BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Karen Oland <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:54:52 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (45 lines)
Martin,

What type of film are you using to expect it to last 200 years? We've seen
degradation and color changes in most color films after 20-30 years (longer
for some, less for others), depending on storage conditions. Slides also
change over time. B&W is projected to last 75 or so, depending on silver
content, storage, etc... I'm not aware of any films claiming 200 year
lifespans. I doubt any of us expect CD's to be around in 200 years (or to be
here to confirm it if they are). That doesn't mean that some method won't be
invented in the meantime to transfer our masterpieces to the new storage
formats as they become popular (can't lose those pics of Aunt Betty at the
re-union, right?). Just as there are now methods for transferring film to
the digital arena.  The difference being that (for better or worse), digital
pictures don't degrade in the transfers, unless they are edited and saved in
a compressed format.

I do agree that the twin-lens can make a huge difference, especially if you
need to be sure you did get the shot before you leave the field. The LCD on
digital cameras let you do that also, to some extent. Coupled with the
instant printers (portable, battery powered), you can make sure your digital
pics are ok before you leave the area also.  The quality isn't quite up to
the true film standard on many cameras, but for many projects, that extra
quality isn't needed (computer or web-based). The newest digital cameras are
6 mega-pixels tho - that should equal what you capture on film for just
about any project, provided the results are captured uncompressed. Many
lower-end cameras don't have this ability, so the extra resolution is
wasted. One reason is the huge size of high-res pictures.

For just-for-fun shots, tho, even a mid-range size digital film is "big
enough". You can get about 130 pics on an 80 Mb media, at medium res of my
camera. about 30 or so at the full 2.1 megapixels uncompressed. If you don't
want to invest in those 500 MB smart media cards, there is now a 6G portable
drive that can be used to move the data from the digital film (I think it
supports several formats), for storage until they can be viewed on a
computer. This saves having to get a notebook fired up in the field to clear
out media in order to shoot more "film".


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Damus

...... There is still something, for me, in having a tangible film that can
be archived and stored for two hundred years - if you go digital you hope
that in two hundred years the technology can read your cd

ATOM RSS1 RSS2