 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Sun Sep 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Florida &, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 11288 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Sometimes I wonder...
Where would we be if we had "mechanical" cell phones, mechanical iPods, or hand wound laptops?
Would you want to go back to "film" cameras?
Wait, put down your remote controls too. Let's go back to "crank" tuners (for those here that can remember having to get up to change a channel). I don't think so.
Why is it the quartz watch gets such a raw deal in technology? cat28.gif
1) No...because they are not possible, except for power sources.
2) No...Because film only changes the way the picture is recorded, not the external capture of the picture. That said, I am told by professional photographers that film provides a much finer picture for printing and allows infinitely more variable in the processing of same. For the "snapshotter", digital simply allows us to save processing time and not worry about wasting film on the gawd-awful results that we usually get!
3) If we still had only 3 channels, it would be no problem, but remote are a vast time and trouble saving device, whereas a quartz watch does nothing but allow one to be a few seconds more accurate in a world where, mostly, it does not matter.
4) Because in a world full of high end technology, one can sit back, look at his wrist, and marvel at the ingenuity and craftsmanship of man in an art that is from decades past that will live into the future.