Why did we go digital?

[scotteisenphotography]

Well I'm working on a project and I can't seem to be able to find the answer to this. Why did cameras end up going digital? Was there a good reason? Do you have sources to back this up? (links?)

[hard12find]

instant gratification, no processing cost, no film cost, easily post processed.
just my personal experience.
Jim

[Pete]

* Convenience
* Cost (both in buying and developing film)
* Technological Progress
* We also have ultimate choice in saying how we want our photos developed, cropped and printed (something you never got from handing your film over the counter and picking up your prints a couple of days later)

[Trick Fotoez]

so that everyone who already had a camera had to buy a new one duh...its all about them greenbacks

[DC Fan]

Digital imaging as we know it was pushed by deadline guys, newspapers who wanted to avoid the delays of film processing. In 1994, The Associated Press and Kodak collaborated on the first useful conversion of a Nikon 35mm SLR. That camera wasn't as capable as today's US $200 point and shoot cameras, but it showed the advantage of being able to take an image straight from the camera and send it to a newspaper's photo desk.

Less than ten years after that camera was introduced, most daily newspapers stopped using film and junked their processing chains. They gave their photographers Nikon 2D and Canon 1D series cameras, along with MacBooks equipped with wireless upload links and loaded with processing and captioning software.

For consumers, around the same time, the photo industry was trying to impose the Advanced Photo System on customers. It was a collection of cameras that used film that was smaller than the established 35mm format. APS was a failure, put more rapidly in its grave by the quickly improving consumer-grade digital cameras that were first marketed around 1995.

What Andy Grove of Intel calls a "strategic inflection point" with consumer digital cameras came around 1998 with the release of two cameras, the Nikon Coolpix 900 and the Sony Mavica FD-71. The Nikon was the first popular camera to show that digital images could look good, and the Sony's floppy drive storage demonstrated that digital imaging could be more convenient to use than 35mm film. Those cameras convinced large numbers of people that digicams were more than gimmicks.

The image quality gap to 35mm film was rapidly closed over the next few years with cameras such as the breakthrough Nikon D1. The definitive nail in film's coffin was the release of the Canon D30, the first high-quality DSLR that was available at what was, in 2000, the exceptionally affordable price of $3,000.

The rise of personal computers with high-resolution, full color displays also has been a major factor. When floppy-drive Mavicas were popular, a typical home computer display was a CRT of 640x480 pixels and 256 colors. Now, a minimum display is a LCD of 1024x768 at 24-bit color depth.

Given the choice between paying for film processing and having a 4"x6" print, or having a digital image on a larger personal computer screen, people have chosen digital imaging. It's a trend that won't be reversed; salesmen at one camera store have said that not only has digital imaging drastically reduced their film business, they've seen their once-healthy medium-format film business decline to a minor niche.

[timmyeatchips]

I believe that the use of digital image sensors was something that began with the astronomers, because a cooled CCD allows much more sensitive light detection than film (so the technology was developed to solve an existing problem in a seperate application - but once it had matured then porting it to a camera would have been a logical step, rather than inventing a whole system from scratch)

I imagine it would have found more 'camera' like use in scientific equipment, before the technology became cheap enough to put in cameras for wiring new pics.

The massive public uptake of cheap digital cameras once the technology further matured was probably to do with convenience - I know I got my first digicam just because I wanted to be able to take quick snaps of everyday things that I wouldn't necessarily want to pay printing costs to be able to see and keep. As my interest and skills grew, the easy control over postprocessing was a major plus.

[scotteisenphotography]

Thanks guys!

[gjl711]

Heck, just got to Google and type in "digital camera history" and you get more links than you know what to do with. Wiki has a great write up going decades before Kodak jumped into the game.

[darosk]

Cuz film smells funny?

[gjl711]

Cuz film smells funny?I like the smell of film and film chemicals. I probably have brain damage... damage...damage... damage... from stuffy darkrooms but that was one of the risks

[scotteisenphotography]

Heck, just got to Google and type in "digital camera history" and you get more links than you know what to do with. Wiki has a great write up going decades before Kodak jumped into the game.

I know I get history of certain camera series but not "why" we switched over really

[sjones]

The above explanations sound good, but I would also add that digitization had already occurred with music, and with personal home computers becoming markedly popular by the mid-1990s (bolstered by the Internet), the shift to digital cameras was arguably inevitable.

That said, I went the other way…

[DocFrankenstein]

Well I'm working on a project and I can't seem to be able to find the answer to this. Why did cameras end up going digital? Was there a good reason? Do you have sources to back this up? (links?)
I'd go with: "There was a huge supply of film cameras which work fine and don't become obsolete. Digital created the demand to change your bodies every second year"

The ease of use is an appeal for the masses... followed by pack mentality.

I'm shooting film.

[gjl711]

I know I get history of certain camera series but not "why" we switched over really I think that's going to be an unaswerable question as there isn't one reason. Why switch from sail ships to steam ships, from horses to cars, from Coke to Pepsi. Everyone has their own set of reasons.

Maybe the way to attack this issue is to state that there is not one reason and start offering testimonials from photographers as to why they switched.

[Tixeon]

Because it was the next logical step in the evolution of photography.

[nuffi]

DC Fan has covered off pretty much all the reasons why ppl have turned to digital very well.

Film still gives better end product images, but at 4"x6" there isn't any practical difference.

Personally, I am planning to shoot digital for the first few months after I get my new rig, but will return to film once I am confident of y results.

[René Damkot]

Started off for astronomy and space exploration, taken over by press agencies.

Have a look here: Mikkel Aaland (http://www.asmp.org/culture/mentor_aaland.php)

[Bosscat]

I heard it was because Al Gore invented the internet, and without digital imaging,
photography forums and facebook wouldn't be what they are today, so thats why there was the switch to digital.

Or maybe it was so computer geeks had something new to measurebate??

[gjl711]

I heard it was because Al Gore invented the internet, ..Didn't you know? He also invented digital photography.

[DStanic]

I think it was due to video cameras (and camcorders). Hey why not use a SENSOR to record the light instead of expensive film?

[Wilt]

Film cameras sold film and processing chemicals and paper.
Digital cameras sold more digital cameras as technology advanced.

Canon and Nikon and the digital P&S makers all revelled in the sales.
Kodak, Fuji, and Agfa and Polaroid all dreaded it.

[chris78cpr]

Progression.... Why did we Mr Ford put an engine in a lump of metal when the horse was good enough?

Because digital is available it doesn't mean you have to use it and film is still widely available, just like people can still ride horses instead of cars.

It's about offering choice and options to the consumers.

[20droger]

Progression.... Why did we Mr Ford put an engine in a lump of metal when the horse was good enough?

Because digital is available it doesn't mean you have to use it and film is still widely available, just like people can still ride horses instead of cars.

It's about offering choice and options to the consumers.
Yeah, but they're a real pain on the freeway!

And, being slower, they're reserved for use by UPS when delivering new "L" lenses!

[Wilt]

Yeah, but they're a real pain on the freeway!

And, being slower, they're reserved for use by UPS when delivering new "L" lenses!

But they leave the roadside plants and grass greener, unlike smog!

[20droger]

Ah, yes! Horse exhaust, a.k.a. road apples! Being in a very rural area, we see them all the time.

They always remind me that two can live as cheaply as one, but only if one is a horse and the other is a sparrow.

[Wilt]

Ah, yes! Horse exhaust, a.k.a. road apples! Being in a very rural area, we see them all the time.

They always remind me that two can live as cheaply as one, but only if one is a horse and the other is a sparrow.


Horse and dung beetle! :D

[JWright]

Digital imaging as we know it was pushed by deadline guys, newspapers who wanted to avoid the delays of film processing. In 1994, The Associated Press and Kodak collaborated on the first useful conversion of a Nikon 35mm SLR. That camera wasn't as capable as today's US $200 point and shoot cameras, but it showed the advantage of being able to take an image straight from the camera and send it to a newspaper's photo desk.

Less than ten years after that camera was introduced, most daily newspapers stopped using film and junked their processing chains. They gave their photographers Nikon 2D and Canon 1D series cameras, along with MacBooks equipped with wireless upload links and loaded with processing and captioning software.

Back about 15 years ago I had occasion to take a tour of the San Diego Union newspaper's publishing facilities with a photography class I was attending at the time. During the time we were in the photo lab, we watched one of the photographers coreturn from assignment and put his 35mm film into a processing machine. When it was finished, he sat down with the film and a loupe to select images to print and then send to the picture editor for possible publication.

Just two months ago I watched the same photographer finish shooting the Miramar Air Show, go back to his car and select, process and upload to the editor photos to be published, all from the parking lot...

[DigitalSpecialist]

Logical step? Digital was and is very much like Polaroid, but with more control over the final product. I think once people got into computing, and scanning their prints it was just easier to people to have digital camera to make things faster and easier.

But I can't call Digital Cameras a logical step!

[chris78cpr]

Yeah, but they're a real pain on the freeway!

And, being slower, they're reserved for use by UPS when delivering new "L" lenses!

They are a real pain on the freeway! Hitting one would totally ruin my car! ;)

[tonylong]

The last time I sent negatives to a lab for 8x10 enlargements, I wasn't happy with the results (inconsistent with prior prints) and had to send them back. This was back in the early '90's, before current digicams were out, but I was working at a place (Hewlett-Packard) that was pioneering digital imaging and printing, got a desktop scanner, and began digitally processing my film images.

From then, once digital cameras became capable of decent resolutions, it became to me a no-brainer (I waited until they hit a hefty 4 MPs). By then, even P&S cameras were capable of producing nice-size prints and with photo-capable printers my workflow was completely in my hands. No more film!

[timmyeatchips]

Seems like you've had a fair bit of free googling from us =) Hope we get to see this project when it's finished?

[Naturalist]

Cameras went digital due to the abundance of relatively inexpensive home PCs.

Typically, each significant invention has to have a co-invention to capitalize from and reach its success. Cars would not be of such abundance were it not for the abundance of oil. Personal computers would not have been received as more than toys had it not been for the spreadsheet and digital cameras would not be of such prevelant abundance and low cost were it not for the affordable home personal computer.

[sapearl]

Excellent question and observation ;). I was a late comer to the party, migrating to digital only in early '06. I'd shot MF film since 1974 and in recent years was loathe to stop using my beautiful Hasselblads. So why did I switch?

1. I was having difficulty competing against digital folks in the wedding and event world; couldn't easily/cheaply/quickly offer the array of digital services they could.

2. Film was not really expensive per frame, but to compete in the wedding world with my digital bretheren I had to shoot a lot more of it.

3. The labs still process film, but many were no longer optically printing the negs with conventional enlargers. They were scanning each frame. This added a scanning charge and more $$$ per frame.

4. I had to ship the film to the lab and wait for the proofs to come back. This slowed up my processing time.

5. My workflow was getting clunky and slow - waiting for the disks to come back before I could do any further PP work.

6. Finally I couldn't resist the attraction of dSLR's: AF, zooms, larger lens selection, ability to shoot much more at "no cost" (other than processing time), instant exposure verification, etc.

These are some of the things that immediately come to mind. It was not an easy decision. But it was an obvious decision; change or die.

.....Maybe the way to attack this issue is to state that there is not one reason and start offering testimonials from photographers as to why they switched.

[20droger]

Excellent question and observation ;). I was a late comer to the party, migrating to digital only in early '06. I'd shot MF film since 1974 and in recent years was loathe to stop using my beautiful Hasselblads. So why did I switch?
And now you can go back to your beautiful Hasselblads with the new digital backs. Hope you kept them and all their glass.

[sapearl]

They are packed away nicely and safely for the time being..... a digital back would go very nicely on that film body, but I just can't see shelling out what, around $10K at this point? You can get a lot of really nice Canon gear with AF, etc. for that kind of money.

And now you can go back to your beautiful Hasselblads with the new digital backs. Hope you kept them and all their glass.

[rgs]

1. I have never liked the image quality of 35mm and spent many years with my Pentax 67 and my custom made 4x5 to get better IQ. Now, with my 30D, I have 35mm handling without 35mm IQ. It's much closer to the 67.

2. Try explaining to a customer why your still using 35mm film and not sounding stupid or being dishonest at the same time. Of course 120 is a different matter.

3. It's nice not being limited by the cost of film.

4. Immediate editing.

But I do love the smell of film. I don't necessarily like the smell of stop bath, but it does have a certain homey familiarity.

[yogestee]

Technology
Convenience
Speed
Cost

In the last year or so before we went 100% digital at the newspaper I worked for we were spending 25,000AUD per month on film and processing between 12 photographers.. Do the maths..

[tonylong]

Hey, Jurgen, doing one math is hard enough for me, and now you want me to do multiple maths? Aaack! The InterWebs are messing with the voices in my head!

:)

[sapearl]

Isn't that how we keep ourselves company :lol:?

.... Aaack! The InterWebs are messing with the voices in my head!

:)

[Tim S]

so that everyone who already had a camera had to buy a new one duh...its all about them greenbacks

Same reason we went from reel to reel to eight track tape to cassette tape to CD to fill in the blank new technology. In a word...improvement.

[sam walker]

I was never that much of a hard core film shooter. By the time I really wanted to learn digital had arrived. I was going to do it self taught. Between my 4 digicams I must have 100,000 shutter activations a lot of it classroom type stuff. The cost of film would have made it impossible. My local lab won't even deal with film shooters anymore. too much expense to mix chemicals and keep them ready for the odd roll of Kodacolor that comes in. A retired pro I know can't get 2 1/4 film for his Blad. My guess is any student in an art school is learning on digital and only sees film cameras in a museum.
Sam

[DrPablo]

DSLRs were invented because film SLR shooters were envious of people with compact digicams.

Ironically, digital and film photography are unlike any other "modern" payment system in the digital age. These days everything involves cheap equipment but costly monthly fees -- like cable, cell phone, internet, etc. But for digital photography it's a one time layout. On the other hand, film photography was cheaper equipment but chronic fees for film and processing. I wonder what that all means... :-?

[yogestee]

Hey, Jurgen, doing one math is hard enough for me, and now you want me to do multiple maths? Aaack! The InterWebs are messing with the voices in my head!

:)

Tony,, I'm always having discussions with the voices in my head.. The problem is I can't win an argument :o

[Wilt]

DSLRs were invented because film SLR shooters were envious of people with compact digicams.

Ironically, digital and film photography are unlike any other "modern" payment system in the digital age. These days everything involves cheap equipment but costly monthly fees -- like cable, cell phone, internet, etc. But for digital photography it's a one time layout. On the other hand, film photography was cheaper equipment but chronic fees for film and processing. I wonder what that all means... :-?


From a consumer perspective, it sucks to have to pay 'up front' for all of your costs projected into the future. I know that a lot of people simply do NOT machine gun their way thru the use of a camera and put 25k-40k exposures thru a body in a lifetime (let alone in one year, like some on POTN have proclaimed). But due to chronic expectations of the buying public, a camera like a 40D has LOST half of its value on the market within a year! That is horrible, and the fickle public has itself to blame for the accelerated depreciation of dSLRs. For the working pro, it is wonderful; for the family event snapshooter it sucks; for the enthusiast it might be somewhere in between.

From the manufacturer perspective, it is great to have that horrible market life, and to capture the profit up front. But on the other hand, there is tons of profit to be made in razor blades and in inkjet printer ink. I guess Canon wins at both ends, with the high initial purchase of the camera and then with the perpetual sales of photo printer ink!

[mrgooch]

We didn't just go to digital it was an evolution beginning with the invention of it.http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09102602stevesassonrochester.asp

I have been using cameras since 1953 and had my first 35mm in 1956.I have seen the changes all along the way until now.When digital cameras first appeared they were expensive and very small 1mp.The screens if there were any were small.It was the computer that really moved it along quickly.As more and more people began owning computers the camera became more usable.

[RDKirk]

Typically, each significant invention has to have a co-invention to capitalize from and reach its success. Cars would not be of such abundance were it not for the abundance of oil. Personal computers would not have been received as more than toys had it not been for the spreadsheet and digital cameras would not be of such prevelant abundance and low cost were it not for the affordable home personal computer.

This is true, along with the concept of the "killer application." For the personal computer, the original "killer app" was the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet provided a tool to make more money that did not previously exist (unlike the word processor--we had "typing pools," so the word processor itself didn't improve the ability of a company to make money).

For automobiles, the "killer application" was the back seat: A young man had a private and relatively comfortable place to spend time with a young woman away from her parents' prying eyes.

The reason Kodak got involved very early and very strong in digital photography was because Kodak had long been deeply embedded in the US national reconnaissance effort. Following the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, the federal government was determined to do away with having to de-orbit and process film--and that happened with astonishing speed (it's amazing how quickly you can solve a technical problem when you have a black budget to throw at it). Unfortunately for Kodak, their work for the government in the 70s could not be patented--that which they could patent was the tip of a massive hidden iceberg of what they were actually doing.

Digital cameras had their "killer apps" at different times for different segments of the market, and that closely aligned with the digitalization of other areas of each of those segments. Newspapers were already digitizing their data by the time digital cameras became available--going digital with images was merely a matter of getting the last "holdout" on board the already-digital ship. Indeed, newspapers had long been sending images by wire, so this was not a revolutionary concept for them, it was a vast simplification of a process they already practiced.

As personal computers became common, then inexpensive, then ubiquitous (in the form of cell phones) the same thing occurred. The digitizing of photography is not leading the revolution, it's trailing it.

[johnaengus]

Creative control. I was frequently disappointed in lab processing. With a lab you depends on someone else's vision of what things looked like. Now its all up to me. I can envision a scene and see it to the end.

[20droger]

This is true, along with the concept of the "killer application." For the personal computer, the original "killer app" was the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet provided a tool to make more money that did not previously exist (unlike the word processor--we had "typing pools," so the word processor itself didn't improve the ability of a company to make money).
True, it was Lotus 123 on the brand new IBM PC that induced more small and medium businesses to enter the computer age than any other single program. Of course, Lotus 123 was itself a rip-off of VisiCalc, an early CP/M based spreadsheet program well know to us old techno-geeks.

And word processors were too highly influential in their own right, especially WordStar, and then Word Perfect. Small and medium business did not have typing pools, and the ability to correct errors and then print flawless letters and other documents was very important, especially with daisy-wheel printers, which produced documents indistinguishable from hand-typed documents. To many businesses, especially those providing professional services, image is everything.

For automobiles, the "killer application" was the back seat: A young man had a private and relatively comfortable place to spend time with a young woman away from her parents' prying eyes.
Not true. Backseats, and sex therein, far predated the automobile. And in the early days of automobiles, the type most popular with young drivers was the coupé, which had no back seat.

The reason Kodak got involved very early and very strong in digital photography was because Kodak had long been deeply embedded in the US national reconnaissance effort. Following the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, the federal government was determined to do away with having to de-orbit and process film--and that happened with astonishing speed (it's amazing how quickly you can solve a technical problem when you have a black budget to throw at it). Unfortunately for Kodak, their work for the government in the 70s could not be patented--that which they could patent was the tip of a massive hidden iceberg of what they were actually doing.
Not true, and bordering on "conspiracy theory" logic. Kodak was not, ever, at the forefront of the digital image "revolution." Witness that early Kodak professional digital cameras were modified Canons and Nikons.

Digital cameras had their "killer apps" at different times for different segments of the market, and that closely aligned with the digitalization of other areas of each of those segments. Newspapers were already digitizing their data by the time digital cameras became available--going digital with images was merely a matter of getting the last "holdout" on board the already-digital ship. Indeed, newspapers had long been sending images by wire, so this was not a revolutionary concept for them, it was a vast simplification of a process they already practiced.
Not true. Early facsimile processes, by which news agencies sent photos to various place, were analog, not digital. Many newspapers fought going digital tooth and nail, as it required replacing existing presses and other machinery. The digital revolution cost newspapers billions world wide, at a time when those that were future thinking could already see the handwriting on the wall.

As personal computers became common, then inexpensive, then ubiquitous (in the form of cell phones) the same thing occurred. The digitizing of photography is not leading the revolution, it's trailing it.

[scotteisenphotography]

Well this is an old thread...

[Radders]

For me, its easier and quicker.

[Bobster]

instant pictures
no more chemicals to process film
ability to judge a photo without waiting for them to come back from developing
no more sending film/prints to a bureau to have high res scans made

in his first year of going digital Lord Lichfield saved £75000 on film and processing costs

[JEC]

Because it was the next logical step in the evolution of photography.

That.

[yogestee]

That.

Exactly right JEC!!

[yogestee]

The reason Kodak got involved very early and very strong in digital photography was because Kodak had long been deeply embedded in the US national reconnaissance effort. Following the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, the federal government was determined to do away with having to de-orbit and process film--and that happened with astonishing speed (it's amazing how quickly you can solve a technical problem when you have a black budget to throw at it). Unfortunately for Kodak, their work for the government in the 70s could not be patented--that which they could patent was the tip of a massive hidden iceberg of what they were actually doing.


I've never heard of this before,,very interesting.. I'd love to follow this idea up.. Can you point me to some resourses??

BTW,, I love this cloak and dagger type stuff!!

[birdfromboat]

I don't know if this was ever a driving factor as engineers worked on creating digital technology, but the loss of human life due to dangerous processing chemicals has to be considered. In college I worked in a large commercial lab, all the old timers had dead friends or sick friends or stories of people that had acquired sensitivity to the chemicals and had to find other work.
I spent my time on the Kodak 4C paper process, not as bad as some of the film processes, and my darkroom was so well ventilated I could smell people burning leaves outside when the smoke wafted near my fresh air intake. I could even tell what kind of leaves they were burning, and could take my breaks at opportune times if the leaves were of high quality- it was the eighties afterall. but I digress...........

[steely]

so that everyone who already had a camera had to buy a new one duh...its all about them greenbacks
you are so so right, then we had upgrade more often

[RDKirk]

I've never heard of this before,,very interesting.. I'd love to follow this idea up.. Can you point me to some resourses??

BTW,, I love this cloak and dagger type stuff!!

John Pike of FAS.org is the person you want to talk to. But if you go to the space reconnaissance display at the Smithsonian Air and Space museum and pay very close attention to the video, you'll learn a lot about it.

[DocFrankenstein]

This is true, along with the concept of the "killer application." For the personal computer, the original "killer app" was the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet provided a tool to make more money that did not previously exist (unlike the word processor--we had "typing pools," so the word processor itself didn't improve the ability of a company to make money).

For automobiles, the "killer application" was the back seat: A young man had a private and relatively comfortable place to spend time with a young woman away from her parents' prying eyes.

The reason Kodak got involved very early and very strong in digital photography was because Kodak had long been deeply embedded in the US national reconnaissance effort. Following the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, the federal government was determined to do away with having to de-orbit and process film--and that happened with astonishing speed (it's amazing how quickly you can solve a technical problem when you have a black budget to throw at it). Unfortunately for Kodak, their work for the government in the 70s could not be patented--that which they could patent was the tip of a massive hidden iceberg of what they were actually doing.

Digital cameras had their "killer apps" at different times for different segments of the market, and that closely aligned with the digitalization of other areas of each of those segments. Newspapers were already digitizing their data by the time digital cameras became available--going digital with images was merely a matter of getting the last "holdout" on board the already-digital ship. Indeed, newspapers had long been sending images by wire, so this was not a revolutionary concept for them, it was a vast simplification of a process they already practiced.

As personal computers became common, then inexpensive, then ubiquitous (in the form of cell phones) the same thing occurred. The digitizing of photography is not leading the revolution, it's trailing it.
You're saying that killer apps are the ones that drive the markets. That's hardly the case.

Anything "personal" is driven by marketing and forced architecture.

All of the primary research on the other hands happens during wartime for more efficient genocide.

It's the world war two that gave us the jet engine, aviation and nasa program.

The need for atomic bomb gave us nuclear power and computers.

All of the consumer technology of today is just a trickle down from the industrial military complex.

[RDKirk]

You're saying that killer apps are the ones that drive the markets.
No.

Anything "personal" is driven by marketing and forced architecture.

Sometimes. Video telephones were available 40 years ago.

All of the primary research on the other hands happens during wartime for more efficient genocide.

You mean like cell phones? The military still doesn't use them much. The military was 'way behind the power curve with personal computers. Same with pocket calculators, for that matter. The military was happy with "big iron."

It's the world war two that gave us the jet engine, aviation and nasa program.

Also, M&M candy, the Internet, and freeze-dried fruit. But not tampons, Oreos, or the Wankel engine.

The need for atomic bomb gave us nuclear power and computers.

We developed the atomic bomb without a computer. We had a lot of things that needed high-end computing, and while the government was a customer, the government was certainly not the only customer.

All of the consumer technology of today is just a trickle down from the industrial military complex.

I think we can point to no more than half of the consumer technology of today being a trickledown from the military industrial complex. Too much of it "wasn't invented here" (the US). Just because the government is often customer doesn't mean that the government drives all progress. Just as often, the government is on the tail end of recognizing the usefulness of any particular line of research and development.

[yogestee]

All of the primary research on the other hands happens during wartime for more efficient genocide.

It's the world war two that gave us the jet engine, aviation and nasa program

I believe this.. I don't know the exact statistic but I think 95% of the technology we are using today was been invented since 1939..

Yes,, when there is a major war,, technology climbs.. Extremely sad that this technology is designed to kill fellow human beings..

[yogestee]

Too much of it "wasn't invented here" (the US)

Being a proud Aussie, Australia i(and Australians) is one of the most innovative countries on this planet..

Just for interest sake just check out innovations and inventions that came out of Australia..

Here are a couple

The black box flight recorder.
Refridgeration.
The secret ballot.
Freestyle swimming.
The pickup car/truck.
The bionic ear.
The electronic pacemaker..

Check it out here http://www.whitehat.com.au/Australia/Inventions/InventionsA.html

[breal101]

[QUOTE=20droger;9063084]


Not true, and bordering on "conspiracy theory" logic. Kodak was not, ever, at the forefront of the digital image "revolution." Witness that early Kodak professional digital cameras were modified Canons and Nikons.


Actually all the Kodak DCS series professional cameras were based on Nikon and Canon bodies. The sensor and electronics were all Kodak design. They invented the first megapixel CCD sensor in 1987 and incorporated it into the first professional DCS camera in 1991. It was a Nikon F-3 body with Kodak sensor and electronics. Kodak invented the Photo CD in 1990. They also pioneered digital printers starting around 1980 with the MC digital printers for C prints. They developed the matrices for "reading" the negative and controlling the printer filter paddles electronically rather than the old analog controls used for decades prior to the MC digital printers. I don't know what you might call the forefront :rolleyes: but they contributed quite a bit to the digital revolution.

[nicksan]

So we can listen to old farts complain about how photography has lost its soul... :lol: ;)

[DocFrankenstein]

No.
Great argument there.

You mean like cell phones? The military still doesn't use them much. The military was 'way behind the power curve with personal computers. Same with pocket calculators, for that matter. The military was happy with "big iron."
Cell phones are not primary research. To have a cellphone you need phased antennas - ICBM research, miniaturization... etc.

Also, M&M candy, the Internet, and freeze-dried fruit. But not tampons, Oreos, or the Wankel engine.
You're giving me tampons and oreos are primary research? :lol:

Basic research or fundamental research (sometimes pure research) is research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research) carried out to increase understanding of fundamental principles. Many times the end results have no direct or immediate commercial benefits: basic research can be thought of as arising out of curiosity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity). However, in the long term it is the basis for many commercial products and applied research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_research). Basic research is mainly carried out by universities.

We developed the atomic bomb without a computer. We had a lot of things that needed high-end computing, and while the government was a customer, the government was certainly not the only customer.

Only the fat man and a couple of the later ones were developed without the computer. After that there was lots more progress which was only possible because of computers. The need for guided missiles, radars and computation power for military projects is what developed computers. Later they were miniaturized and put into homes, but that's just a product spinoff - you repackage the same machine you use for military and sell it to consumer once it fits on a table.

I think we can point to no more than half of the consumer technology of today being a trickledown from the military industrial complex. Too much of it "wasn't invented here" (the US). Just because the government is often customer doesn't mean that the government drives all progress. Just as often, the government is on the tail end of recognizing the usefulness of any particular line of research and development.
You won't be able to name one thing which doesn't use military research.

Try if you like, but tampons don't count.

[sapearl]

Well....... maybe that cotton stuffing they used to "tamp" into Civil War era muzzle loading muskets? Sorry Doc, couldn't resist..... :lol::lol:.

.....You're giving me tampons and oreos are primary research? :lol:.......

[400dabuser]

Well I'm working on a project and I can't seem to be able to find the answer to this. Why did cameras end up going digital? Was there a good reason? Do you have sources to back this up? (links?)


Radio, TV, and certain displays have all gone digital, so why not cameras? After all, they were one of the easiest to go digital

[scotteisenphotography]

Radio, TV, and certain displays have all gone digital, so why not cameras? After all, they were one of the easiest to go digital

Well this project was done last year...so..i'm pretty past it..lol

[RDKirk]

You won't be able to name one thing which doesn't use military research.

Try if you like, but tampons don't count.

LOL! So you're going to pre-emptively discount from the list of anything that doesn't use military research everything that doesn't use military research?

Most consumer items, more than half, have not been the result of "military research," unless you want to broaden the concept to include everything ever invented that could have a military use (which would even include tampons, because female military members use 'em). The term "military industrial complex" includes everything within the US spheres of both research and industry because we actually have very little pure "military research."

If you want to define it that way. But if you do define it that way, you create a useless definition, because a definition that includes everything is not a definition at all. Lately people have been defining global warming as a "National Security Issue." So would that mean any effort to deter global warning is actually a military action?

[tonylong]

Speaking of the role Kodak played, Wikipedia has an artical on digital photography that includes this statement:

The first recorded attempt at building a digital camera was in 1975 by Steven Sasson, an engineer at Eastman Kodak.[5] It used the then-new solid-state CCD image sensor chips developed by Fairchild Semiconductor in 1973.[6] The camera weighed 8 pounds (3.6 kg), recorded black and white images to a cassette tape, had a resolution of 0.01 megapixels (10,000 pixels), and took 23 seconds to capture its first image in December 1975. The prototype camera was a technical exercise, not intended for production.

Here's the article, with more info than you might wish for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera

[DocFrankenstein]

The first recorded attempt at building a digital camera was in 1975 by Steven Sasson, an engineer at Eastman Kodak.[5] It used the then-new solid-state CCD image sensor chips developed by Fairchild Semiconductor in 1973.[6] The camera weighed 8 pounds (3.6 kg), recorded black and white images to a cassette tape, had a resolution of 0.01 megapixels (10,000 pixels), and took 23 seconds to capture its first image in December 1975. The prototype camera was a technical exercise, not intended for production.

And then looking up fairchild on wiki:
Looking for funding on their own project, they turned to Sherman Fairchild's Fairchild Camera and Instrument, an Eastern U.S. company with considerable military contracts.
So, had it not been for military contracts, the firm wouldn't have the money to do the research.


LOL! So you're going to pre-emptively discount from the list of anything that doesn't use military research everything that doesn't use military research?

Most consumer items, more than half, have not been the result of "military research," unless you want to broaden the concept to include everything ever invented that could have a military use (which would even include tampons, because female military members use 'em). The term "military industrial complex" includes everything within the US spheres of both research and industry because we actually have very little pure "military research."

If you want to define it that way. But if you do define it that way, you create a useless definition, because a definition that includes everything is not a definition at all. Lately people have been defining global warming as a "National Security Issue." So would that mean any effort to deter global warning is actually a military action?

A consumer item has not been created with research. It's been created with techology - taking research and applying it. Basic research - look up the definition, is done by the big guys with lots of money, and 99% of it in the 20th century been fueled by the WWI, WWII and cold war.

It's not my definition, much smarter people than you and me have agreed on the definitions.

[JeffreyG]

You won't be able to name one thing which doesn't use military research.


I develop emissions controls systems for diesel engines, and there is no military funding or fundamental research in our field. I do not think the military has any interest in controlling the emissions from their vehicles.

I suppose they figure when they are done everyone will be dead so pollution will be a moot point.

[RDKirk]

I suppose they figure when they are done everyone will be dead so pollution will be a moot point.

Back when Mt St Helens exploded, I was planning SR-71 missions. SAC operated them because their actual military mission (the mission the funding was based upon) was to do post-attack reconnaissance over the Soviet Union after the execution of a SIOP MAO (Single Integrated Operational Plan Major Attack Option).

Although we had sensors that theoretically would penetrate the heavy dust clouds produced by such an attack...we didn't know for sure. But with the heave volcanic ash clouds produced by Mt St Helens, we saw an excellent opportunity to test it out.

And the sensors worked perfectly--they completely penetrated the volcanic ash clouds just as predicted. However, when the crew recovered at Beale AFB, the physiology team noted that their suits (Gemini vintage) and the interior of the cockpit were covered with volcanic ash. Someone wondered: If this had been an actual post-SIOP mission...this would be radioactive dust. So they asked the question about the safety of the crew.

After a few weeks of study, the scientists reported back: Happy news! Everyone can rest easy! The crew would survive long enough to finish the mission. Nothing to worry about!

[RDKirk]

So, had it not been for military contracts, the firm wouldn't have the money to do the research.

Indeed, Fairchild was a company heavily involved in reconnaissance cameras and optics--theirs, for instance, was the Optical Bar Camera used on the SR-71 and U-2, as well as the TEOC (TEchnical Objective Camera). And a number of others. Perkin-Elmer was in there, too, as is Hughes. I certainly never said there weren't companies like General Dynamics that were even wholly military oriented.

But the basic invention of the airplane wasn't. Nor rubber. Nor nylon. Nor electrical wiring. Nor penicillin, nor the polio vaccine, nor Fruit Loops. Nor Windows. Nor fire, the lever, the inclined plane. The wheel, maybe.

[jetcode]

Probably the most significant reason is that is a new market to exploit and boy did they. Not only do you sell cameras and lenses, but media, software, hard drives, laptops, computers, etc. Once they placed a film free instant gratification imaging device into the consumer market it was all over for film.

[20droger]

No, not the wheel, either. Archeological research has pretty much established that the first wheels were potter's wheels, not wagon or chariot wheels.

And fire shouldn't be on the list at all. Fire was a discovery, not an invention.

[RDKirk]

No, not the wheel, either. Archeological research has pretty much established that the first wheels were potter's wheels, not wagon or chariot wheels.

And fire shouldn't be on the list at all. Fire was a discovery, not an invention.

Okay, not fire. But not even "gun" powder or dynamite were invented for the use of the military. Nor the plowshare. Nor genetics.

What the military has definitely provided is a strong market for technology and a good market provides money for development, but to say that all consumer technology is based on that which was developed specifically for the military is stretching the point too far.

[DocFrankenstein]

But the basic invention of the airplane wasn't. Nor rubber. Nor nylon. Nor electrical wiring. Nor penicillin, nor the polio vaccine, nor Fruit Loops. Nor Windows. Nor fire, the lever, the inclined plane. The wheel, maybe.
Erm... da vinci's sketches of airplanes and helicopters are in the same sketchbook as his war machines. ;)

Why is a difference between an invetion and primary research so elusive? I give up

[400dabuser]

Well this project was done last year...so..i'm pretty past it..lol


Orite, one year too late to have an influence on your project, haha

[RDKirk]

Erm... da vinci's sketches of airplanes and helicopters are in the same sketchbook as his war machines. ;)

Why is a difference between an invetion and primary research so elusive? I give up

Da Vinci has no sketches of airplanes and helicopters. He has sketches of interesting aerodynamic structures, but they are not "airplanes" or "helicopters." And that is typical of the structure of your entire argument about this--broadening definitions to the point that they no longer mean anything but what you want them to mean.

[DocFrankenstein]

Da Vinci has no sketches of airplanes and helicopters. He has sketches of interesting aerodynamic structures, but they are not "airplanes" or "helicopters." And that is typical of the structure of your entire argument about this--broadening definitions to the point that they no longer mean anything but what you want them to mean.
Look up the definition of "basic research" and "applied research"

I didn't define them. If you choose to disagree with those definitions, I don't care for the conversation.

[DC Fan]

Since Leonardo Da Vinci was mentioned in this thread, it's worth noting that he also designed versions of the camera obscura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura) - the pinhole camera that helped lead to photography as we know it.

Getting back to the original subject of this thread, there are places online where the history of digital cameras can be studied, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera#History) including one site that reviews the timeline of Canon EOS-mount DSLRs, (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/index2.htm) starting with the first Kodak conversions in 1994. Looking at the specifications of what were considered state-of-the-art cameras gives you a greater appreciation for even the least expensive point-and-shoot on store shelves.

[neilwood32]

Why did we go digital? Because the new technology was there and new technology is always better than old!

Got to be true eh?

[sjones]

With music, digital's impact was in some ways regressive; not due to the technology but application of such. That is, the CD, which is actually archaic, can now at least debatably hold its own against the medium it replaced, the vinyl LP, given improved D/A converters and such.

However, the advent of compressed audio, namely MPEG, revealed that for most consumers, audio quality was a secondary concern. This would have been OK, since the convenience it provided was understandably more relevant to most folks. Yet, the rise of MPEG undercut any relevant market for a successor to the aging CD. To be sure, DVD-Audio and SACD discs are now available, but titles on these formats are markedly limited---most people don't care, and so be it.

As I've noted in other threads (maybe even earlier in this thread), if I were to spend US$5,000 on up on an audio system (MartinLogan, Krell, etc), and if I could only use one medium, I would likely choose CD over vinyl, but if presented with a choice between only vinyl or MPEG recordings, I would, without hesitation, go with the ol' LP.

I recently came across an article claiming that the camera phone would soon render the DSLR form factor obsolete. After all, camera phones, never mind point-and-shoots, are already producing excellent photos for the vast majority of humans. I largely ignored the article's assertion, but still, with technology, be careful, you might get what you wish for.

[JeffreyG]

With music, digital's impact was in some ways regressive; not due to the technology but application of such. That is, the CD, which is actually archaic, can now at least debatably hold its own against the medium it replaced, the vinyl LP, given improved D/A converters and such.

However, the advent of compressed audio, namely MPEG, revealed that for most consumers, audio quality was a secondary concern. This would have been OK, since the convenience it provided was understandably more relevant to most folks. Yet, the rise of MPEG undercut any relevant market for a successor to the aging CD. To be sure, DVD-Audio and SACD discs are now available, but titles on these formats are markedly limited---most people don't care, and so be it.

As I've noted in other threads (maybe even earlier in this thread), if I were to spend US$5,000 on up on an audio system (MartinLogan, Krell, etc), and if I could only use one medium, I would likely choose CD over vinyl, but if presented with a choice between only vinyl or MPEG recordings, I would, without hesitation, go with the ol' LP.

I recently came across an article claiming that the camera phone would soon render the DSLR form factor obsolete. After all, camera phones, never mind point-and-shoots, are already producing excellent photos for the vast majority of humans. I largely ignored the article's assertion, but still, with technology, be careful, you might get what you wish for.

The rise of the MPEG does indeed show that for the vast majority convenience is more important than quality.

But this does not mean digital is a dead end, though I do agree that a successor to the CD is fading in likelyhood.

But suppose storage and bandwidth continue to grow. Would not an uncompressed audio file using flash storage be the likely next step?

[RDKirk]

I recently came across an article claiming that the camera phone would soon render the DSLR form factor obsolete. After all, camera phones, never mind point-and-shoots, are already producing excellent photos for the vast majority of humans. I largely ignored the article's assertion, but still, with technology, be careful, you might get what you wish for.

Bad money does tend to drive out good...but a few people stick to gold. Instamatics always did outsell advanced cameras by a factor of millions, yet advanced cameras did sell.

I do have a niggling fear, though, that one day everyone will prefer a hotdog to fillet mignon, even after having had filet mignon. I saw the movie, "Idiocracy," and it completely depressed me. The producers thought it was a comedy, but it's actually an Orwellian prophetic warning. It's more depressing than "On the Beach" or "The Day After."

[sjones]

The rise of the MPEG does indeed show that for the vast majority convenience is more important than quality.

But this does not mean digital is a dead end, though I do agree that a successor to the CD is fading in likelyhood.

But suppose storage and bandwidth continue to grow. Would not an uncompressed audio file using flash storage be the likely next step?

I agree, digital itself isn't a dead end for music.

With storage so cheap and processors getting fasters, there's no reason why uncompressed music at higher bit/sampling rates should not become the norm at no major inconvenience to indifferent users…

The problem is now that when someone argues that high bit-rate MPEG sounds as good as a CD (and perhaps it does!), the person is missing the point; the CD is an antiquated reference point; Betamax was still in contention when CD's became commercially available.

Photography has largely escaped this problem, and while some folks understandably bemoan the megapixel race, imagine if sensors sat on only two or three megapixals (good enough for 6X4s) for more than a quarter a century….

Bad money does tend to drive out good...but a few people stick to gold. Instamatics always did outsell advanced cameras by a factor of millions, yet advanced cameras did sell.

I do have a niggling fear, though, that one day everyone will prefer a hotdog to fillet mignon, even after having had filet mignon. I saw the movie, "Idiocracy," and it completely depressed me. The producers thought it was a comedy, but it's actually an Orwellian prophetic warning. It's more depressing than "On the Beach" or "The Day After."

Yeah, I can't imagine the DSLR going away anytime soon, or at least some form of high-end system, and I didn't give the article much credence. Still, I share your other concerns, and I'll have to check out the movie. Don't get me wrong, I unapologetically like a good hot dog, but the issue is the potential threat to choice and variety.

[masayako]

'Cos on Earth, we human only have 2 choices - Film and digital. Since we start out with film already, looks like evolving to digital is the only option to go. We humans love to evolve and move on to something better. Whether it is really better not is a different story.

[sjones]

...We humans love to evolve...

Haven't seen much proof of this...

[JeffreyG]

We humans love to evolve

Heh! Evolution is of course process driven on one side by early death, so nobody really likes to participate in the evolution process.:D

Most of us only like the other side of it, living long enough to breed.

[DocFrankenstein]

Haven't seen much proof of this...
Do you not love nonrandom mating and children looking like their parents. :lol:

[Mike-DT6]

I like the smell of film and film chemicals. I probably have brain damage... damage...damage... damage... from stuffy darkrooms but that was one of the risks

I have to concur with this on both counts. I used to love the smell of developing fluid.

Digital is a worthy replacement though because some of my digital equipment smells quite nice.

Mike

[RDKirk]

I enjoyed working in the darkroom printing. I can't say much for processing film--that was pretty much always a tedious bore. But I did like printing.

However...it was lonely, and I suspect all the hours I spent in the darkroom were a factor in the failure of my first marriage. I can now do photo editing in the same room with my family.

[Bobster]

Time saved for me is great, no more having to wait for film to be developed and scanned so it can be used in publications / advertising

clients also enjoy the benefits of having digital files to use within days rather than weeks..