Need help on Research paper

[manaheim]

Ahem... (from Wikipedia)

Although VHS has quickly faded from mainstream home-video, the VCR is still used in many US households. The Washington Post noted that as of 2005, 94.5 million Americans still owned VHS format VCRs.[10]

The last standalone JVC VHS-only unit was produced in 2008.[14] JVC, like many other manufacturers, still makes combination DVD+VHS units.
Several retail chains in the United States and in Europe planned to stop selling VHS equipment in 2004,[15] 2005,[16] and 2006.[17] Despite these plans, VHS recorders and blank tapes are still being sold in major stores worldwide. As an acknowledgment of VHS popularity, in 2009 Panasonic has announced the world’s first dual deck VHS-Blu-ray player.[18]

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Although VHS has quickly faded from mainstream home-video, the VCR is still used in many US households. The Washington Post noted that as of 2005, 94.5 million Americans still owned VHS format VCRs.

Owning them is one thing. Are they being used?

I just sold mine recently after not using it for the last 6 years

More seriously, they are being used. When my father in law decided to move into an assisted living facility a couple months back we did a garage sale to get rid of all the stuff he couldn't take with him.

That included 2 VCRs and about 500 tapes. We were surprised but both the VCRs and about 95% of the tapes sold within the first 3 hours. The tapes that didn't sell were either new blank ones or movies taped from the TV.

 

[blash]

Yes, in a way film requires you to be a low-volume shooter. But in doing so it makes you think more about your shots than just aiming and spraying the shutter. How many of your wife's shots, out of the 700+, are keepers? What's that percentage? With film since you're forced to work within constraints, you tend to be more careful and thus get better shots.

I actually like to work with 24 exposure rolls - now that I put some more thought into the process, I have difficulty even filling up a 24 exposure roll, and it's easier to spool up and develop.

This is a good point...but...I love to chase storms. Do you realize what the film cost was for shooting a couple hundred shots only to get nothing? It was enough to make me quit doing that until the digital age came about. Now I can easily go out and pop off gigabytes worth, and if I get nothing, no extra cost to me.

Don't get me wrong, I still love film, and still do use it occasionally, but I find it happening less and less.

Same kind of reasoning applies to stuff like water droplet photography where you need a high FPS and a lot of luck. Most people don't shoot that kind of stuff though

 

[Steph]

There might be some future for film in emerging countries. When more people from China, India, Brazil... take up photography, the cost of a digital camera and a computer will be out of their reach whereas a cheap film camera and a few rolls of film a year would be affordable. There might be a huge market for film there for a few decades to come. I don't know, just a thought.

 

[Actor]

Although VHS has quickly faded from mainstream home-video, the VCR is still used in many US households. The Washington Post noted that as of 2005, 94.5 million Americans still owned VHS format VCRs.

Owning them is one thing. Are they being used?

I still use mine, primarily to time shift programs, which is the reason I bought my first one oh so many years ago. I guess there is more modern technology, like TIVO, to do this but I can't see getting one since I have something that works.

 

[skieur]

From Actor: In fact I think X is already trending to 6. As for bigger and bigger hard drives, they'll continue to get cheaper and cheaper. I recall spending $60,000 (the company's money, not mine ) for a 120 megabyte drive. I recently bought a 500 Gig drive for $100.

Where have you been if you think that 6 megapixels is the consumer standard? Even point and shoot cameras are heading to 14 megapixels. Full frame digital is in the 21 plus range.

skieur

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Where have you been if you think that 6 megapixels is the consumer standard? Even point and shoot cameras are heading to 14 megapixels. Full frame digital is in the 21 plus range.

And does it make any difference? A snapshot at 21mp is still a snapshot and if you print nothing but 4x6 it makes no darn difference whatsoever anyway.

But the cost of the cameras makes a huge difference in what photos of historical value we will see in the future. There are two ways in which this is a problem. 1/ the 21mp is too expensive so I don't buy a camera at all. 2/ because the electronics industry is always promising something better in the near future, some people are forever waiting instead of actually shooting.

 

[Josh66]

some people are forever waiting instead of actually shooting.

We see this a lot here too...

People endlessly researching their new camera. Eventually you have to say - "Just buy one! Who cares what it is?!"

 

[c.cloudwalker]

some people are forever waiting instead of actually shooting.

We see this a lot here too...

People endlessly researching their new camera. Eventually you have to say - "Just buy one! Who cares what it is?!"

:thumbup:

The other thing I can't help and think about is the fact that the more sophisticated the cameras are getting the more they are becoming P&S cameras. Very expensive P&S cameras. Some people seem to think that they are better photographers than you are because they spent 2-3 times as much on their cameras

Whatever...

 

[skieur]

Where have you been if you think that 6 megapixels is the consumer standard? Even point and shoot cameras are heading to 14 megapixels. Full frame digital is in the 21 plus range.

And does it make any difference? A snapshot at 21mp is still a snapshot and if you print nothing but 4x6 it makes no darn difference whatsoever anyway.

But the cost of the cameras makes a huge difference in what photos of historical value we will see in the future. There are two ways in which this is a problem. 1/ the 21mp is too expensive so I don't buy a camera at all. 2/ because the electronics industry is always promising something better in the near future, some people are forever waiting instead of actually shooting.

What happens is that a consumer buys a point and shoot and is relatively happy until he/she sees photos from someone with a compact camera, so they upgrade. A former film shooter starts off with a DSLR. More people these days are also looking for 8 by 10s that they can display on a piano or even larger prints they can put on the wall of their kids, grandkids, or of travel photos they have taken. I have even seen non-photographers looking closely at sharpness and detail in prints. They are used to seeing quality sharpness in magazine images and are expecting it in photos as well.

As far as buying and megapixels consumers tend to buy what they can afford and the smarter ones realize that megapixels are only part of the image quality "picture". Nevertheless the tendency is to upgrade as in from 5 megapixels to 8, from 8 to 10 or 12, and 10 to 14 or 16 and 16 to 21 or 24.

skieur

 

[Torus34]

It seems to this old white-haired country mouse that something is being overlooked, perhaps in the same way that a fictional character overlooked the fact that he was speaking prose.

If you go into any drug store, super market or local deli [or suburban equivalent], you'll find lots of film cameras for sale. They're everywhere. They cost under $10, complete with film.

Digital has a way to go before it can economically take over the particular niche which these throwaways occupy.

And as long as manufacturers continue to make film for these little wonders, it's not all that costly for them to continue to manufacture film in 35mm and 120 sizes as well.

Sidebar: If you're looking for an afternoon's carefree [and inexpensive] challenge, buy one of these delightful rigs and see just what you, with your knowledge of composition and lighting, can do with it. [Nb: remember -- expensive equipment doesn't make a picture. A photographer makes a picture.]

 

[skieur]

It seems to this old white-haired country mouse that something is being overlooked, perhaps in the same way that a fictional character overlooked the fact that he was speaking prose.

If you go into any drug store, super market or local deli [or suburban equivalent], you'll find lots of film cameras for sale. They're everywhere. They cost under $10, complete with film.

Digital has a way to go before it can economically take over the particular niche which these throwaways occupy.

And as long as manufacturers continue to make film for these little wonders, it's not all that costly for them to continue to manufacture film in 35mm and 120 sizes as well.

Sidebar: If you're looking for an afternoon's carefree [and inexpensive] challenge, buy one of these delightful rigs and see just what you, with your knowledge of composition and lighting, can do with it. [Nb: remember -- expensive equipment doesn't make a picture. A photographer makes a picture.]

Disposable cameras are designed to produce tolerable snap shots for those with minimal knowledge or background in photography. Average lighting conditions and simple posed shots are the assumption of the designers. I passed that stage before I entered my teens.

skieur

 

[christopher walrath]

I am happy to have been a part of this thread. It has been a pleasant discussion.

I foresee film and digital coexisting. Digital seems to be invading the 'professional' sector of photography while film has been relegated, more or less, to its new home with the 'Hobbyist' or even 'Hobby-use' amongst many professionals of the digital revolution. There is just something about film. For me anyway. And I honestly cannot speak of comparison as I have never seriously even attempted to shoot digital other than dinky Coolpix P&Ss.

But, as I mentioned before, I imagine it would take an equal amount of time to become proficient in any form of photography as any other. I have spent twenty years to get where I am with film and I know I would be just as vested in time and effort if I had been digital since its consumer inception.

So, the megapixels will increase and the digital processing will become more rapid and complete. The film will probably become less to a point where there are few choices remaining and will level off there. Same goes for paper and chemistry. Because there will always be enough photographers using film to justify its existence and perhaps to generate the required profit for continuance.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Disposable cameras are designed to produce tolerable snap shots for those with minimal knowledge or background in photography. Average lighting conditions and simple posed shots are the assumption of the designers. I passed that stage before I entered my teens.

skieur

In the hands of the right person, they can produce wonderful images. Maybe not the kind you're likely to see in an advertisement but the kind you could see in a gallery.

My best selling art photo was shot with an old Brownie with a scratched lens.

There is also a huge body of art photography produced by the simplest of Polaroid cameras which were originally designed for the same people as the disposables.

 

[Torus34]

CC:

Yup! A camera does not make a picture [in the highest sense of 'picture'] any more than a word processor makes a novel [or, for that matter, owning a Steinway(r) makes one a pianist.]

Or, perhaps from another vantage point, a 'fine' artist may sometimes eschew expensive brushes and modern pigments to make an image with pencil or charcoal.

The image thus made is not made less by the equipment employed.