Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.6.450.8)
          for photo{at}fanciful.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:16:02 -0800
Received: from ns5.tzo.com ([216.55.16.67]) HELO=saf.tzo.com
          by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP v5.6.450.8) with SMTP
          id 479677468; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:16:01 -0800
Received: from 66.208.140.2 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2004021123135961765 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:13:59 GMT
Received: (qmail 11768 invoked by uid 89); 12 Feb 2004 04:15:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (66.208.141.248)
  by mail.optidynamic.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2004 04:15:57 -0000
Message-ID: 
From: "drbob" 
To: 
References: 



Subject: Re: Kodak processing machine
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:15:52 -0500
X-Orig-MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Orig-Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Orig-Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165

WOW!  I'm sure glad YOU weren't ? Walter Pidgeon? the father in Forbidden
Planet...explaining that little thimble sized gadget that held the music of
that planet. :)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Larry N. Bolch" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: Kodak processing machine


> Stu Turk wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Richard Prentiss" 
> >
> >
> >> This would be the system originally invented by
> >> Applied Science Fiction, where the film is
> >> chemically developed (not really dry) to
> >> total completion, being scanned in IR with
> >> enough resolution to separate the different
> >> color layers. Wet processing, but no effluent
> >> no need for a drain. The negatives are said
> >> to be totally black, do you still want them?
> >
> >        I wouldn't want the film after it was process by this machine
> > but if I shot anything I wanted to keep the negatives of I probably
> > wouldn't go near this machine.  :-)Most people don't keep their
> > negatives so it probably doesn't make any difference to them.  But as
> > someone on the list I picked up that article on pointed out,
> > equipment keeps changing and today's cd-rom disk may be unprintable
> > due to lack of equipment  some years down the road. But we can still
> > print negatives shot 50 or more years ago.
>
> Both are dye images, and dyes fade. However, it is very easy to move
digital
> images to the next medium, while duplicating negatives without drastic
loss of
> quality is difficult. About the only way to make colour negative images
anything
> resembling permanent would be to reproduce them as silver-based images
onto
> glass plates using colour separation. Storing them in a deep freeze would
be the
> second best.
>
> I have some 30,000 digital images now - all stored on two different
computers
> and on CD-ROMs - both for convenience and redundancy. Within a couple of
weeks I
> will also have a DVD burner. In less than 10 minutes all will have found
another
> home on the next medium - for another layer of redundancy and life far
longer
> than my own.
>
> The Usual Argument.
>
> Yes, there are tapes from early computers that are difficult or impossible
to
> access now nearly 50 years later. This is frequently quoted as an argument
> against digital storage, but is a huge display of ignorant hand-wringing -
> nothing more.
>
> In the first three decades of computing, machines were extremely
proprietary, as
> were data formats. Honeywell made great effort to make sure that no IBM or
> Burroughs perpherals would interface with their machines and vice versa.
> Standardization across systems was anathema. Furthermore, relatively few
> computers even existed through the mid 1970s. The chip in a musical
greeting
> card has many times the computing power of the most powerful of 1950s
> mainframes.
>
> Secondly data storage was incredibly expensive. Data was triaged and much
was
> deliberately abandoned, being too costly to store in relationship to its
value
> when equipment went from punch cards to magnetic storage. While legacy
data WAS
> inaccessible for a number of decades, there are companies now who CAN
retrieve
> it now that there are powerful and cheap desktop computers.
>
> The situation is entirely different now. The same CD works on Macs, PCs,
Linux
> boxes and a bazillion consumer electronics appliances. While there may
have been
> less than 100,000 data tapes during all the mainframe period, there are
CDs
> beyond counting. People also point to the way that the CD
"killed" the LP
as an
> argument. Certainly the CD outsells the LP by a bazillion to one, but LPs
are
> still being pressed and there is a wealth of players still being sold.
>
> Furthermore, just as one can easily transfer digital images from CD to
DVD, one
> can transfer the music from vinyl to CD or DVD and considerably improve
the
> reproduction quality while doing so. All it takes is a turntable - easily
> obtained - a soundcard, CD-burner and some software.
>
> With the huge heritage of information and entertainment stored on the CD,
it
> will be accessible indefinitely. Simply the sheer quantity in comparison
to
> mainframe data ensures that, but here is much more reason.
>
> Data storage is incredibly cheap now. Hard drives for less than a dollar a
> gigabyte, and optical storage for pennies. Cost of storage is no longer of
any
> relevance. Overnight, my computer recorded an hour long program of
Monteverdi
> songs, in VideoCD format, which I have just transferred onto a 32¢ CD. The
> transfer took the computer seven minutes, since I asked the software to
verify
> the data - otherwise it would have taken about four minutes. It took me
less
> than a minute to get it going and it burned the CD while I was doing
e-mail.
>
> Now the CD is beginning its fade as DVD comes on strong. Know what? My DVD
> player reads CDs just fine. Know what else? DVD burners will make BOTH CDs
and
> DVDs. Absolutely complete backward compatibility. Blue laser DVDs are a
few
> years away, increasing storage by six or seven times that of current DVDs.
> Again, absolutely complete backward compatibility. Since it costs
practically
> nothing to build in legacy format compatibility, why not do it?
>
> My colour negatives began fading the second they came out of the blix.
Zeros and
> ones don't fade. Negatives are a real problem to duplicate without loss of
> quality, zeros and ones are a breeze. I have some of the first Kodak
PhotoCDs
> that are now a decade old. No problems whatever, but just to extend the
life of
> my images on them, I have made duplicates and retired the originals. Two
minutes
> of actual work to do so. They will also be compiled on a single DVD for
further
> convenience and redundancy.
>
> There is no excuse for lost images in the digital world other than human
> neglect.
>
> Last year 50 million digital cameras sold as compared to 57 million
analogue
> cameras. However, the key is where they sold. In Europe, Japan and the
Americas,
> digital cameras substantially outsold film cameras. Outside of those
regions,
> film cameras outsold digital - 22 million to six million. Sales of digital
> cameras increased in 2003 by 64% over 2002 world-wide.
>
> The question is will there be film, any way to process it, access to
chemicals
> and colour printing paper even a decade from now, without migrating to
third
> world countries.
>
> larry!
> ICQ 76620504
> http://www.larry-bolch.com/
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to wclistserve{at}fanciful.org with
> UNSUBSCRIBE photo in the message body on a line by itself.
> To contact the list admin, e-mail Tom.Lebens{at}fanciful.org
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>


--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5