From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Photo-CD - THE future
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:50:26 GMT

In article <257@metran.UUCP>, jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
> : > rcoadh@kultarr.co.rmit.oz.AU (Alexander Doktorovich) writes:
> : 
> : >: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
> : >: >Next question: "What is the resolution of the highest resolution image?"
> : >: >Answer: "3072 X 2048", 24 bit color.  Yeehaaa!!!!!
> : > 
> : jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
> : > 3072 x 2048 is *great* for a computer, but compared even to the lowly
> : > 35mm format, it amounts to only 85.33 pixels/mm in the 24mm x 36mm frame.
> : > Since a "line" is 2 pixels wide (including the space between) this is only
> : > 42.67 lines/mm.
> : 
And if it is a pure primary or secondary colour, you drop back to 8 bits of
colour. IE, a pure red has only 2^8, 256 steps from 'bright red' to dark red.

> : [ ...and Jay goes on to show that this is really poor resolution compared ]
> : [ to just about any 35mm film out there.  Not to mention medium format... ]
> : 
> : All right, I won't argue with that.  But I'd argue that it's not the intent
> : of Photo CD to compete with medium format, or even with high-quality 35mm.
> 
Photo CD is to replace the printer in your favorite 1 hr lab. I will be so bold
as to predict that in 5 years we will be seeing people posting "... where in
Fooville can I get REAL prints made from my negs? The lab can only do digital
prints...". Give or take a recession.

> I see it not as a matter of competition.  My concern is that I hate to
> see the storage technology become a limitation on quality.
> 
> : Realistically, what's an acceptable resolution?
> :
> : [some examples deleted]
> :
> :   - Even a magazine photo (for, say, Time or Newsweek) could, I think, cope
> :     with Photo CD's resolutions, due to the limitations of the reproduction
> :     process.
> 
> This is what gets me; not just Time and Newsweek, but many other professional
> consumers of photography (including advertisers, book publishers, ...) are
> now turning to photo stock agencies for their images.  And the stock agencies
> are enthusiastic about Photo CD as a medium of distribution (although right
> now, it's just for comp use).  I am very much looking forward to marketing
> my photographs through a stock agency.  What if my agency decides to switch
> exclusively to Photo CD?  That means my photos taken with my (unfortunately
> still hypothetical :-( ) Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 micro on Technical Pan film that
> would have a resolution of over 100 lines/mm would be cut down to about
> 40 lines/mm, and the client would be limited in their ability to enlarge
> and crop to suit their needs.  Even Time and Newsweek could benefit from
> the ability to enlarge a part of a 35mm frame by 25x to catch the facial
> features of the terrorist, or whatever.
> 
> For the moment, I'm hoping that the stock agencies, et. al., are going to
> have the sense to stay away from Photo CD until the technology matures.
> 
> As for "what is acceptable resolution", *my* answer to that is that it
> should not limit the rest of the system (for *anyone*).  I realize that
> I am asking for a lot, but does this fundamentally not make sense?
> 
> : And of course those last items are getting to the big benefit of Photo CD:
> : you can manipulate them on the computer, and do the entire layout online.
> 
> That's great -- like I said, Photo CD has some real potential -- but I still
> want high resolution!
> 
> : And the point-and-shoot user could build a slide show for his TV from his
> : Photo CD pictures...
> 
> I kind of hate to pick on this line, but I do want to mention that for the
> moment, it is in agreement with my view of the current Photo CD standard --
> an amateur medium.
> 

That is where it is currently aimed. Note that Kodak also has the 'Premier'
system based on a Sun for pro applications. I was talking to the pro who
does lots of catalogue work. This can entail turning out 100-200 floated
shots in a week or so. He is looking at useing a Rollie 600x and digital back,
and a 2 Mb ISDN line to send the 'prints' straight to the type setting system
in Sydney. Despite the long ( 8 min or so ) 'exposure' time at full resolution,
20 min after he presses the button the ressults are edited, moved across a
contenent, colour separated, layed out, and going to the plate maker. 40 min
after he take the shot the presses can roll. This is the equivalent of NY - LA
in the US. This is just the begining of what is possible.

The media limits are 'now' limits. 8mm can store 5-10GB today, but is not as
'user proof' as CD. CD is looking at a 4 fold increase in capacity when the
new blue laser diodes crawl out of the lab and liquid N2. Or if all else fails,
there is always film... ;-) Great way to do sep negs for archiving!!

~Paul