Re: Warning of major NHS IT overspend

[Ian G Batten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004, Brian Beesley wrote:
> > > 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.

Which is perfectly consistent with my point.

> 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) 

Whatever.  My kids' school is hardly the stuff of techno exotica, in
that the main local employers are making chocolate and cars and its
catchment area includes one of the most deprived areas in Britain, and
the use of digital cameras is universal.  Perhaps tourists at Giants
Causeway are ``use a camera once a year'' people, but given the
propensity of parents to photograph their children I suggest things cost
in faster.  The lower running costs of digital, because the pictures
never get further than the screen of the computer, appears to be the win
for people I've asked.

> many users would still not buy a digital compact because of the price 
> differential

There's for practical purposes no market for compact film cameras
today.

> whilst there is a massive stockpile of serviceable film cameras 
> already in the hands of consumers.

These arguments, word for word, were deployed to `explain' why vinyl had
a long and happy future.

> 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 

Sure.  And 6x6 cameras are, what, 1% of cameras in circulation?

> note that high street minilabs are still doing more business in film than 
> digital.

Note that high street minilabs won't see a roll of 120 or 220 film from
one month to the next.  And anyway, that argument's entirely bogus: the
whole point about digital is to _not_ go to the minilab.  Most people
are perfectly happy with the output from a 100 quid inkjet printer.

> > 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, 

Plenty of Linn Sondeks and Thorens TD160S turntables are still perfectly
servicable, and hence the shops are full of new releases on vinyl.

> 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 

Really?  Kodachrome 25 is already dead, I believe.  As you point out,
Technical Pan is dead (I used to use it with low-contrast developer, as
a marvellous continuous-tone film).  That's the specialise market
sorted.

> 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.

Similar arguments were advanced as to why digital audio would never
replace peoples' beloved Nagras.  They now look laughable.

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

If a physician can't use a computer, they're going to have deeper
problems than not being able to look at an X-Ray.