Re: Digital Cameras

["Ross \(Goldie\) Goldspink" <goldicom@powerup.com.au>]

Resolution is the problem.

For reasonable resolution, read dollars a plenty.

A 600 pixel per inch post card photo (publishing quality) will be around
50 - 60 mb in bitmap format.  JPEG compressed a lot less - but resolution
drops off if reloaded and altered then saved again a few time.

Neg/slide scanners also have a resolution problem for publishing print
quality.

Nothing beats film for resolution and colour rendition.  Best bet for
computer adaptation is a print scanner.  300 dpi scanners are now very
cheap, 600 dpi (look for optical resolution) cost a little more but offer
more opportunity for quality results.

If only scanning for the web, anything will do - 72 pixels per inch (ppi) or
dots per inch (DPI) are really only good for the web.  No fine detail.

Goldie



Best option - film camera


--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/

"Andrew Price" <aprice@mail.dotcom.fr> wrote in message
rlqo9ss7qplj17jlc20bapg3730828gim1@4ax.com">news:rlqo9ss7qplj17jlc20bapg3730828gim1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2000 15:54:37 GMT, jtbell@presby.edu (Jon Bell) wrote:
>
> >One concern that I have about digital cameras has to do with the number
of
> >pictures I take on a long trip.  It's easy to take along several rolls of
> >film, and if I run out, I can easily buy more film on the road.  How
would
> >it look from the cost standpoint to stock up on enough memory cards to
> >accommodate a couple hundred pictures?  I don't have a laptop computer to
> >take along for picture storage.
>
> That occurred to me too, but I see that Sony has a model which stores
> its pictures on floppies.  Does anyone know how it compares with the
> other cameras which use expensive memory cards?