8x10 back in my lifetime??

[cosmicexplosion]

no no no!
its easy

cameras will be no longer necessary.

a brain chip will be used, our eyes will be the glass, and we will have a far greater resolution print than is ever needed, we will also have images limited only by the imagination!

imagine that!

-provided our eyes and brain are ok.

[David R Munson]

No it wasn't I am serious. Sure you can scan your 8x10 and get a few gigabytes of grain but it won't compare to a file from the Leaf Aptus 80 mp back.

I call shenanigans.

[Drew Wiley]

Someone had too much to drink at Christmas.

[Jay DeFehr]

I think Ed makes an interesting point. How do we distinguish between image information and noise? B&W images are made of silver, but silver grain is considered distracting noise. Is it possible the optimum scan resolution is less than the theoretical maximum?

[Ed Kelsey]

Check out these Aptus 12 files at full resolution

http://www.fileflyer.com/view/irgYkBM

[al olson]

Well, it can happen. At an art show here 2-3 years ago, one of the exhibitors had converted a flatbed scanner and attached it to the back of an 8x10 camera.

His images of moving subjects were similar to what you would get with a very slow focal plane shutter. Creatively distorted.

[Thebes]

..., but silver grain is considered distracting noise.

To some perhaps. I don't think of it as noise any more than I would think of brush-strokes in a painting as noise. True noise imparts no additional information, however grain often forms in ways which do impart additional information.

[Ben Syverson]

Maybe someday far in the future they'll have technology advanced enough to make giant sensors in rolls, cut down as large or as small as you like... The sensors would be so cheap that you could use a fresh one for every shot. You would just load up some kind of "sensor holder" with the "sheet sensor," and then "process" it to download the stored image. You would never have to worry about dust or stuck pixels, and every time they improved sensor technology, you would get a free upgrade.

It would be HDR, and come in different versions for B&W and color (and maybe even infrared!). When you were done with a sensor, maybe it could even display a 1:1 scale representation of the image, both so you could have a physical backup, and so you could tell at a glance what image it was storing. Like e-Ink, it wouldn't require any power to display the image, and it would be durable enough to last for decades (or centuries even).

...

Hell, who am I kidding? That's science fiction. We'll never have anything that advanced.

[Jay DeFehr]

To some perhaps. I don't think of it as noise any more than I would think of brush-strokes in a painting as noise. True noise imparts no additional information, however grain often forms in ways which do impart additional information.

I would argue grain forms in a way that imparts all of the information, if we're talking about B&W photos. All of a B&W photo is made of silver grains, but excessive grain is noise. Opinions about what constitutes excessive vary, but most agree there is a point at which grain becomes excessive, distracting noise. I don't agree with your painting analogy. Paintings are made of paint, not brushstrokes. Brush strokes are used as a technique, but are not integral to the medium. On can make a painting without a brush, and therefore, no brush strokes. One cannot make a silver-based photo without silver any more than one can make a painting without paint. My question is; when does image information become noise?

[Jay DeFehr]

Maybe someday far in the future they'll have technology advanced enough to make giant sensors in rolls, cut down as large or as small as you like... The sensors would be so cheap that you could use a fresh one for every shot. You would just load up some kind of "sensor holder" with the "sheet sensor," and then "process" it to download the stored image. You would never have to worry about dust or stuck pixels, and every time they improved sensor technology, you would get a free upgrade.

It would be HDR, and come in different versions for B&W and color (and maybe even infrared!). When you were done with a sensor, maybe it could even display a 1:1 scale representation of the image, both so you could have a physical backup, and so you could tell at a glance what image it was storing. Like e-Ink, it wouldn't require any power to display the image, and it would be durable enough to last for decades (or centuries even).

...

Hell, who am I kidding? That's science fiction. We'll never have anything that advanced.

Ben,

If you want to describe a utopian solution, why compromise? Why would you require a "fresh" sensor for every shot? Wouldn't it be better if one sensor could capture an infinite number of images without needing to be replaced? Why the necessity of "loading" the sensor? Wouldn't it be better if the sensor remained permanently in place? Why different versions for B&W and color? Wouldn't it be better if one sensor captured both, along with IR, and any other spectral preference? Why the necessity of "processing" the sensor? Wouldn't it be better if the image captured was immediately visible? Why would we want a physical backup? Wouldn't a virtual backup be better, since it would be immune to physical degradation, theoretically infinitely?

Your fiction, while not very scientific, does a good job of illustrating the reasons digital imaging is replacing silver-based photography.