Digital Photography using up electrons

August 25, 2003 (AP) Scientists Say Subatomic Particles Damaged by Use in Digital Photography

Researchers at Eastman Kodak announce discovery of a disturbing phenomenon that may mean the eventual end of digital photography as it is presently known.

Dr. Steven Bowman of the Curtis Advanced Labs division of Kodak tells reporters that the unique handling of electrons made necessary by digital photography actually damages those particles such that they gradually lose their ability to convey color. As this occurs, says Dr. Bowman, storage media casts off the damaged electrons and draws electrons from surrounding materials - including the photographer - to continue functioning.

"The eventual result will be that not only is there a net loss of functional matter in the universe, but what is left will be less colorful, less vibrant," Dr. Bowman warns. "When cameras commonly capture 20 megapixels (a standard of resolution) or more, the damage process seems to increase exponentially, such that digital cameras may observably damage the fabric of the known universe within our lifetimes. First we will notice a loss of color in digital photographs. Then it will seem to spread to print media. Eventually we ourselves will lose the ability to see color. From then on, all color will be drained from personalities, localities, and we will live in a black-and-white-world. The universe may stabilize in a B&W state, although present research is inconclusive."

Dr. Bowman says that there may be one possible benefit of the phenomenon: Early adopters of high-resolution digital photography also tend to drive SUVs and other large and expensive cars. "We predict that, as these photographers carry their cameras and storage media around in their vehicles, they will draw electrons from the, making them potentially ligher and more fuel efficient."

However, Dr. Bowman also observes that the damaged electrons are likely to rise in the atmosphere and become assimiltated by the ozone layer.

"The altered ozone has no ultraviolet shielding properties, which of course is bad. Worse is that it is more stable than normal ozone - once displaced by damaged ozone, normal ozone is unlikely to be created in the upper atmosphere. Altered ozone also has greatly enhanced heat-storage and reflective properties. In other words, if we continue taking digital pictures, we're toast."

Reply to
=\^.^/=
Loading thread data ...

Should have been dated April 1

Reply to
nick hull

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 05:57:35 GMT, "=\\^.^/= < catfish, creeping, creeping......." pixelated:

Holy Shades of Pleasantville, Batman! This is seriouso! I suppose that tinfoil caps will become the norm as the ozone layer is decolorized, eh?

For sale:

Complete 18" Tinfoil Hatmaking System, now only $14,699! Cut, form, roll beads, and make perfect flanges with one bench top tool. Saves money and shop space. Comes with 1/4'', 3/8'', and 1/2'' bead mandrels; 1/16'', 1/8'', and 1/4'' flange mandrels; and one

18-1/4'' shearing mandrel. Large 18" capacity ensures that you will be able to fit even the most arrogant city officials with a form-fitting cap.

Free shipping with orders of 2 or more systems! Buy NOW!

- - Let Exxon send their own troops -

-------------------------------------------------------

formatting link
Comprehensive Website Programming

Reply to
Larry Jaques

Just what I was thinking....Pleasantville...only in reverse. Hey, here's an idea...we'll all go back to film. Then we'll ship all the digital cameras to Iraq. Need I say more? BigJoe

Reply to
BigJoe

According to the government, everything over there is already pretty black and white.

Paul K. Dickman

Reply to
Paul K. Dickman

Why do I get the feeling that this problem isn't being taken seriously?? It won't be so funny when all the Miss Machine Tool calendars are in black and white!

Just a little levity to punctuate the discussion. Hope noboby minds...

Reply to
=\^.^/=

Reply to
JR North

...although Kodak's top-of-the-line digital SLR is one of the best and most popular pro models on the market.

Reply to
=\^.^/=

But it isn't nearly the moneymaker that selling film was, and Kodak doesn't dominate the camera market the way it dominated the film market. Kodak's photographic business was built on the Gillette model. Cameras are a one time purchase, film is a continuing one. They made their money on the film.

Kodak was very good at making film. Even if they're also very good at making digital cameras, they aren't going to be able to dominate that market the same way, or make the same sort of money they made selling film, chemicals, paper, and franchised processing.

Look at how quickly the magnetic tape business is drying up. In a few more years, it'll mostly be gone, and along with it the companies whose expertise was in making it. Ampex is basically gone, 3M and Maxell's tape businesses are hanging on by a thread. The same thing is happening with the photographic film business.

Gary

Reply to
Gary Coffman

Considering that Sony was already marketing professional CCD video cameras by then, Kodak was making a survival move by jumping on the CCD camera bandwagon. It was obvious even then that photography was going to go digital, and given Moore's Law, it was going to get as good as film in a hurry.

But Kodak is never going to dominate digital photography the way it did film photography. There are too many players, and too many of them have greater experience than Kodak in producing and marketing digital electronics.

Gary

Reply to
Gary Coffman

Does Kodak produce their own consumer-level CCD (or CMOS) cameras? AFAIUI, my older one was designed and manufactured for Kodak by a Japanese company (Chinon).

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

They certainly manufacture their own CCDs. See here:

formatting link
That makes them a semiconductor fab house, with all the market risks that implies.

Gary

Reply to
Gary Coffman

They've long been at the forefront of ultra-high-resolution (and very expensive) sensors for professional digital cameras as well as scientific and military applications. I don't know how their market share is at the consumer end.

Their KAF-22000CE has over 22 million pixels!

formatting link
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

Granted that the film business is not going to return, and Kodak won't dominate the digital consumer photo market as they have. But they've made a lot of money over the years and ploughed some of it into what became a lifesaving move to develop cutting digital technology development capabilities, which will have very profitable military and scientific applications. I wouldn't buy their stock, but they clearly learned from their mistakes re: Fuji and they certainly will survive.

Reply to
=\^.^/=

[ ... ]

I've got a camera which was produced by Kodak modifying a Nikon N90s film camera body to accept a digital focal plane. It was made for the AP (Associated Press), with the model number NC2000e-c, and was an early megapixel camera which could use the lenses and accessories for the Nikon camera line, thus preserving a major investment in optical glass.

They've also produced similar conversions based on the Cannon line of cameras.

Now -- both manufacturers are making their own digital cameras with much higher resolution -- but Kodak is not sitting still, either. They also make digital backs for the Hasselblad series of cameras with even more pixels.

Enjoy, DoN.

Reply to
DoN. Nichols

Last time I got a passport photo. But it's almost all digital now, including Costco ID cards, Drivers licen[cs]es etc.

They re-aimed a lot of stuff for scientific, medical and industrial uses, which bought them some time, but they've still been having problems. Their unique SX-70 sonar ranging innovation spawned an ultrasonic transducer division.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

Don't question how the masters of marketing determine the number of pixels. ;-)

Note that the "full spec" devices can have quite a few bad pixels too,

4,000 or so, IIRC.

I'd like to find one with low (maybe 250 x 250 resolution) that could do 25,000 frames/second. That would almost catch up with what we could do in 1969 using star tracker tubes.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

What was that, some sort of vidicon type tube? Yea that would be great, high speed digital photography. It'd be cheap (probably) if there was a chip that went that fast.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get. So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

Reply to
John Flanagan

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.