The comeback?

wyofilm · Sep 17, 2018

Berkeley Mike said:
Yet, the potentials, given that the digital medium is based upon computer technology are, compared to silver and gelatin, limitless

I enjoyed your analysis regarding digital photography and computational power. However, digital cameras are facing real limitations. The desire to build better sensors with faster processors and concomitant data transfer speed and storage is one limitation (the same limits that are facing all computers today). Moore's law is breaking down. Camera makers are are seeing these limits already. The power requirements to keep the processors running are a real limit.

Lens and sensor densities (number of megapixels) provides another real limit. A limit camera manufactures are basically at right now. Their only option is to increase image size, but this would lead to heavy cameras. It is predicted that cameras will scale to the third power as image size increases.

I guess faster processors can lead to pixel shifting and also better image stabilization. This is fine for slow moving targets, but it won't help in photographing sports and perhaps wildlife.

A minor flaw in you analysis is that you are comparing modern cameras to a static technology (film). Newer, better performing films were still coming out at the time of digital ascendency. However, there was no market to release even newer chemistries, let alone continue with film RD. A what if game for sure, but it would be exciting to see today's film offerings if the film market remained. I'm sure the film giants could have still made astonishingly big gains in the intervening 20 years.

Here is a nice article discussing limits in digital cameras.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/physical-limits-in-digital-photography-2/

removed account4 · Sep 17, 2018

to the regular person with a cellphone in their pocket does any of this really matter ?
to the regular person with a yashica T4* in their pocket does any of this matter ?

the T4 user uses film and gets his lab prints back or scans his negatives and never looks at them again
or he / she makes a few 5x7s or 8x10s maybe ...
the cellphone user updates his or her page or not and keeps moving ..

neither of them think or care about much else...
both are eazy to use and do whatever the user wants them to do ...
i don't think either of them have come close to the limitations of their cameras or their own creativity.

while i think it is great to think about the grande picture of all of this, on a personal level
people do what is comfortable for them to do and don't typically swerve off the road out of their comfort zone ...

come back? doom ? full steam ahead !

RPC · Sep 17, 2018

jnanian said:
to the regular person with a cellphone in their pocket does any of this really matter ?
to the regular person with a yashica T4* in their pocket does any of this matter ?

the T4 user uses film and gets his lab prints back or scans his negatives and never looks at them again
or he / she makes a few 5x7s or 8x10s maybe ...
the cellphone user updates his or her page or not and keeps moving ..

neither of them think or care about much else...
both are eazy to use and do whatever the user wants them to do ...
i don't think either of them have come close to the limitations of their cameras or their own creativity.

while i think it is great to think about the grande picture of all of this, on a personal level
people do what is comfortable for them to do and don't typically swerve off the road out of their comfort zone ...

come back? doom ? full steam ahead !

If none of it matters, why do you care? It does matter to some.

wyofilm · Sep 17, 2018

jnanian,

A curious turn to the discussion. I'm not sure the average person during the film days ever cared about large format or even medium format for that case. I guess they cared about the results of their wedding photos, but probably didn't know or care that the photographer was using a medium format camera. Just as today the majority don't care that their weddings are being photographed by the latest Sony/Nikon/Canon offering.

All of this is of course being discussed on a photography forum where members do care (or are at least interested by) by such discussions, even if it is in the abstract. The average person wouldn't be interested in reading it.

In any event, the camera manufacturers are going to care because they need to sell more cameras. It will be exciting to see what they have up their sleeves. What will be a dead end for them is if they continue down the path of 20th century camera form. Why do digital cameras (with the exception of cell phones) basically still look like cameras from 50 years earlier? All the biggies (Sony/Nikon/Canon) are converging to identically featured cameras. One or more of the big three will take it on the chin as a result. Right stand alone cameras are in a diminishing market, a time when companies fall by the wayside.

Again, its the next next thing that will be exciting. A time when whatever form digital image capture takes, it won't be based simply on substituting a digital sensor for a chemical sensor.

removed account4 · Sep 17, 2018

RPC said:
If none of it matters, why do you care? It does matter to some.

exactly, i don't care and i am interested in learning why anyone else does ...
because to the average person all these grande differences and problems don't even come into play,
and to the weekend warrier like most people on this and most other photo websites they don't come into play either
except the weekend warriers insist these things matter.. not only that , weekend warriers use these minute
differences as wedge issues to divide people ... its all photography to me
and i'm just trying to understand why any of this matters ... and why it should / must matter to me.

Nodda Duma · Sep 17, 2018

wyofilm said:
Why do digital cameras (with the exception of cell phones) basically still look like cameras from 50 years earlier?

Because the shape and size of the camera is driven by ergonomics and our bodies haven’t evolved significantly in 1-2 generations.

If you recall, Leica adopted 35mm as a format which allowed for good ergonomics. Everything about the 35mm camera derived from the desire to make a comfortably-sized, convenient piece of equipment.

By the way, that camera form factor which you wish would go away has already evolved into the smart phone. Digital cameras are now evolving into a form factor which is familiar to smart phone users (and vice versa), or are being styled in a form which replicates 60s/70s era film SLRs and rangefinders.

removed account4 · Sep 17, 2018

wyofilm said:
jnanian,

A curious turn to the discussion. I'm not sure the average person during the film days ever cared about large format or even medium format for that case. I guess they cared about the results of their wedding photos, but probably didn't know or care that the photographer was using a medium format camera. Just as today the majority don't care that their weddings are being photographed by the latest Sony/Nikon/Canon offering.

All of this is of course being discussed on a photography forum where members do care (or are at least interested by) by such discussions, even if it is in the abstract. The average person wouldn't be interested in reading it.

In any event, the camera manufacturers are going to care because they need to sell more cameras. It will be exciting to see what they have up their sleeves. What will be a dead end for them is if they continue down the path of 20th century camera form. Why do digital cameras (with the exception of cell phones) basically still look like cameras from 50 years earlier? All the biggies (Sony/Nikon/Canon) are converging to identically featured cameras. One or more of the big three will take it on the chin as a result. Right stand alone cameras are in a diminishing market, a time when companies fall by the wayside.

Again, its the next next thing that will be exciting. A time when whatever form digital image capture takes, it won't be based simply on substituting a digital sensor for a chemical sensor.

thanks for your post !

there was a company called lytro i think .. they sold a box that was a light gathering device. and it allowed the picture maker to do whatever he or she wanted, full control
it was mind blowing and it seemed to be the future of photography ( 4 years back ) now they don't make these cameras anymore and they are making virtual reality .. which i think is pretty cool

john

wyofilm · Sep 17, 2018

Nodda Duma said:
Because the shape and size of the camera is driven by ergonomics and our bodies haven’t evolved significantly in 1-2 generations.

If you recall, Leica adopted 35mm as a format which allowed for good ergonomics. Everything about the 35mm camera derived from the desire to make a comfortably-sized, convenient piece of equipment.

By the way, that camera form factor which you wish would go away has already evolved into the smart phone. Digital cameras are now evolving into a form factor which is familiar to smart phone users (and vice versa), or are being styled in a form which replicates 60s/70s era film SLRs and rangefinders.

The first Leica was designed with other criteria other than the image size. Namely it needed room form film spools on each end. It also came with a diminutive 50mm, collapsable lens. Nevertheless, Leica defined how the majority of cameras would be held and looked through for 100 years - hand or hands held at side eye placed at top level viewfinder. Compare this too medium format cameras where a variety of viewing orientations and film orientations are seen. Digital cameras adopted the original Leica setup despite the fact that when you throw a telephoto lens onto that small back, the camera becomes unbalanced. But I guess the convention was set and digital camera manufacturers ran with it - be it rangefinders, slrs, etc. They all share the same basic configuration in my opinion.

I haven't wished a form factor away. It's an observation on how the digital camera manufacturers haven't broken away very far from the 'standard' 35mm design. For example look at the contortions camera manufacturers go through with flip out, forward facing displays for vloggers. It seems strange to me that when the only design limitation is the orientation of the lens to the sensor(assuming no mirrors) that we are largely stuck with a 1927 layout. Heck, look at the history of digital video cameras. All kinds of designs have been seen.

Luckless · Sep 17, 2018

Not really sure what layout you would go with for something like a DSLR that would be an improvement and address telephoto lenses. Right hand holds the grip, left hand cradles the camera or lens, depending on lens weight, as needed. Things like pistol grips aren't really practical for the majority of use cases due to their excessive bulk when it comes to stowing the camera in a bag while not in use.

A handful of cameras do have a side horizontal grip, but I can only think of seeing two of those that weren't camcorders, and they honestly offered no noticeable benefit over the standard layout.

The standard hand held camera layout is standard because it works.

Berkeley Mike · Sep 17, 2018

RPC said:
Have you ever watched a typical Hollywood movie shot on film and thought it would look better if shot on digital? Likewise, have you seen a movie shot on digital and thought it looked better than the movies you have seen shot on film?

Uh...no. I grab my popcorn and big coke and I'm good.

jtk · Sep 17, 2018

wyofilm said:
I enjoyed your analysis regarding digital photography and computational power. However, digital cameras are facing real limitations. The desire to build better sensors with faster processors and concomitant data transfer speed and storage is one limitation (the same limits that are facing all computers today). Moore's law is breaking down. Camera makers are are seeing these limits already. The power requirements to keep the processors running are a real limit.

Lens and sensor densities (number of megapixels) provides another real limit. A limit camera manufactures are basically at right now. Their only option is to increase image size, but this would lead to heavy cameras. It is predicted that cameras will scale to the third power as image size increases.

I guess faster processors can lead to pixel shifting and also better image stabilization. This is fine for slow moving targets, but it won't help in photographing sports and perhaps wildlife.

A minor flaw in you analysis is that you are comparing modern cameras to a static technology (film). Newer, better performing films were still coming out at the time of digital ascendency. However, there was no market to release even newer chemistries, let alone continue with film RD. A what if game for sure, but it would be exciting to see today's film offerings if the film market remained. I'm sure the film giants could have still made astonishingly big gains in the intervening 20 years.

Here is a nice article discussing limits in digital cameras.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/physical-limits-in-digital-photography-2/

"cameras" are irrelevant to the evolution of photography, which most importantly includes the evolution of "film making" and 3-D printing, not to mention audio recording and online messaging.

wyofilm · Sep 17, 2018

Luckless said:
Not really sure what layout you would go with for something like a DSLR that would be an improvement and address telephoto lenses. Right hand holds the grip, left hand cradles the camera or lens, depending on lens weight, as needed. Things like pistol grips aren't really practical for the majority of use cases due to their excessive bulk when it comes to stowing the camera in a bag while not in use.

A handful of cameras do have a side horizontal grip, but I can only think of seeing two of those that weren't camcorders, and they honestly offered no noticeable benefit over the standard layout.

The standard hand held camera layout is standard because it works.

We are talking about twenty years! Cameras don't need flapping mirrors. Things like heads up display on eyewear, ocular controlled camera functions. Or even something more conservative like rotating the box 90 degrees and putting the electronics, batteries, and an external display at the bottom (front or back). Lens and sensor would be at the top. This would allow the user to hold the camera lower and increase the stability by putting the weight down low.

Heck, even top viewfinders were common/norm for medium format film cameras.

Why can;t Nikon/Sony/Canon can't do better than hands up/elbows down. Flip screens has helped a bit, but still tough in bright daylight.

wyofilm · Sep 17, 2018

jtk said:
"cameras" are irrelevant to the evolution of photography, which most importantly includes the evolution of "film making" and 3-D printing, not to mention audio recording and online messaging.

Why are you SHOUTING? Are you deef?

Cholentpot · Sep 17, 2018

wyofilm said:
Why are you SHOUTING? Are you deef?

Whut?

Luckless · Sep 17, 2018

wyofilm said:
We are talking about twenty years! Cameras don't need flapping mirrors. Things like heads up display on eyewear, ocular controlled camera functions. Or even something more conservative like rotating the box 90 degrees and putting the electronics, batteries, and an external display at the bottom (front or back). Lens and sensor would be at the top. This would allow the user to hold the camera lower and increase the stability by putting the weight down low.

Heck, even top viewfinders were common/norm for medium format film cameras.

Why can;t Nikon/Sony/Canon can't do better than hands up/elbows down. Flip screens has helped a bit, but still tough in bright daylight.

So if you flip the battery compartment around 90 degrees, then where do you hold the camera? That slightly awkward TLR/Hasselblad 'cradle' hold with no real 'grip'?
A camera design using a totally unique lens mount is a real uphill battle as well for the existing brands. Why would a user abandon their current Brand-X series of lenses to 'upgrade' to 'something new and improved' where they have to buy a whole new range of lenses. Canon is currently somewhat attempting this with their new RF lenses for the new EOS-R, but EF and EF-s lenses can still be used with adaptors. However this might be a repeat of their EF-m series, which has not really warmed up as well as some would have liked. (I never really found those cameras to be that comfortable to work with anyway, but I also tend to use long telephoto if I'm shooting digital.)

Personally I like my Canon 7D with the battery grip for an eye level camera, and I have yet to use a camera body that was easier to hold securely and comfortably. And mirrorless/electronic viewfinders still have a long way to go to catch up to the power needs for the way I use my cameras for birding/sports/wildlife. I spend a LOT of time looking through my viewfinder studying the subject matter, a usage style that simply chews through batteries with an electronic viewfinder like mad compared to barely making a dent in my 7D's batteries.

Berkeley Mike · Sep 17, 2018

wyofilm said:
I enjoyed your analysis regarding digital photography and computational power. However, digital cameras are facing real limitations. The desire to build better sensors with faster processors and concomitant data transfer speed and storage is one limitation (the same limits that are facing all computers today). Moore's law is breaking down. Camera makers are are seeing these limits already. The power requirements to keep the processors running are a real limit.

Lens and sensor densities (number of megapixels) provides another real limit. A limit camera manufactures are basically at right now. Their only option is to increase image size, but this would lead to heavy cameras. It is predicted that cameras will scale to the third power as image size increases.

I guess faster processors can lead to pixel shifting and also better image stabilization. This is fine for slow moving targets, but it won't help in photographing sports and perhaps wildlife.

A minor flaw in you analysis is that you are comparing modern cameras to a static technology (film). Newer, better performing films were still coming out at the time of digital ascendency. However, there was no market to release even newer chemistries, let alone continue with film RD. A what if game for sure, but it would be exciting to see today's film offerings if the film market remained. I'm sure the film giants could have still made astonishingly big gains in the intervening 20 years.

Here is a nice article discussing limits in digital cameras.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/physical-limits-in-digital-photography-2/

Great input. Computers are now looking at processing at the quantum level. I am sure that we will run into a wall there soon enough but will it stop us? I'm looking forward to reading the article.

Possibilities of what film could have been is not my focus. It is the default standard that film created consequent to its limitations that is at issue.

removed account4 · Sep 17, 2018

QUOTE="wyofilm, post: 2115061, member: 86189"]Why are you SHOUTING? Are you deef?[/QUOTE]
bold letters aren't all caps .. dude ... peace and love, man ..

RPC · Sep 17, 2018

Berkeley Mike said:
Great input. Computers are now looking at processing at the quantum level. I am sure that we will run into a wall there soon enough but will it stop us? I'm looking forward to reading the article.

Possibilities of what film could have been is not my focus. It is the default standard that film created consequent to its limitations that is at issue.

It remains to be seen whether the current limitations of digital will allow its quality level to even catch up with the "default standard" of film, (it has yet to do that), let alone exceed it, before it runs into a wall.

Kino · Sep 17, 2018

jtk said:
"cameras" are irrelevant to the evolution of photography, which most importantly includes the evolution of "film making" and 3-D printing, not to mention audio recording and online messaging.

An that statement is pretty much irrelevant to anything to do with anything...

removed account4 · Sep 17, 2018

Kino said:
An that statement is pretty much irrelevant to anything to do with anything...

you can say that again

Berkeley Mike · Sep 18, 2018

Read the article...my head is 'sploding. It clarified essential principles of diffusion and aberration, apertures, dynamic rage and sensor size, pixel size and number and how they interact with wavelengths of light, the useful size limits of sensors, the difference in how film and digital render images. This was 12,000 words from 2009 but there is a shortened version worth a few minutes for sure. Thank you, wyofilm.

eddie · Sep 18, 2018

Nodda Duma said:
The imaging medium is the choice of the artist. You guys are arguing over an artist's choice!

This!!!! The tools chosen are (or should be) based on which works better for the artist in furthering his/her vision. Arguments over "superiority" are moot, as both are capable of delivering compelling results. Their differences are for the creative person to exploit in a way to achieve their imaginative goals.

Berkeley Mike · Sep 18, 2018

RPC said:
It remains to be seen whether the current limitations of digital will allow its quality level to even catch up with the "default standard" of film, (it has yet to do that), let alone exceed it, before it runs into a wall.

Read wyofilm's article. Part of it refers to Popular Photo suggesting that digital surpassed film in the early 2000s. Interesting. Meeting or exceeding film is problematic for a number of reasons concerning micro-contrast, resolution of proximate points and several other factors. I think that a part of this is simply in how we have habitually looked at images which has been set up through film.

RPC · Sep 18, 2018

Berkeley Mike said:
Read wyofilm's article. Part of it refers to Popular Photo suggesting that digital surpassed film in the early 2000s. Interesting. Meeting or exceeding film is problematic for a number of reasons concerning micro-contrast, resolution of proximate points and several other factors. I think that a part of this is simply in how we have habitually looked at images which has been set up through film.

LOL. I have read articles like this before and they don't mean squat. There is no way anyone is going to convince me digital surpassed film around 2000, let alone today or in the near future. Reality check--sensors that have wonky outputs that must be processed to a large degree by algorithms (computer guess work), and then converted to a compressed format (data loss) resulting in images with poor dynamic range and tonality is not my idea of a medium surpassing film, where a negative is very high quality to begin with, and requires no further manipulation, just printing, for high quality images, whereas a digital image is manipulated from start to finish--sorry, not buying it.

Poisson Du Jour · Sep 18, 2018

Berkeley Mike said:
Read wyofilm's article. Part of it refers to Popular Photo suggesting that digital surpassed film in the early 2000s. Interesting.

That rag...
Regurgitated latte-sipping populists' discourse that does not equate to scientific fact. It was, and still is, the salesmen's much loved and valued pitch that digital as a photographic medium excels over film. It does not. Not at all. It is an alternative means that trades on speed and convenience but still requires foundation skills in traditiona analogue photography.

The comeback?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency