Are we there yet? (Post your dream camea specs) or when is enough, "enough"?

[jsrockit]

I'll leave this to the camera manufactuers... while I enjoy my M9 and X100... to me, the closest to what I want in digital.

[LKeithR]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Which most people don't do, because they have better things to do when they're alive, and after they're dead, their hard drives are either wiped or end up in land-fill. Proponents of 'digital images last forever' tend to ignore human nature. Or reality, as we call it.

Cheers,

R.

I do think the notion of maintaining archives (or not) has a lot to do with human nature but I also think that it applies equally to film and digital. If you have the discipline to keep your archives up to date you're going to do it regardless of what medium you use. And I don't think that film users on the whole are any better at it than those of us who shoot digital. One can only wonder how many millions of prints, slides and negatives there are languishing in disarray in boxes all around the world? If anything, digital is easier to work with because most software packages now come with decent cataloguing ability built in.

[_larky]

Originally Posted by Spyro

Ι dont get it (due to pure technical ignorance), what is the problem exactly?
Are digital files meant to implode at some stage
what are the users required to do?

As systems (hardware and software) change to meet new demands, gradually file types become redundant. There are more file types which are non-functional after the last 10 years than currently capable of being used.

The problem is exacerbated by corporate buyout, wheeler dealing, licensing of technologies to companies who then incorporate them poorly etc. It's a very serious problem, and nobody is really trying to do anything about it. Everyone is talking about it, but nothing concrete is taking place.

My method will never require users to keep creating new copies of files into new types, as it is pure math and therefore not a filetype per se.

[Brian Sweeney]

As long as a file type is documented, someone can write code to convert it. If it is not documented, a little bit more of a challenge. Most raw format data is not compressed, but the option does exist in the specs. HEX dumps of uncompressed raw data is fairly easy to unpack without knowing the file format. Data compressed using Huffman code is more challenging. You get about 3:1 size reduction using using lossless compression. SO: if an M9 used Huffman code, the buffers would flush 3 times faster. Just make sure to keep a copy of the format.

[arpinum]

We are not there yet. I still need
-quick load medium format film
-rangefinder with viewfinder on top for tlr style shooting, as well as regular viewfinder.
-maskless color negative
-adjustable contrast lenses
-switchblade style lens hood
- dof levers could be much better
- brightlines that are infinitely variable
- viewfinders with auto adjusting magnification
- rf meters adjust angle based on lens or selection

many many more. We have a long way to go

[arpinum]

Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney

As long as a file type is documented, someone can write code to convert it. If it is not documented, a little bit more of a challenge. Most raw format data is not compressed, but the option does exist in the specs. HEX dumps of uncompressed raw data is fairly easy to unpack without knowing the file format. Data compressed using Huffman code is more challenging. You get about 3:1 size reduction using using lossless compression. SO: if an M9 used Huffman code, the buffers would flush 3 times faster. Just make sure to keep a copy of the format.

And yet none of the big makers document the standards. even the dng wrapper doesn't allow you to easily view an image. Makers also obfuscate the files on purpose.
Your best hope is to keep around software that can convert it.

Or use film.

[Vilk]

Originally Posted by Neare

When we no longer need cameras to take photos, we'll be there.

very well said

[pixelatedscraps]

As much as I like the form factor of the m4/3 / NEX cameras - from an aesthetic point of view - they are too restricted in terms of performance (autofocus, high iso, speed and what the hell to do about that damned current external viewfinder / LCD focus p.o.s.) for me to buy one yet.

I love the D700, though not being a professional photographer meant I had no real use for it (seeing as I still absolutely am in love with film, metering with your eyes, tactile feedback of chrome dials and levers and developing my own B&W).

I absolutely love the performance of the D700 and if I could have that in a m4/3 / NEX body it would be a no brainer for me.

In fact, let's push it and say I want:

-18mp FF sensor
-D700 high ISO performance
-D700 autofocus and metering system; speed
-D700 build quality
-NEX-5 body

No doubt it'll come - in 5 years

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by LKeithR

I do think the notion of maintaining archives (or not) has a lot to do with human nature but I also think that it applies equally to film and digital. If you have the discipline to keep your archives up to date you're going to do it regardless of what medium you use. And I don't think that film users on the whole are any better at it than those of us who shoot digital. One can only wonder how many millions of prints, slides and negatives there are languishing in disarray in boxes all around the world? If anything, digital is easier to work with because most software packages now come with decent cataloguing ability built in.

Dear Keith,

This is my argument, really. Believers in archives talk about 'discipline', but history doesn't work that way. Survival of most things from the past is pretty aleatory, and with digital imaging, it's not so much loaded dice as exploding dice. Maybe you don't care what happens to your pictures after you die, but historians do.

Cheers,

R.

[Brian Sweeney]

Originally Posted by arpinum

And yet none of the big makers document the standards. even the dng wrapper doesn't allow you to easily view an image. Makers also obfuscate the files on purpose.
Your best hope is to keep around software that can convert it.

Or use film.

If the format is documented, such as DNG, then it is not too hard to do. Uncompressed RAW format data is usually straight forward.

My "Personal Experience" has been software to unpack Multi-Image TIFF files used to store digital microscope images- about 15 years ago. The Kodak .KC2 format was undocumented, took about 100 lines of code to convert to ".BMP".

My personal best was almost 20 years ago. HEX dumped the files used by "Wolfenstein 3D", unpacked the multiple images used in the scenes, read out the Video Lookup Table, and replaced all of the framed pictures and jail cells with pictures of my cats. Wrote a mask to retain the jail cell bars. Converted the 24-bit color images of the cats to the 256 location VLT used by the software.

After all, It's just a bunch of numbers.

[arpinum]

Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney

If the format is documented, such as DNG, then it is not too hard to do. Uncompressed RAW format data is usually straight forward.

My "Personal Experience" has been software to unpack Multi-Image TIFF files used to store digital microscope images- about 15 years ago. The Kodak .KC2 format was undocumented, took about 100 lines of code to convert to ".BMP".
...
After all, It's just a bunch of numbers.

DNG is an open format, but it can store data in proprietary formats, this is built into the spec. And camera makers utilize this. The d200 even used encryption for certain properties. The data is not open. TIFF is a whole lot easier to deal with than what cameras are spitting out these days.
dcraw is an open source converter, yet takes 8.000 lines and is very unintuitive.
My hard drive is AES-256 encrypted; not all bunches of numbers are created equal.

[Benjamin Marks]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

with digital imaging, it's not so much loaded dice as exploding dice.

Truer words were never writ. Electrons: much allure, much danger.

[Brian Puccio]

Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks

Brian: I take it that you don't find digital appealing and that Provia in a film body fits your needs. Are you at all susceptible to the argument any current digital SLR would give you what you want (relief from processing drudgery)? Or do you mean that we are "there" in terms of the image quality that Provia and a good scanner can get you, but you want the process to be more automatic?

Ben

Actually, I'm one of the younger people on the forums and started digital (Canon Digital Rebel 300D, then 5D, then 5D Mark II briefly) and then discovered rangefinders (Bessa R2A) and with that, slide film, where I got the color I had been looking for all these years. My girlfriend on the other hand, took photo courses in college, has developed countless rolls of black and white, etc., she's started moving digital. Me? I'm happy with Provia, nothing makes me happier than getting the film back and holding the slides up to the light. It's just all the work after between Vuescan and a Coolscan that I find so annoying. If it could be automated, I'd be all for it. Before I got my M6, before I discovered film, I was always unhappy with my tools. Now, a small camera to fit in my pocket with a second lens in the other along with a roll or two of film and I'm happy as can be. I don't want anything else from what I work with.

It's just sort of sad I arrived to this party so late, as everyone else is leaving

[gnashings]

We were "there" 50 years ago. At least as far as what photographers want from cameras. What pixelographers want from photo computers might be a different story all together - I wouldn't know.

[ianglean]

Originally Posted by _larky

Leica M9 is almost my dream, I'd like it to have a wind on lever like the R-D1 though.

I Agree...

[rbsinto]

For me, "Enough was enough" back in 1985 when Nikon brought out the FA.
It has everything I ever needed in a camera, and is the most Space-aged of the bodies I shoot with.

[DougK]

I'd love to see an afforable digital large format/view camera option, but other than that one wish I'm good with what I have.

[christian.rudman]

i'd love to see alot more work on the raw format, hopefully bringing the digital spectrum of useless, uncompromising, degradable and incompatible formats into a single coherent format of raw. also a lot more work in the dynamic range capture so instead of the 18 pictures combined into one for an overbloated and cartoonish hdr image we could just take one hdr-exposed image.

definitely slimming down the components in dslr bodies would be another great step.

but what i really want, what i need really, is a re-introduction of the polaroid format. someone to team up with project impossible and re-introduce polaroid cameras with classic looks and updated features. the instant gratification of a polaroid is exactly what people want from digital, and a polaroid that could both give you an instant hardcopy image (if you choose so from the touch screen on the back, once again, dreaming big here) or/and save a copy in raw format to a card in the camera.

but a resurgence of film is what i would love to see, and bringing back the photolab on every corner and having people actually concerned with what they are shooting. the beauty of film will never be replaced by digital frames and hd monitors. its all about the hardcopy, we need to figure out how to improve that field i believe.

love this thread, it was a great idea and wonderful to see everyone's thoughts on the future of photography.

my timeframe for all this is never, but beyond 10 years before it would even be considered.

[Benjamin Marks]

Interesting. I always thought that the really interesting thing about Polaroid was not its instantaneous nature, but the fact that each image was a unique original. I remember how crestfallen I was when it turned out that I had let my last box of 4x5 Type 55 film/negative sit too long and the chemicals had dried out. Arg.

What a lot of us amateurs were free to ignore in Polaroid's prime was that our casual use of their products was supported by a legion of professional photographers who valued the instant-feedback to check focus, lights, color balance, etc. When digital supplanted those functions >WHAM< down came the hammer. The thing that makes me nervous about current trends is how far from user-serviceable any of the current tech is. We are absolutely tied to the current technological trend in terms of recording the most important things in our generation. Inside the digi-bubble, all is fashion and ferment. Outside in the world of prints and "output" one has the sense that "print what you need" is the only way to afford the outrageous cost-per-ml of ink.

[konicaman]

Almost there. The megapixel race will probably continue although it is kind of crazy. I still use my 10D now and then; it produces very nice A3 prints with only 6 megapixels. I rarely print any bigger than that. 20 Megapixels in my 5D MKII is nice but usually overkill. There are rumors that Canon is ready to launch a 50 megapixel FF sensor - so what? I don´t really care!

The only improvements I´d like to see are:
Better dynamic range
Simple user interface á la M9/X100 on a DSLR

[mfogiel]

The digital cameras will begin to be useable for my type of amateur photography, when you will be able to get decent tonality in B&W - this is my point of view. For the time being, I find them only competent in colour, but I hate to say this - when I look at colour exhibition prints, I still prefer shots taken on film.

[bigeye]

If I could realize 1/30th of the potential of the gear I have, I'd be very happy. Whether digital or film, it ain't the gear that's holding me back.

(Aside from the apocalyptic doubt for film, this is the best time to be an amateur film photographer. Films are better and the cameras are extraordinary and less expensive than at any time before.)

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by bigeye

If I could realize 1/30th of the potential of the gear I have, I'd be very happy. Whether digital or film, it ain't the gear that's holding me back.

(Aside from the apocalyptic doubt for film, this is the best time to be an amateur film photographer. Films are better and the cameras are extraordinary and less expensive than at any time before.)

Hard to argue, but there are those who will. They LIKE mushy, grainy, slow films that are prone to reticulation. And as you say, the cameras are silly-cheap unless they can take digital backs.

Cheers,

R.

[bigeye]

Roger:

A decent 500cm body is ~150GBP and the nice 150mm CF has dropped down to 190GBP (KEH.com). Canon PowerShot turf.

A new CFV-39 digital back for it will be 8600GBP, though...

- Charlie

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Charlie,

I stand corrected. They are silly-cheap even if they do take digital backs.

Cheers,

R.