Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 260

Thread: future of 4x5 and 8x10 film

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    973

    future of 4x5 and 8x10 film

    Although I appreciate the risks of underestimating the digital juggernaut, I question how quickly some of the digital innovations mentioned above will evolve. But I also suspect film's future has become predetermined even by existing digital technology.

    Canon took two years to replace the 1Ds with the 1Ds Mark II, so let's charitably assume that pressure from Nikon and other sources will accelerate the next product cycle to eighteen months (putatively June 2006). Let's also charitably assume that this next generation camera (uncreatively call it the Mark III) supports RGB pixels at a similar pixel pitch as the current Mark II, resulting in a resolution of over 40Mp. Since this will clearly exceed the capabilities of any lens design cost-effectively manufactured in existing 35mm form-factor lens mounts, an entirely new lens family (based on a larger mount, hopefully in a more sensible 4:3 aspect ratio) will have to be developed. All this development will have to occur without compromising development efforts in the real money making franchises, namely the amateur and prosumer markets. I'm not saying this all can't be done (perhaps farming out some lens design tasks to third parties such as Zeiss), but I question whether Canon or Nikon is financially motivated to push such an expensive paradigm shift so quickly. June 2006 seems awfully soon, I suspect end of 2006 would be the earliest we would see a real, shipping camera.

    My more immediate concern is that existing digital products are sufficiently good that commercial photographers are abandoning film in large numbers, and that chrome film will be the first casualty. I have been told that Fuji considers film to be a highly profitable legacy business and feels no particular pressure to discontinue it even in large format sizes. Kodak's digital product line has been struggling, and I question whether they can afford to pre-emptively discontinue film production. However, getting rid of chrome film may be a tempting compromise since the amateur market does not use it and the prosumer/professional market is migrating away from it. My totally uninformed guess is that Kodak will halt chrome film production in 12-18 months (maybe that will let them close another factory or two), and Fuji will continue chrome production for another year or two but eventually go with the flow and discontinue it too. One would think Kodak would hang onto B&W a bit longer (since they still have a leading franchise there, however truncated), but of course that would devolve at some point to a few boutique suppliers.

    These transitions would be mostly driven by the impact of current digital products, rather than the prospect of a future gazillion megapixel digital camera.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    6

    future of 4x5 and 8x10 film

    hello friends. first of all: I like this forum. LF-guys seem to be special people, more balanced in pronouncing judgement, more democratic, somewhat more mature and calm :-). I have followed this forum now for two years, with a few exceptions I did it only as a reader. I learnt so much about photography and, though I am not practising LF-photography yet, it is my aim to enter this nice community buying into some LF-system in the future. But first I have to complete my bronica-MF-gear. So, thanks for being out there!
    This said I think the digital-traditional argument, which leads to rhetorical wars in other forums, is something every photographer thinking about, in a more or less concerning way. I mean, it depends a lot of the single person, his needs, his expectations, his view and professional or non-professional use of photography and so on. Why fear? There should be place for both, traditional and digital photography. Okay, from a technological and economical point of view the 19. and 20. century have been those of photoGRAPHY, whether this one and probably the next one as well will be those of photoIMAGING. But there are good reasons to practise both of them. Every workflow has it inherent benefits, so, for instance the slowness and troubles of the traditional workflow can be a real benefit for somebody. I, personally, didn’t shoot for 10 years or so, because I thought digital-imaging would be replacing analogical-equipment very very fast. I lost 10 years. Now, when bronica is going to finish its production of mf-cameras I am buying into the system (actually I bought two NEW sq-ai-bodies, some lenses). That seems strange, but it has been my decision not to follow the new industry and market directions, it has been my decision to contemplate a little bit more on the process and to increase the manual craft work (darkroom). That makes me feel good, I just do 8 hours of work in front of the monitor all day long.
    But, sure, digital imaging becomes better and easier and affordable every six months. And I will do a try probably as well in this field. Why not? Other opportunities, other benefits, other challenges.
    It is, in my opinion, not a simple question of: “In terms of quality this one is better than the other one.” – because the answer today is x and tomorrow it is y. They are different things. I remember something – more or less appropriate for the above discussion – some years ago: Chess. The challenge was as well the computer. The people discussed only: Is it possible that a computer will defeat the world champion? Will it be possible to play anymore after such a “delusion”? Oh, I assure you, still I prefer playing chess against humans, I don’t like to play against the machine, but for match-analysis and match-preparing a computer offers great help.
    The story goes on. Digital will be the “normal” way to take photographs, but I think there will be still a supply with traditional materials. But, may be, I am too optimistic.
    Anyway, I like the idea of a camera without batteries. I hope to get one in the not far future.
    Thanks again. Greetings from Italy and Merry Christmas.
    Juergen

  3. #23

    future of 4x5 and 8x10 film

    Isaac, if you ever saw a print made from a glass plate you would understand. If you ever saw a color carbon or dye transfer print, you would understand. The problem is that the old technology requires time, which many people are not willing to spend any longer, specially in the commercial areas. What you are missing is that these methods are still available, B&S is now selling carbon tissue, if you dont want to buy it, you can make it...can you make color paper? If in fact digital replaces film, I see a revival of a lot of these methods.

    Color film wont be gone in 16 to 18 months. While it is true that many commercial photographers have moved to digital, many have gone back to film. The economics of digital are not what many people thought. I constantly read the many woes of commercial and wedding photographers that went digital, thought that all they had to do was shoot the image over the phone lines, only to find out they spent many hours fixing images in PS for the client. Time for which they were not paid for.

    In the end, does it really matter? Not IMO, worrying about film is futile. It is here now, use it, enjoy what you do, and if it ever becomes unavailable in the future, well then reassess your position and pick an alternative. If today I was shooting my last piece of film, tomorrow you will find me learning how to make dry plates, or learning how to coat a piece of acetate with my own home made emulsion, I can do that, I doubt you can learn how to make CCDs. I assure you, "classic" photography wont die. After all, there are people still making horse saddles....no?

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    49

    future of 4x5 and 8x10 film

    It might be fun to invite predictions of when this technology will dissapear, and that technology will surpass X point in the future etc etc
    Should make good reading in a few years time...

    Come on then, predict my future!

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,794

    future of 4x5 and 8x10 film

    "Kodak's digital product line has been struggling"

    Kodak is the largest digital camera maker. The biggest myth of digital is that companies like Canon and Nikon matter. Neither is close to a volume leader in digital. It's only getting worse for both of them. We can expect the made and designed in China to start taking what part of the low cost market isn't already going to the cell phone makers. If they're only able to sell to the prosumer market is that a real market for them?

    So I have to ask. This money that's supposed to be invested in "improving" digital who provides it? What's the market for ever better digital cameras? Remember Canon refused to stop making APS cameras. They can make money on APS cameras with no real investment.

    Can anybody explain to me why the future of pure digital cameras is any better then what what the MF makers had for years? A relatively tiny niche market. OTOH how do they fund the development?

  6. #26

    future of 4x5 and 8x10 film

    Written above:
    "Kodak can no longer 'make it by the mile and sell it by the inch' and have announced they will no longer make film after 2005 thanks to market pressure and EPA regs."

    Where did this come from? -- I want to read the announcement from Kodak.
    How silly!

  7. #27
    Scott Rosenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    The Incredible Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    859

    future of 4x5 and 8x10 film

    there's an interesting read along these lines here.

  8. #28
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Minneapolis, Minnesota
    Posts
    1,278

    future of 4x5 and 8x10 film

    Here's an interesting article about Kodak's deepening relationship to Lucky in China.


    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/20/content_401619.htm

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    783

    future of 4x5 and 8x10 film

    Eric, you wrote....

    assume that this next generation camera (uncreatively call it the Mark III) supports RGB pixels at a similar pixel pitch as the current Mark II, resulting in a resolution of over 40Mp. Since this will clearly exceed the capabilities of any lens design cost-effectively manufactured in existing 35mm form

    This is not accurate. Currently, each pixel is being hit with RGB color, the problem is, the pixels can only record one color. When the pixels become R, B, & G receptive, the lens will not have to deliver anything more data, its strictly a function of the ability to record more existing lens data. This difference will be surface in the camera file size being 3x larger, vs. now. Currently the file size is expanded (by interpolation) in the PC during raw conversion. I think its humorous how Raw Conversion software is nothing more than filling in 2 of 3 missing pieces of data in each pixel. It surely is a politically correct terminology for digital neophytes. As for the gain in resolution vs. now, that varies based on the color being shot. Since Bayer sensors are GRGB, if you shoot a blue or red scene, you only have one pixel recording data out of 4. Each pixel ultimately has to have RGB data, or 12 data values. Since only 1 exists, the remaining 11 are interpolated. So a best case scenario, with the same pixel count sensor, resolution will increase 12x, impressive indeed. Not to mention tonal range! Going to the other extreme, if you shoot a grey subject, all 4 pixels will record data, so the improvement in resolution will go from 4 to 12, or 3x. So there is some variables here.

    Now, take the chip and hypothetically make it 40 MP, about 2x improvement vs. today, so overall, this will produce an improvement in resolution of 2 x 12 = 24 or 2 x 3 = 6. So the overall improvement of a 40MP true RGB sensor vs. today will lie between 6x and 24x better than todays best sensors, i.e. shooting the best and worst case color scenarios. Based on average subject colors, maybe a fair average improvement factor will be about 10x, since the algorithms for interpolation are good, so not all pixels will benefit from "true" data vs. interpolated data. So how does all this compare to film...here is the simplest method I use to draw this parallel......

    Lets work off the assumption from real world testing, the new 1DsII matches 6 x 4.5 scanned film, (some suggest 6x7, but lets lean in favor of film). So 56mm x 45 mm = 2520 sq mm = 16.7 MP. If we have a 10x improvement in digital data, then film would need a 10x increase in area to match it, or 25,200 sq mm. 4x5 film is about 12,000 sq mm, scary huh. This will match 5x7 film quality..... So, it's possible even a 20 - 25 MP sensor with true RGB data can match 4x5 film. All these pieces of the puzzle are available today, just not in one single product.

    So the relevance of this to my post is.... about 25 MP (maybe 30 MP to be safe?) true RGB sensor will match 4x5 resolution and offer much better tonal range and color palette. Considering Mamiya is starting into the digital world at 22 MP the pixel count is not far from reality, probably one generation away. Engineers are completing the true RGB pixel, considering Foveon has already perfected this technology, I am sure the other big players will only improve upon the true RGB pixel. So other than matched resolution, what are the other advantages digital will offer vs. scanned film:

    1. Much smaller and compact camera systems, MF size systems.

    2. Faster lenses so the camera systems are more versatile, handheld shooting to LF landscape shooting will be a reality. Zoom lenses!

    3. Better image lattitude vs. film, up to 3 or 4 stops.

    4. Better tonal range, specially when digital sensors move into more linear method of tonal capture, vs. today, where half the tonal range is in the top highlight stop. Half the remaining tonal range values are in the next stop down, etc. So therefore 75% of the tonal ranges are in the top two stops....not desirable, but still effective even today as their is such high and accurate capture ranges.

    5. File sizes about 70% less than their scanned cousins. Much easier to work with. As PC's are getting faster, soon dual 64 bit processors with 16 gig accessible RAM will be the norm, less than 2 years from reality, so these files will be easy to work with vs. just a year or two ago, 1 - 2 gig files from 8x10 film were very cumbersome to work with.

    6. The one benefit I enjoy the most is, immediate visual verification you got the shot you want, no Polaroids, no exposure issues, no plugged shadows or blown out highlights, flash issues, etc. If the shot needs to be re taken, you know in less than a second or two....

    As for scanned 8x10 film, It may always hold a slight edge over digital, but this may only be noticeable at a max. enlargement size, which 95% of the time never gets printed. Also, scanning backs will surely exceed 8x10 film quality in the future, so this leaves a tiny gap for 8x10 film, moving subjects that you want the max. enlargement potential.

    Anyway, not trying to start a digital forum here, but just wanted to share my thoughts on the subject. It's my opinion, the future of film in any format size is a function of digitals ability to trump it - in a cost effective manner. As for the one posters question of a prediction of when this will happen.... well here is mine, in 35mm its here, MF is here in 05, and a true 4x5 film replacement is late 07.

    The encouraging news may be, these super backs will be adapted to 4x5 cameras, so for the slow shooters (not handheld market) they can view the digital back as an alternative to film, but not replace the entire picture taking process. So maybe all our gear won't become worthless! :-) But smaller camera systems, hand holdable, more bells and whistles would surely be more desirable to a majority of the market.

    As for the film purist posters, I applaud there commitment to film and all its niche benefits. I am sure in the future I will buy some of their work as its an art form I enjoy and have an appreciation for.

    As for the poster who commented on wedding shooters moving back to film.... this is true and makes perfect sense, as wedding shooters have to deal with one issue in almost every shot - how to hold detail in black tuxes and white gowns / shirts, an easy 5 stop spread - and with todays digital technology, this is surely its achillies heel. Most wedding shooters shoot negative film vs. chrome film for this exact reason, exposure latitude is VERY important. In my opinion, wedding photographers should hold out with neg. film, until digital capture improves in BOTH exposure lattitude (through electronically eliminating light absorption in pixels nearing blow out) and more linear tonal range capture throughout the entire exposure latitude. Even today the 1DsII will be inferior to color negative film in this area. I wonder if Mamiya will address this issue, and expose it, as they are big in the wedding market.

    Bill

  10. #30

    future of 4x5 and 8x10 film

    I had an interesting thing happen to me a couple of weeks ago:

    In addition to shooting professionally, I also teach photography at our community college. As I was walking to my office at the school, I was told the entire campus had lost power. Sure enough, all but the emergency lights were out.

    I had come to school to work on a few images before class so I went into my office and without thinking, reached down to turn on my computer. My images, after all, were on a CD. Well, of course without any power, my CD was completely useless.

    As I sat there contemplating my navel in a darkened office, I looked over to my bookcase and picked up a piece of 5x7 black and white film. I held it up to the window and couldn't help smiling at the irony of sitting in a brand new $20 million technology building at an equally new $6,000 computer that couldn't do a thing without power, yet simply by holding up a piece of "obselete" technology to a window I could appreciate an image one of my students made the week before.

    Best regards,
    Randy Becker

    Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD do it...

Similar Threads

  1. The hopeful future of film photography
    By Ed Eubanks in forum On Photography
    Replies: 414
    Last Post: 20-Feb-2011, 07:41
  2. FUTURE OF 120 FILM
    By Jan_5456 in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 2-Apr-2009, 05:42
  3. Color Film co - op to secure its future?
    By bglick in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 19-Jan-2006, 14:47
  4. Zeiss on future of film.
    By David Crossley in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 18-Jan-2006, 14:32
  5. Film, Kodak, and the Future
    By John Kasaian in forum Announcements
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 15-Dec-2003, 06:06

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •