Xref: utzoo comp.graphics:16942 rec.photo:19622
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!fontenot
From: fontenot@rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques Fontenot)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics,rec.photo
Subject: Re: Digital Photography
Message-ID: <1991Mar30.060743.25275@rice.edu>
Date: 30 Mar 91 06:07:43 GMT
References: <1991Mar22.234502.4783@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <50815@apple.Apple.COM> <1991Mar27.015600.21812@rice.edu> <1991Mar29.173328.23660@cello.hpl.hp.com>
Sender: news@rice.edu (News)
Reply-To: fontenot@comet.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques Fontenot)
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
Lines: 46

In article <1991Mar29.173328.23660@cello.hpl.hp.com> jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson) writes:
>In article <1991Mar27.015600.21812@rice.edu> fontenot@rice.edu (Dwayne
>Jacques Fontenot) writes regarding a previous query about digital video:
>
>> The image data is stored internally (on the 2" floppy) in an *analog* format
>> that was developed ~10 years ago by a consortium of electronics corporations.
>> After the image is taken off the CCD, it is no longer digital -- if you want
>> it in digital form, you have to *digitize* it. The analog step involves
>> quite a bit of degradation of the image data. 
>> [stuff deleted]
>> Also, I refuse on principle alone to buy anything so stupidly
>> obviously built-in-planned-obsolescence designed (i.e. there is *NO* reason,
>> at least no good reason I have heard, for these cameras to still be using
>> ugly, messy analog technology). [more stuff deleted]
>
>Underlying this posting seems to be the assumption that at some point
>the image was digital, and the manufactureres are turning it back into
>analog.  Charge Coupled Devices (CCDs) are inherently analog devices.
>In most video systems the image never is digital.  I don't think there
>is anything malicious going on here.
>
>  -- David Jacobson

Yes, several people have informed me that CCDs are not digital devices. You
are right and I was wrong...about *that* part. Perhaps the only semi-malicious
thing going on here is the fact that these devices are said to do "digital
photography". I think that term applied to these devices is misleading
many people. The main point I would like to make is that I think the image
data should be digitized as soon as posssible; inside the camera before it
is stored on disk. Once you have your data in digital form degradation due
to signal attenuation and noise stops. I think this is well within the
capabilities of today's technology, and at a reasonable price. It is true
that images in digital form take up more space than analog, but storage
technology has increases many times over what was available 10 years ago.
We now have 2" hard disks that have >60Mb capacities, as can be found in
any self-respecting notebook computer. I guess it all comes down to marketing.
The cameras did not take off when they were introduced and perhaps
companies are afraid of getting burned if they spend a great deal of money
to R & D a completely new-technology product in this area. (By this area I
mean at a price level that would be accessible to many people, not just
labs with $5-10-15 thousand dollars to spend).

Thank you for your time,

Dwayne Jacques Fontenot (fontenot@comet.rice.edu)
Rice Advanced Visualization Lab (RAVL)