Of course, I'd think they would get just as good (or better) numbers from simply asking "how many times was the latest security update loaded from our repository?" That would give them a pretty decent idea of actual consumer install base, since very few people run their own repos.
I don't think it would give a "pretty decent idea of actual consumer install base" as that would require every system to run updates. Even when I had and used MS Windows, I didn't let update run by itself.
Thanks, this is about the most reasonable post on this thread I've read yet. Half a percent,.5%, marketshare may not seem like much but when the market is huge that adds up. Better yet, it gets even bigger when different market segments are added, that is desktops, laptops/netbooks, handhelds, and smartphones.
That applies in everything. Looking at CrossOver money is being made now with Linux and OSX. If CodeWeavers can make money with CrossOver then software vendors should be able to make money creating cross platform software too.
On the other hand, game developers would have a semi-solid set of numbers to go by, so they can assess the size of their potential market. As it is, there really aren't good numbers on Linux adoption
Even with this there still will not be good numbers. First, Canonical is only including the tracking software on OEM installations but I bet most installations are done by users or local gurus. It is not mandatory either. Then there are other Linux distros.
the slashdot submission summary says it is a cronjob, it would be easy to look in/etc/cron.* and remove the entries for it, check Top for any running dameons for it, and remove the binary from/bin/sbin/usr/bin/usr/sbin (where they installed it) or apt-get remove "package_name" could do it all for you automagically
There is one problem with this argument, a big one. Ubuntu is supposed to be a Linux distribution anyone can use. How many users know anything about cronjobs, dameons, or/bin never mind the commandline instead of GUIs?
So, it's alright if Apple or MS give away their OS and it phones home too?
I see 2 problems. One it can lead to a false indication of how much it is used. I can install Ubuntu on my desktop PC and on my laptop, but most of the tyme I'll only be using one of them. Or not, because my desktop might be set up as a server, which would be running all the tyme. Secondly I don't see it being opt-in, and I don't want to be tracked. Though not the only reason that is one reason I switched from MS Windows.
Hyperion does suck, and it will continue to as long as it holds out on making AOS that can run on x86 hardware. I'd run it on my MacBook Pro in a heartbeat.
I've considered buying one of the machines in the past.
I had an Amiga 500 but turned it in for recycling. If I could have expanded/upgraded it I would have kept it longer.
I can imagine the the possible boost in Amiga popularity (not sales, but at least interest and usage) would be a lot higher if it could be ran on commodity x86-64 hardware and was freely available for development.
If Amiga OS ran on commodity x86 hardware I bet it would sell. I think it's weird, there used to be an expansion board for Amigas that allowed DOS and early Windows to run but AOS 4 doesn't run on Intel or AMD mobos. It requires PowerPC hardware.
If I could I'd triple-boot my MacBook Pro, with OSX, Ubuntu, and Amigas OS.
I still claim that there should be no problems storing hard drives, in controlled conditions, for many decades, and having them work just fine when periodically powered up.
The hard drives in 2 brand new PCs I bought failed in the first year I had them, one after only 6 months. Another HDD, a 750 GB drive with more than 500 GB on it, was reformatted when I took the PC in for service. Though I left written instructions not touch the drive, the technician did anyway. I should have removed the drive before taking it in, it was the second drive in the PC and was used as the home directory so I could have gotten away with taking it out. I still haven't gotten around to recovering the data, by first replacing the drive, cloning it, then unformatting the clone. Of course if I had had backups them it would have been alright, but external drive big enough were too expensive for me and it would have taken almost 100 double density DVDs.
Of course, if old tech is in cold storage then there's little risk of reformatting.
My point was that you don't have to do that, precisely;)
But you do, no matter what technology is used it will eventually fail. Even human memory fails.
Hell I know that, my memory is terrible due to an injury I survived. Without my paper based planner and the calendar built into my cellphone I'd miss doctor and rehab appointments. So I don't fail to enter appointments when I make them I will enter them into the planner as well as the calendar, both of which I always have with me. Just yesterday I did that, at my doctor's office I had a hearing test and the tech didn't like the results so she said I needed to see a hearing doctor. As I made the appointment at the desk I wrote it in the planner then entered it into the calendar as well. When I did I saw I already had an appointment with a therapist at the same tyme, so I called him then and there to let him know I had to reschedule our appointment, I thought seeing the doc was more important and the next available tyme for the doc was a few days later.
With hardware and physical media, they fail more frequently than human memory does. I've had to replace the harddisk in 2 new PCs in the first year as well as the RAM in one. I've had floppies, Zips, CDs, and DVDs fail on me too. Don't tell me people can get by keeping old technology.
No, ablution of patents is best. Many proponents of patents have stated how important patents are to innovation, but where are the economics studies supporting this? While a number of economics studies have concluded there are negative impacts of patents, where are those that claim there are positive impacts? As noted in Ars technica's article Study: free markets superior to patent monopolies the debate has made it's way to Science magazine. To cite one example, in The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995, in "Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 32, 2001", based on studies by Yale and Carnegie Mellon "R&D managers in semiconductors consistently reported that patents were among the least effective mechanisms for appropriating returns to R&D investments".
I think you missed the whole point of my post, if you want to keep a data archive for years, you should be migrating the data from old storage technology to newer tech. Don't rely on 20, heck 10, year old tech.
And similarly, there are better digital cameras now than the ones used in these tests. And you need to cherry-pick low-speed film stocks to even have a chance of coming close to digital. In the real world, you don't always shoot at low speeds in controlled conditions.
You're doing the same you just accused me of, "cherry-pick". Just as there are better new digital cameras now, you're cherry-picking, there are better film stocks as well. If you can't admit that I see no reason to continue this.
given that the latitude of a bw print is so much greater than with digital, it would be a good thing to try out.
I started out, in a high school photography class, with B&W. While I like it I prefer shooting in colour, colour film can always be printed in B&W but not the other way. That is not without hand painting B&W photos, which I also would like to do.
But I can't fault you with sticking with digital.
I don't shoot digitally. I don't even have a cheap digicam never mind a DSLR. All I have right now is a 35mm film camera. For my next camera I want to get a medium format camera, probably a used 645, with a film back. Nat Cam or National Camera Exchange, which is a local chain, buys and sells used equipment. Currently they're listing a Mamiya 645 Pro body for $165, a back for $75, and lenses as low as $95. Used Hasselblads are twice that, which is still a good buy. I'll also want to look and see if I can get a camera mount for it for my telescope as well, I've got the mount for my 35mm. But I haven't used it yet, I need to find a good place for astrophotography. Now for that I may very well shoot B&W.
Print making is pretty involved and messy, requiring significant investment in tools, time, and money.:)
Yea it can be, but it's fun too. While I eventually want to set up my own darkroom, a local group has darkrooms members can use. I don't know about the chemicals but I'll probably have to buy my own paper. I'm hoping I can start a photography business as well, then if I make money at it I will try to set up a darkroom of my own. I'll also want to buy a digital back as well as a DSLR. It may be wishful thinking but I hope I can make enough money to support a photography hobby. Then again new businesses have better changes of success when the economy is down, they just need to offer lower prices or unique products and services than established businesses. Or be more aggressive in their marketing.
Velvia only has about 5 stops of dynamic range, compared to around 10 for modern digital cameras.
Looking at your clarkvision page, the Velvia graphic (Figure 4) is not there. However Fuji's Provia 100F is better. The bad part is it comes only in 100 ASA. Here's a discussion on Velvia on Flickr.
You ask me for citations? Then tell me what Ken Rockwell's citations are. They don't exist.
I asked for citations because you stated digital is better than film. I want proof before I'll believe it. Even pros don't agree on which is better, digital or film. But it doesn't matter if the only ones worth a dime are the ones you agree with.
A 4x5 camera with a digital back will also shoot much higher resolution than a DX digital camera. The point is also invalid, because realistically, a top-end DSLR actually costs less than a 4x5 camera with lenses and the cost of film and processing.
This is only valid if you shoot hundreds if not thousands of photos. Fact is is the major difference in cost between digital and film medium format cameras is the cost of the backs. And film backs are a lot cheaper than the thousands of dollars a digital back costs. Take for instance a Hasselblad H2F. B&H Photo and Video lists the price at $7000. A film back for it costs $400 and RVP 120mm Fujichrome Velvia film is $6. A Adapter Plate Kit for CF/CF-MS Digital Backs cost $900. That's more than twice as much for digital, and it is a dedicated interface for the Hasselblad CF Digital Back System not a digital back itself, than the film back. You can shoot a lot of film with just the difference in price.
Or take a DSRL instead of a medium camera with digital back. Canon's highest res DSRL is the EOS 1Ds Mark III which costs the same as the Hasselblad. Now which do you think is a better camera (rhetorical question, it depends on the use)? Or there's the Hasselblad H2F at $2700. And of course there are a number of cameras other than Hasselblad, such as Mamiya and Pentax.
I worked professionally with film photography for years. It was terribly difficult to get good color, you have to use color-correcting filters or gels on lights to get accurate color. The color balance on film was very finicky. Shots would have to be perfectly exposed.
And Ken Rockwell hasn't worked for years with film?
A low end DSLR can beat 35mm film today. high end dslr's utterly kicks the crud out of 35mm in resolution.
The getting old Canon 5d Mark II is 21.5 megapixels which is 1.5 megapixels greater than the absolute best 35mm film+best camera+best lens can do. Honestly 90% of all 35mm film shots are less than 12megapixel in resolution due to low end glass and cameras as well as being processed less than perfect. And that's just the mid level stuff from Canon. high end digitals that reach the 60 megapixel mark utterly destroy 35mm film even when used with the best of everything.
That just goes to show how much you know, Canon's highest res pro camera is the 21.1 MP EOS-1Ds Mark III. Even Nikon's D3x only has a 24.5 MP sensor. If you want bigger ones you have to step up to medium format cameras such as Hasselblad or Mamiya.
Meanwhile in pro photographer Ken Rockwell's article Why We Love Film he writes:
"You want dynamic range? I got your dynamic range right here in this little canister. It's called film; a write-once, read-many (WORM) medium."
"I made this shot on a Contax G2 with a 21mm Zeiss lens at f/8 on Fuji Velvia 50, which was processed and scanned at the same time at NCPS. The dynamic range is so great that the hellacious sunbursts you see are just what's naturally coming off the diaphragm blade at f/8, as if 1,000 suns were shining in the lens in the two-minute exposure."
"Not only that, but the film I shot in a Canon EOS Rebel G film camera, worth about $20 today, was sharper as scanned at NCPS than the file I made with the same lens on a Canon 5D, which is sharper still than anything on earth from Nikon digital."
"How about that? A $20 camera with a $5 roll of film and $20 to process and scan the entire roll is sharper than a $5,000 camera. (The Contax cost more, but still loads less than anything in full-frame digital.)"
The best 35mm film stocks don't come close to top-end DSLRs, in either resolution, color reproduction or dynamic range.
Can you give any citations? There are pro photographers, those who make their living as photographers, who disagree with that. Here's wiki's article on digital vs film. And here's Photo.net's discussion. Ken Rockwell, quoted in the wiki article, has the article Why We Love Film. For instance regarding dynamic range he says:
"You want dynamic range? I got your dynamic range right here in this little canister. It's called film; a write-once, read-many (WORM) medium."
"I made this shot on a Contax G2 with a 21mm Zeiss lens at f/8 on Fuji Velvia 50, which was processed and scanned at the same time at NCPS. The dynamic range is so great that the hellacious sunbursts you see are just what's naturally coming off the diaphragm blade at f/8, as if 1,000 suns were shining in the lens in the two-minute exposure."
He further states "A frame of 35mm film, scanned cheaply at a good photo lab to a CD, is about equal to the resolution of a 25MP DSLR."
People seem to like colour pictures a lot, personally I've always found that b/w pictures done properly will win every time.
While I like B&W I prefer to shoot colour. Colour film can always be printed, after development, in B&W but printing B&W film in colour will not add the colour.
The only thing that I like about digital photography is that you have the picture instantly. With say doing your own b/w pictures, there's something special about seeing it develop in your own lab and getting the balances right.
With a digital camera it's even easier to convert colour to B&W, just save as that. What you can do digitally versus film though is handpaint B&W photos, well you can paint B&W film prints too but it's not the same.
Was a stupid idea to buy it in the first place because it took bloody ages and results are poor
In the same general price range Epson Perfection V500 is good. I've got hundreds if not thousands of exposures on film I've been scanning. So far all I've scanned is negatives, I haven't scanned positives or slides yet so I don't know how those will come out. The one problem I have with the V500 is the errors saying image size or area selected is too large for the resolution and to reduce the res or reduce the size. If I had the money I'd upgrade to the V700. A dedicated film scanner may be better but except for the drum scanners costing thousands of dollars most of them only scan 35mm and I want to scan 4x6 medium format film as well.
Also I think someone said that it was better to scan at a lower resolution for some reason, is that so?
That depends on how big the prints are, if you print, and how much is cropped. Even printing at 300 dpi a 2400 ppi scanner will print 8" photos. On the other hand if you want bigger prints or will be doing a lot of editing scanning at higher resolutions is better. Check out Photo.net's film scanning forum.
I'm guessing there will be for a little while to come
E-6 "Ektachrome" processing? Sure. K-14 "Kodachrome" processing? Very unlikely.
Ah but as you note Kodachrome isn't the only positive film. Nor is Ektachrome the only E6, after I use my last roll of Elite Chrome I'll probably be using Fuji film. Provia, Sensia, or Velvia. From what I know Provia has smaller grain but it only comes in 100 ASA/ISO. I've used 50, 100, 200, 400, and 800 ASA film. I also want to try astrophotography using up to 1600 ASA, but I haven't broken out my telescope yet and tried it. I need to find a good place without light pollution.
And with dead-tree books going away, he may not have anything to put under the front of the projector...
Yea, right. PCs were supposed to be the end of paper in the office back in the 1980s. But the paperless office hasn't arrived yet. If anything more paper is being used today. It's cheap, easy, and fast to print out documents today.
Film has a lot of data recorded in it that can be very expansively blown up if desired;...
Digital has a hard limit based on the hardware of the camera.
Using upres software like Genuine Fractals even a 5MP photo can be printed out on large paper. And with today's DSRL cameras breaking 20MP poster sized prints are possible.
On top of that you have format loss if you use a lossy format to store the image in
So, store in RAW and tiff. RAW may not be around more than a few years but tiff should be around longer.
you still can't get even a top-grade professional camera that matches Film at the DPI level. It's still a few years away.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, I'd think they would get just as good (or better) numbers from simply asking "how many times was the latest security update loaded from our repository?" That would give them a pretty decent idea of actual consumer install base, since very few people run their own repos.
I don't think it would give a "pretty decent idea of actual consumer install base" as that would require every system to run updates. Even when I had and used MS Windows, I didn't let update run by itself.
Falcon
Thanks, this is about the most reasonable post on this thread I've read yet. Half a percent, .5%, marketshare may not seem like much but when the market is huge that adds up. Better yet, it gets even bigger when different market segments are added, that is desktops, laptops/netbooks, handhelds, and smartphones.
Falcon
That applies in everything. Looking at CrossOver money is being made now with Linux and OSX. If CodeWeavers can make money with CrossOver then software vendors should be able to make money creating cross platform software too.
On the other hand, game developers would have a semi-solid set of numbers to go by, so they can assess the size of their potential market. As it is, there really aren't good numbers on Linux adoption
Even with this there still will not be good numbers. First, Canonical is only including the tracking software on OEM installations but I bet most installations are done by users or local gurus. It is not mandatory either. Then there are other Linux distros.
Falcon
Dated today, 10 August 2010:
Ubuntu Server Adoption on the Rise. Also today: The consistent failure of Linux to grab even 1% of the desktop OS market. This one says Ubuntu "has become the largest Linux desktop OS distribution by far" by cannibalizing other Linux distros.
Now do you have stats supporting your assertion "Ubuntu is dying"? Or is it your opinion?
Falcon
the slashdot submission summary says it is a cronjob, it would be easy to look in /etc/cron.* and remove the entries for it, check Top for any running dameons for it, and remove the binary from /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin (where they installed it) or apt-get remove "package_name" could do it all for you automagically
There is one problem with this argument, a big one. Ubuntu is supposed to be a Linux distribution anyone can use. How many users know anything about cronjobs, dameons, or /bin never mind the commandline instead of GUIs?
Falcon
This is the least I can do for them.
So, it's alright if Apple or MS give away their OS and it phones home too?
I see 2 problems. One it can lead to a false indication of how much it is used. I can install Ubuntu on my desktop PC and on my laptop, but most of the tyme I'll only be using one of them. Or not, because my desktop might be set up as a server, which would be running all the tyme. Secondly I don't see it being opt-in, and I don't want to be tracked. Though not the only reason that is one reason I switched from MS Windows.
Falcon
Amiga OS is being updated now, however it only runs on PowerPC hardware. Hyperion has released 4.0 and 4.1.
Falcon
Hyperion does suck, and it will continue to as long as it holds out on making AOS that can run on x86 hardware. I'd run it on my MacBook Pro in a heartbeat.
Falcon
I've considered buying one of the machines in the past.
I had an Amiga 500 but turned it in for recycling. If I could have expanded/upgraded it I would have kept it longer.
I can imagine the the possible boost in Amiga popularity (not sales, but at least interest and usage) would be a lot higher if it could be ran on commodity x86-64 hardware and was freely available for development.
If Amiga OS ran on commodity x86 hardware I bet it would sell. I think it's weird, there used to be an expansion board for Amigas that allowed DOS and early Windows to run but AOS 4 doesn't run on Intel or AMD mobos. It requires PowerPC hardware.
If I could I'd triple-boot my MacBook Pro, with OSX, Ubuntu, and Amigas OS.
Falcon
I still claim that there should be no problems storing hard drives, in controlled conditions, for many decades, and having them work just fine when periodically powered up.
The hard drives in 2 brand new PCs I bought failed in the first year I had them, one after only 6 months. Another HDD, a 750 GB drive with more than 500 GB on it, was reformatted when I took the PC in for service. Though I left written instructions not touch the drive, the technician did anyway. I should have removed the drive before taking it in, it was the second drive in the PC and was used as the home directory so I could have gotten away with taking it out. I still haven't gotten around to recovering the data, by first replacing the drive, cloning it, then unformatting the clone. Of course if I had had backups them it would have been alright, but external drive big enough were too expensive for me and it would have taken almost 100 double density DVDs.
Of course, if old tech is in cold storage then there's little risk of reformatting.
Falcon
My point was that you don't have to do that, precisely ;)
But you do, no matter what technology is used it will eventually fail. Even human memory fails.
Hell I know that, my memory is terrible due to an injury I survived. Without my paper based planner and the calendar built into my cellphone I'd miss doctor and rehab appointments. So I don't fail to enter appointments when I make them I will enter them into the planner as well as the calendar, both of which I always have with me. Just yesterday I did that, at my doctor's office I had a hearing test and the tech didn't like the results so she said I needed to see a hearing doctor. As I made the appointment at the desk I wrote it in the planner then entered it into the calendar as well. When I did I saw I already had an appointment with a therapist at the same tyme, so I called him then and there to let him know I had to reschedule our appointment, I thought seeing the doc was more important and the next available tyme for the doc was a few days later.
With hardware and physical media, they fail more frequently than human memory does. I've had to replace the harddisk in 2 new PCs in the first year as well as the RAM in one. I've had floppies, Zips, CDs, and DVDs fail on me too. Don't tell me people can get by keeping old technology.
Falcon
No, ablution of patents is best. Many proponents of patents have stated how important patents are to innovation, but where are the economics studies supporting this? While a number of economics studies have concluded there are negative impacts of patents, where are those that claim there are positive impacts? As noted in Ars technica's article Study: free markets superior to patent monopolies the debate has made it's way to Science magazine. To cite one example, in The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995, in "Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 32, 2001", based on studies by Yale and Carnegie Mellon "R&D managers in semiconductors consistently reported that patents were among the least effective mechanisms for appropriating returns to R&D investments".
Falcon
I think you missed the whole point of my post, if you want to keep a data archive for years, you should be migrating the data from old storage technology to newer tech. Don't rely on 20, heck 10, year old tech.
Falcon
And similarly, there are better digital cameras now than the ones used in these tests. And you need to cherry-pick low-speed film stocks to even have a chance of coming close to digital. In the real world, you don't always shoot at low speeds in controlled conditions.
You're doing the same you just accused me of, "cherry-pick". Just as there are better new digital cameras now, you're cherry-picking, there are better film stocks as well. If you can't admit that I see no reason to continue this.
Falcon
given that the latitude of a bw print is so much greater than with digital, it would be a good thing to try out.
I started out, in a high school photography class, with B&W. While I like it I prefer shooting in colour, colour film can always be printed in B&W but not the other way. That is not without hand painting B&W photos, which I also would like to do.
But I can't fault you with sticking with digital.
I don't shoot digitally. I don't even have a cheap digicam never mind a DSLR. All I have right now is a 35mm film camera. For my next camera I want to get a medium format camera, probably a used 645, with a film back. Nat Cam or National Camera Exchange, which is a local chain, buys and sells used equipment. Currently they're listing a Mamiya 645 Pro body for $165, a back for $75, and lenses as low as $95. Used Hasselblads are twice that, which is still a good buy. I'll also want to look and see if I can get a camera mount for it for my telescope as well, I've got the mount for my 35mm. But I haven't used it yet, I need to find a good place for astrophotography. Now for that I may very well shoot B&W.
Print making is pretty involved and messy, requiring significant investment in tools, time, and money. :)
Yea it can be, but it's fun too. While I eventually want to set up my own darkroom, a local group has darkrooms members can use. I don't know about the chemicals but I'll probably have to buy my own paper. I'm hoping I can start a photography business as well, then if I make money at it I will try to set up a darkroom of my own. I'll also want to buy a digital back as well as a DSLR. It may be wishful thinking but I hope I can make enough money to support a photography hobby. Then again new businesses have better changes of success when the economy is down, they just need to offer lower prices or unique products and services than established businesses. Or be more aggressive in their marketing.
Falcon
Velvia only has about 5 stops of dynamic range, compared to around 10 for modern digital cameras.
Looking at your clarkvision page, the Velvia graphic (Figure 4) is not there. However Fuji's Provia 100F is better. The bad part is it comes only in 100 ASA. Here's a discussion on Velvia on Flickr.
You ask me for citations? Then tell me what Ken Rockwell's citations are. They don't exist.
I asked for citations because you stated digital is better than film. I want proof before I'll believe it. Even pros don't agree on which is better, digital or film. But it doesn't matter if the only ones worth a dime are the ones you agree with.
Falcon
A 4x5 camera with a digital back will also shoot much higher resolution than a DX digital camera. The point is also invalid, because realistically, a top-end DSLR actually costs less than a 4x5 camera with lenses and the cost of film and processing.
This is only valid if you shoot hundreds if not thousands of photos. Fact is is the major difference in cost between digital and film medium format cameras is the cost of the backs. And film backs are a lot cheaper than the thousands of dollars a digital back costs. Take for instance a Hasselblad H2F. B&H Photo and Video lists the price at $7000. A film back for it costs $400 and RVP 120mm Fujichrome Velvia film is $6. A Adapter Plate Kit for CF/CF-MS Digital Backs cost $900. That's more than twice as much for digital, and it is a dedicated interface for the Hasselblad CF Digital Back System not a digital back itself, than the film back. You can shoot a lot of film with just the difference in price.
Or take a DSRL instead of a medium camera with digital back. Canon's highest res DSRL is the EOS 1Ds Mark III which costs the same as the Hasselblad. Now which do you think is a better camera (rhetorical question, it depends on the use)? Or there's the Hasselblad H2F at $2700. And of course there are a number of cameras other than Hasselblad, such as Mamiya and Pentax.
Falcon
I worked professionally with film photography for years. It was terribly difficult to get good color, you have to use color-correcting filters or gels on lights to get accurate color. The color balance on film was very finicky. Shots would have to be perfectly exposed.
And Ken Rockwell hasn't worked for years with film?
Falcon
A low end DSLR can beat 35mm film today. high end dslr's utterly kicks the crud out of 35mm in resolution.
The getting old Canon 5d Mark II is 21.5 megapixels which is 1.5 megapixels greater than the absolute best 35mm film+best camera+best lens can do. Honestly 90% of all 35mm film shots are less than 12megapixel in resolution due to low end glass and cameras as well as being processed less than perfect. And that's just the mid level stuff from Canon. high end digitals that reach the 60 megapixel mark utterly destroy 35mm film even when used with the best of everything.
That just goes to show how much you know, Canon's highest res pro camera is the 21.1 MP EOS-1Ds Mark III. Even Nikon's D3x only has a 24.5 MP sensor. If you want bigger ones you have to step up to medium format cameras such as Hasselblad or Mamiya.
Meanwhile in pro photographer Ken Rockwell's article Why We Love Film he writes:
"You want dynamic range? I got your dynamic range right here in this little canister. It's called film; a write-once, read-many (WORM) medium."
"I made this shot on a Contax G2 with a 21mm Zeiss lens at f/8 on Fuji Velvia 50, which was processed and scanned at the same time at NCPS. The dynamic range is so great that the hellacious sunbursts you see are just what's naturally coming off the diaphragm blade at f/8, as if 1,000 suns were shining in the lens in the two-minute exposure."
"Not only that, but the film I shot in a Canon EOS Rebel G film camera, worth about $20 today, was sharper as scanned at NCPS than the file I made with the same lens on a Canon 5D, which is sharper still than anything on earth from Nikon digital."
"How about that? A $20 camera with a $5 roll of film and $20 to process and scan the entire roll is sharper than a $5,000 camera. (The Contax cost more, but still loads less than anything in full-frame digital.)"
Falcon
The best 35mm film stocks don't come close to top-end DSLRs, in either resolution, color reproduction or dynamic range.
Can you give any citations? There are pro photographers, those who make their living as photographers, who disagree with that. Here's wiki's article on digital vs film. And here's Photo.net's discussion. Ken Rockwell, quoted in the wiki article, has the article Why We Love Film. For instance regarding dynamic range he says:
"You want dynamic range? I got your dynamic range right here in this little canister. It's called film; a write-once, read-many (WORM) medium."
"I made this shot on a Contax G2 with a 21mm Zeiss lens at f/8 on Fuji Velvia 50, which was processed and scanned at the same time at NCPS. The dynamic range is so great that the hellacious sunbursts you see are just what's naturally coming off the diaphragm blade at f/8, as if 1,000 suns were shining in the lens in the two-minute exposure."
He further states "A frame of 35mm film, scanned cheaply at a good photo lab to a CD, is about equal to the resolution of a 25MP DSLR."
Falcon
People seem to like colour pictures a lot, personally I've always found that b/w pictures done properly will win every time.
While I like B&W I prefer to shoot colour. Colour film can always be printed, after development, in B&W but printing B&W film in colour will not add the colour.
The only thing that I like about digital photography is that you have the picture instantly. With say doing your own b/w pictures, there's something special about seeing it develop in your own lab and getting the balances right.
With a digital camera it's even easier to convert colour to B&W, just save as that. What you can do digitally versus film though is hand paint B&W photos, well you can paint B&W film prints too but it's not the same.
Falcon
Was a stupid idea to buy it in the first place because it took bloody ages and results are poor
In the same general price range Epson Perfection V500 is good. I've got hundreds if not thousands of exposures on film I've been scanning. So far all I've scanned is negatives, I haven't scanned positives or slides yet so I don't know how those will come out. The one problem I have with the V500 is the errors saying image size or area selected is too large for the resolution and to reduce the res or reduce the size. If I had the money I'd upgrade to the V700. A dedicated film scanner may be better but except for the drum scanners costing thousands of dollars most of them only scan 35mm and I want to scan 4x6 medium format film as well.
Also I think someone said that it was better to scan at a lower resolution for some reason, is that so?
That depends on how big the prints are, if you print, and how much is cropped. Even printing at 300 dpi a 2400 ppi scanner will print 8" photos. On the other hand if you want bigger prints or will be doing a lot of editing scanning at higher resolutions is better. Check out Photo.net's film scanning forum.
Falcon
I'm guessing there will be for a little while to come
E-6 "Ektachrome" processing? Sure. K-14 "Kodachrome" processing? Very unlikely.
Ah but as you note Kodachrome isn't the only positive film. Nor is Ektachrome the only E6, after I use my last roll of Elite Chrome I'll probably be using Fuji film. Provia, Sensia, or Velvia. From what I know Provia has smaller grain but it only comes in 100 ASA/ISO. I've used 50, 100, 200, 400, and 800 ASA film. I also want to try astrophotography using up to 1600 ASA, but I haven't broken out my telescope yet and tried it. I need to find a good place without light pollution.
Falcon
And with dead-tree books going away, he may not have anything to put under the front of the projector...
Yea, right. PCs were supposed to be the end of paper in the office back in the 1980s. But the paperless office hasn't arrived yet. If anything more paper is being used today. It's cheap, easy, and fast to print out documents today.
Falcon
Film has a lot of data recorded in it that can be very expansively blown up if desired;...
Digital has a hard limit based on the hardware of the camera.
Using upres software like Genuine Fractals even a 5MP photo can be printed out on large paper. And with today's DSRL cameras breaking 20MP poster sized prints are possible.
On top of that you have format loss if you use a lossy format to store the image in
So, store in RAW and tiff. RAW may not be around more than a few years but tiff should be around longer.
you still can't get even a top-grade professional camera that matches Film at the DPI level. It's still a few years away.
Many pro photographers will argue that with you.
Falcon