3 ms·

> Creating film is high tech, both the film itself, the camera to expose it, and the lab to develop it. Absolutely not. See https://hmfi.handmadefilm.org/ htt

by wazoox 5y ago

> Creating film is high tech, both the film itself, the camera to expose it, and the lab to develop it. Absolutely not. See https://hmfi.handmadefilm.org/ https://hmfi.handmadefilm.org/ Seriously, film is a 19th century technology. All of its process is really, really simple compared to even the most basic computer. > It's better than a CD, but doesn't hold a candle to paper. It's much denser, a film roll can hold many gigabytes.

Brian_K_White 5y ago
The high tech of computers and digital cameras and printers is irrelevant. All that matters is that all of those things are as common as potatos, and from now on always will be. It doesn't matter how they change over time, only that any random person has access to them on any form, which they do and always will now. And in particular, printers and paper are by far the most ubiquitous form of reproduction, and they don't require any kind of lab. Printers are everywhere, and everyone can use any of them, directly and immediately. That is not remotely as true for film, even today let alone later. Not even in the same universe. Not even back in the days of 1hour photomats in shopping plaza parking lots, and those days are long gone. Even today when you can still actually buy film, who has a darkroom? They exist, but where and how many? Not in every other kitchen and den, but printers are. And so are digital cameras and computers, by which I mean phones not just laptops. I have the means to produce a printed paper right in my dining room, and so does my mother, and my mother in law, and my sister in law, and brother in law, and my brother, and the coffee shop, and the pizza shop... and none of them has a darkroom or even a film camera. Even if I wanted to put a qr code onto film, how would I even do it? The first step would probably be I'd have to print it just so I could take a picture of it, with a film camera I don't have, and film I don't have, and send it somewhere to get developed. It's patently absurd since I already had the paper. Even if I didn't have a printer, and had to take a picture of a screen, there are 9000x more convenient and immediate ways to print the image than by getting film developed. All film is good for is it's smaller than paper and it's lower bar to read the finished developed film than things like a cd or a thumb drive. But the size is not the most important thing, and the means to create the film is important to the usefulness of a whole system, not just reading it.

by wazoox 5y ago

Brian_K_White 5y ago

The high tech of computers and digital cameras and printers is irrelevant. All that matters is that all of those things are as common as potatos, and from now on always will be. It doesn't matter how they change over time, only that any random person has access to them on any form, which they do and always will now. And in particular, printers and paper are by far the most ubiquitous form of reproduction, and they don't require any kind of lab. Printers are everywhere, and everyone can use any of them, directly and immediately. That is not remotely as true for film, even today let alone later. Not even in the same universe. Not even back in the days of 1hour photomats in shopping plaza parking lots, and those days are long gone. Even today when you can still actually buy film, who has a darkroom? They exist, but where and how many? Not in every other kitchen and den, but printers are. And so are digital cameras and computers, by which I mean phones not just laptops. I have the means to produce a printed paper right in my dining room, and so does my mother, and my mother in law, and my sister in law, and brother in law, and my brother, and the coffee shop, and the pizza shop... and none of them has a darkroom or even a film camera. Even if I wanted to put a qr code onto film, how would I even do it? The first step would probably be I'd have to print it just so I could take a picture of it, with a film camera I don't have, and film I don't have, and send it somewhere to get developed. It's patently absurd since I already had the paper. Even if I didn't have a printer, and had to take a picture of a screen, there are 9000x more convenient and immediate ways to print the image than by getting film developed. All film is good for is it's smaller than paper and it's lower bar to read the finished developed film than things like a cd or a thumb drive. But the size is not the most important thing, and the means to create the film is important to the usefulness of a whole system, not just reading it.