replace film for a long time, but within 10 years a non-digital camera is going to be viewed as a quaint antique by just about everyone. Right now, IOM has the pole position in the race to set the first mass-market standard for digital photography.

To: Rocky Reid who wrote (35955)	11/16/1997 10:28:00 AM
From: Jeff Sheeran	Respond to of 58324

You do not know what you are talking about when you state that Digital imaging can not be creative. Go pick up any copy of View Camera magazine,or Darkroom Techniques Magazine. As for film and paper vs Digital at this time there is no doubt that film is the beter medium for capturing an image. But Digital is the better for Printing, you can get sharper final prints from a scanned negative vs. printed. Ever time you enlarge an negative in an enlarger you are introducing distortion via the enlarger lense as well as loss of resolution, lenses are sharpest at certain aperatures and these are not always used . You can also be introducing contaminates to the final image as well, dust spots, newton rings etc. With traditonal enlarger there is always a loss of light at the edge of the enlarged image so compesation must be introduced. Digital photography is for real and I am not just talking about puting Jpegs on a web page. It is too expensive for the main stream at this time,but belive me in time it will be. I believe it is a few years away. A little link on Digital : kodak.com regards, Jeff sheeran

To: Rocky Reid who wrote (35955)	11/16/1997 10:38:00 AM
From: Frank Drumond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58324

> In the hands of a competent photographer, one can elicit emotions from the resulting photographs. Digital photography does NOT offer the same type of image quality that film does, either in pure refinement, or in a more esoteric, artisitic quality.< Ah Rock I understand. In the 70's all I wanted was a nice McIntosh tube amp for my stereo. Those damn transistor amps were just to "harsh" for my refined ear. (man I was a snob) Then I held off on CDs for the same reason. And I'm even an electrical engineer. You're mister digital sound right? Same thing will happen to images. Look how much of action pictures is all digital now. There are too many people trying to make digital photography work. It will. HP views digital photography as their next big money maker and have many different divisions working on this strategy. Lots of RD going into this one and Iomega Clik'd with the right stuff.

To: Rocky Reid who wrote (35955)	11/16/1997 11:20:00 PM
From: Fred Fahmy	Respond to of 58324

Rockhead, You really don't know much about digital photography do you?? Some of the highest quality portrait studios are now totally digital. The last set of family portraits we had taken at a studio were all taken with digital equipment. At high enough resolution, digital potographs cannot be distinguished from regular photographs, at least not by the human eye. Granted these professional cameras are very expensive but the cost of the technology is coming down very very quickly. Consumer cameras are getting better much faster. This month's introduction of the Olympus 600DL is a major advance in digital photography. Although it's $1200 price tag is too expensive for most consumers, I think even you are capable of understanding how quickly prices come down in the tech industry. It takes almost 0 vision to understand that digital photography will replace the majority of film photography in the coming years. Maybe not tomorrow but faster than you think. That is why all the leading film camera makers are jumping on the digital band wagon. They see the writing on the wall. You'd have to be blind to miss it. FF