Nope. Speaking as student at Georgia Tech's College of Computing (where the page in question is being hosted), I can say with confidence that we will easily survive this slashdotting, just as we have the many in the past. The network's not even feeling slow.
Actually, I recall hearing some years ago that Tech actually routes about 25% of the data that passes through Atlanta, so it would take a lot more than slashdot to pull us down, bandwidth-wise.
By golly, even with a fast scanner (30 seconds per pass?) you've got to be spending 4 minutes per image on capture alone. With a 36 exposure role of film that's almost 2 and half hours, plus those 20 minutes you spent at the grocery store. That's not even counting any likely necessary post-processing you'll be doing in your image editing app of choice.
Granted, this is a conservative estimation since, as with most people, a large portion of the images on the roll probably aren't worth scanning (though you still have to do preview scans since you didn't get prints), none the less, doing high resolution scans requires a significant time investment when compared to digital.
If it works for you (as it obviously does), then more power to you, as you are certainly getting a higher quality image, but not everyone has the time to do what you've described.
That, I guess, is my longwinded answer to "Why digital": time savings.
PS: If I'm wrong about the times I estimated, then I'd *love* to know what scanner you are using, as I do this sort of thing on a semi-regular basis and the time spent waiting for a piece of film to finish scanning is definitely the worst part. Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. Speaking as student at Georgia Tech's College of Computing (where the page in question is being hosted), I can say with confidence that we will easily survive this slashdotting, just as we have the many in the past. The network's not even feeling slow.
Actually, I recall hearing some years ago that Tech actually routes about 25% of the data that passes through Atlanta, so it would take a lot more than slashdot to pull us down, bandwidth-wise.
No prints? Full resolution? Scanned 8 times??!?!?
By golly, even with a fast scanner (30 seconds per pass?) you've got to be spending 4 minutes per image on capture alone. With a 36 exposure role of film that's almost 2 and half hours, plus those 20 minutes you spent at the grocery store. That's not even counting any likely necessary post-processing you'll be doing in your image editing app of choice.
Granted, this is a conservative estimation since, as with most people, a large portion of the images on the roll probably aren't worth scanning (though you still have to do preview scans since you didn't get prints), none the less, doing high resolution scans requires a significant time investment when compared to digital.
If it works for you (as it obviously does), then more power to you, as you are certainly getting a higher quality image, but not everyone has the time to do what you've described.
That, I guess, is my longwinded answer to "Why digital": time savings.
PS: If I'm wrong about the times I estimated, then I'd *love* to know what scanner you are using, as I do this sort of thing on a semi-regular basis and the time spent waiting for a piece of film to finish scanning is definitely the worst part. Thanks.
For a view from the other-side (that of the independent content provider) check out Scott Mccloud's response to Shirky's latest essay.