Re: (erielack) Kodak Kills 2 of 3 Kodachromes

["Dick Honeyman" <hmanrr_@_rochester.rr.com>]

Schuyler's right - magnetic media has a remarkably short life (watch out for
your home videos - if they're over ten years old you may get a sad shock
when you go to look at them next - depending on storage conditions).  If all
of the DL&W and Erie film clips from years ago had been originally shot on
video, they'd have vanished long ago.  And even if the media is "refreshed"
by re-recording to fresh tape or disks you can forget it once the equipment
becomes out-dated (anyone tried to find an 8-track player or an 8" floppy
disk drive lately?).  A huge advantage of having an actual visible image on
film is that there is always a way to view or reproduce it.  Even when
dye-fading has occurred the image can be restored in most cases if it's
important enough to warrant the cost.  Optical disk formats (CDs etc) seem
intuitively more robust, but that media has limited life as well.  All that
in addition to the resolution differences.

Kodachrome's demise is a sad, sad thing.  It's archivability is wonderful.
But, it was not as convenient given the processing requirement and the world
shifted from slides to prints.  Bottom line, supply and demand gets most of
the really good stuff eventually.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Schuyler G Larrabee <sgl2_@_ix.netcom.com>
To: donald kern <doubletrack_@_home.com>; Inlinebob@aol.com
<Inlinebob_@_aol.com>
Cc: erielack_@_lists.railfan.net <erielack@lists.railfan.net>;
NERAIL_@_listserv.aol.com <NERAIL@listserv.aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: (erielack) Kodak Kills 2 of 3 Kodachromes


>
>
>> Screw them all...Go Digital  forget the film......
>
>That's exactly why we're losing this film . . .
>
>Dogital doesn't get to the quality of film, not yet.  The best you can get
>now (for non-professional use anyhow) is about 3.1 megapixel.  To get to
the
>equivalent detail, digital would have to be recording at roughly 12-15
>megapixel.  As a person closely (VERYCLOSELY) scrutinizing photos of steam
>so I can do drawings from them, I'll tell you right now that dogital is not
>ready for prime time.  There is no way that the detail can be recorded in
>sufficient accuracy for the kind of research I'm trying to do.
>
>So what, you say?  Well, here's what:  Your dogital photos first off can't
>be equivalent to film in recording detail.  Second, they are recorded in a
>much more transient medium than film.  I have done CAD drawings, about 12
>years ago, that cannot be viewed any more - the recording media is shot,
and
>the equipment and software can't touch it.  Your photos are going to be
>history sooner than you think.  And history is just what you're recording.
>I have photos that show JUST what I want, that were taken by people "just
>taking snapshots," not realizing that someday somebody would be sweating
>over what they took for fun.
>
>I know some people who work at Kodak's digital R&D location (NOT Rochester,
>BTW) and they say true equivalency between film and dogital is about 4-5
>years off.  And it will cost you a bunch.
>
>SGL
>
>

------------------------------