Re: Warning of major NHS IT overspend

[Brian Beesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

On Tuesday 02 November 2004 11:29, Ian G Batten wrote:
> > > Non-specialised photographers will have abandoned film within a few
> > > years, high-volume professional users already have,
> >
> > Survey in "Amateur Photography" dated 6th Nov 2004 shows more than twice
> > as many professionals use film only as use digital only. (Though about
> > half use both).
>
> Note the words ``high-volume''.

>From same survey: 65% of professional images originate on film.

The survey did not cover amateur usage; I'm well aware that sales of digital 
compacts outnumber sales of film compacts - though this is a recent 
phenomenon, sales of film compacts only peaked about 18 months ago; but my 
experience of tourists at the Giants Causeway (very close to my home) 
suggests that 2:1 film:digital is about the right balance. I would guess that 
many users would still not buy a digital compact because of the price 
differential, whilst there is a massive stockpile of serviceable film cameras 
already in the hands of consumers. As for professionals and serious amateurs 
(some of whom I know personally together with anyone else using a tripod) 
I've seen at least 20 medium format cameras for every digital SLR. I also 
note that high street minilabs are still doing more business in film than 
digital.

If you only look in shop windows, especially those of general electronics 
goods retailers, then you will see overwhelmingly digital because those are 
the lines which need fast turnover - the models are replaced every few 
months, and obsoleted models are almost worthless to the retail trade even if 
they're still in a sealed manufacturer's box.

> Does any newspaper still have a
> darkroom?

Pass. Probably many don't, which is why they have to get film scanned (hence 
_originate_ in my previous sentence).
>
> > The situation is rather different in that silver halide technology is so
> > simple that it's perfectly possible to coat your own film. After all,
> > photography existed before Kodak made it "convenient".
>
> Sure.  And I really believe that radiography suites are going to do
> that. 

I don't think they're going to need to. Professional imaging equipment is 
built to last - I know professionals who are still regularly using cameras 
built in the 1950s, because they're still good enough to do the job - and, 
given that similar equipment is still being manufactured today, I'd expect 
film (35mm cassettes and 120 roll film) to be available for at least 30 to 40 
years. There are many more photographers using large format (5"x4" and up) in 
2004 than was the case in 1984, in fact you have to go back to the heyday of 
the 5x4 SpeedGraphic press camera to find more large format users than there 
are nowadays. Many agencies will still not accept anything other than medium 
format or large format transparencies.

Digital backs for medium format cameras (Hasselblad, Mamiya) are starting to 
appear, with resolutions that just about match 35mm but with price tags 
running well into five figures. Sorry guys but I'm simply not going to lug 
around 7 Kg of camera plus a notebook computer (which I would need in order 
to compose and check the image; the tiny LCD is plain useless for serious 
work, even if you don't suffer the eye focussing limitations of middle age) 
to do what I can do with less than 1 Kg of 35mm SLR, especially if I have to 
pay 20 to 50 times as much for the digital imaging hardware as for film based 
equipment with similar performance. The difference in price buys an awful lot 
of rolls of film.

> They're inherently digital anyway, because of CAT and MRI
> scanners (which I presume you decry as useless and wasteful). 

No I don't, they have their place. They are however expensive to buy and 
operate. If they're being used when an ordinary X-ray image would be 
sufficient, that _is_ wasteful. I gather there's also serious concern in some 
quarters about radiation exposure resulting from CAT scans.

> Why would
> they want silver halide X rays, when all the rest of their imaging is
> digital?

Because it may have advantages in some circumstances - superior resolution, 
more latitude, ...

Because it's easier to train a physician to use a light box than to use a 
computer?

For ease of comparison with previous images from the same patient or with 
historical "type cases"?

Brian Beesley