"我是說那些有少少能力去四周遊玩的人民．這班才是未來十年的主力！菲林在他們心目中仍然不是數碼可以取代的。"
好難理解why菲林o係佢o地心目中數碼唔可以取代???係根據乜o野論據去証明呢點呢????菲林需要大量o既配套,o係需求大幅咁減少後生產成本一定大幅咁上漲,生產商生產貨品係講求機會成本,點會對夕陽商品有所留戀,淘汰係必然o既事,莫講話十年,五年內被淘汰都係好正常!!

雖然小弟都有用120機種，但數碼科技一日千里，所有數碼器材只會越造越細，包括專業的，所以小弟相信那些大廠將來投放在120數碼背的資金會慢慢的轉向在135DSLR上，就像現在的CPU，由8086至到現在的P4，體積一直都沒有怎樣的增大，但速度就不斷上升了，所以小弟估計135的壽命會比120的長。

喂!!有冇d菲林相機使用者講下為什麼你們仲繼續用的理由!!

我的理由是因為我很愛那一下過片的聲音和感覺.....
我覺得數碼相機所有野都好方便,有我接受到的質素,
就只是差這一點點的感覺令我未能轉用數碼相機.....

有冇d菲林相機使用者講下為什麼你們仲繼續用的理由!!
--------------------------
睇下大部分dc影(唔計macro)樹葉/草出d咩.


"仲乜唔聽MP3!"
---------
dynamic range!

家陣d內置mb mp3裝你128都唔裝得幾多，何況192~
要音質又要細，都係md最能夠取得平衡

題外話:

電影用的菲林跟常用的135 菲林分別不大, 有興趣可參考下列的 website.

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/h1/printingP.shtml

各位, 請問你會否接受 135 菲林只有區區 2 百萬像素?
上文提到的數碼電影, 用 sony 的 digital cam 拍攝, 只有區區 1920x1080 的解像度, 原來的設計是供 hdtv 使用, 而不是用來拍電影供電影院播放, 因為此機有 24p 功能正好符合電影播放速率的要求. 一些低成本的制作,(設備很貴, 但運作成本比電影菲林低廉) 或使用大量電腦合成影像的影片, 才會使用此類機器拍攝.

由於電腦的處理能力有限, 致使人以為電影只有這麼低的解像度.

All existing digital cinemas showing feature films use a screen resolution of 1280 x 1024, so that at 24 fps (frames per second) and assuming 10-bit colour, the uncompressed file size for a two-hour feature film will be of the order of 850 Gbyte.
引自下面:
http://www.iee.org/OnComms/Circuit/benefits/Editorials/Features/DigitalCinema.cfm

日本仔的site 只展示了一些原型. 如果要知道各類movie/video 的解析度請看看:
http://www.ractivemedia.com/content.asp?p=33
而業界對 35mm film 的解析度定為 3656x2664 此為 cineon full, 由於成本問題, 亦有所謂 2k 之說: 2048 x 1536 這兩個解析度都是指由數碼轉菲林, 或菲林轉數碼的業界標準.

有興趣可看看各式各樣菲林制式轉數碼的解析度對換.
http://www.celco.com/FormatResolutionTableKodakCineon.asp
此公司轉過的電影有
http://www.celco.com/CurrentFilms.asp

其實現時的荷里活電影很少只用純菲林拍攝, 但數碼電影要做到 Saving Private Ryan 果種菲林質感還要有很遠的路要走.

不管黑貓白貓, 捉到老鼠便是好貓.

菲林/數碼只是媒介, 相機是工具, 好好運用才是正路.

有乜理由仲用菲林就諗到d,有乜理由唔用菲林就大把。最簡單啦,"方便"兩個字已經殺晒。一部F5加枝600mm有幾論盡?一部E1加枝600mm起碼輕成倍,走都走多幾步走快幾步啦。仲有喎,菲林機都已經發展到冇乜新野,黎黎去去都係果幾味,數碼機依家先至話漸漸成熟起黎,再遲多幾年,我諗我部Dynax7都可以收埋囉。

在相機生產商黎講，真係冇理由為左照顧一班菲林機擁護者而唔去搶數碼機個市場，如果唔係就直頭摺得添啦乜都唔使講。

what is photo? photo is what?

"數碼機唔見得有d咩功能係菲林機冇"

Review immediately after shooting.

Post to web without Lab

Just like what"s said, digital is for convienence. But till the day we all can afford easily mega memory and super computer. Todays ( & in near term to mid term future ) digital can record a lot but deliver only a little ( limited bit depth ). This is the biggest disadvantage of digital per status quo and not likely to change for quite some while ( OK revolution only comes once or twice a decade and not alwyas the way some might want ). Digital also suffer from the fact taht its active ( need power ) so there"s about a reasonable size it can go up or down

Film on the other hand record all the information as its always RAW ( pardon the digital term ) and Slide is even better as its already in natural medium on how our eye see.

So the real question is not whether film equipment is dead or not but where is the divide between the digital capture and film capture sector. Of course the Mfrs , being business, should go for the digital market. That however does mean a number of film equipment will no longer be as consumer savvy ( eg P&S, 35mm ) ... however, there are area where the film market sector are shifting. Upward to medium and large format where digital is probably not yet and likely also in near to mid term future, not able to replace the film in performance and convenience. In 120 format a synergy would occur IMHO ( film and digital back for single system as pert todays but their price difference would not be so radical ) where large format will still be film dominated ( a good Large format film scanner is better and easier than a digital scan back for Large format ).

Just so film equipment is a big area , so do digital. The demise of 35mm sector is much like the demise of folding 120 in the 60"s .... but there are different film equipments and they are highly unlikely to be replaced yet. Digital still got a long way to go, but the most important part of the digital going is the usage and service that goes with it. Its way too complicated and expensive as of now ....