Re: Digital vs scanning

[P3D Marvin Jones <72657.3276@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> However, I'm still after advice on direct-to-digital stereo.  I
>have scanned stereo pairs and the generational loss is disturbing (a scanned
>print is a copy of a copy of the image).  Scanning slides would be better,
>at least in priniciple, but requires more specialized equipment (and is
>still a copy of the image).

Clearly you are hung up on digital, but I wouldn't dismiss scanning quite so
quickly. One day digital cameras might be the way to go, but in today's "real
world," a print from standard 35mm is INFINITELY superior to a digital master.
All of the digital cameras I've seen so far are early technology, and the output
just isn't very good. For the same price as a digital camera you could get an
excellent scanner. If you are going to be working in film (slides, negatives) I
would recommend something like the Nikon Coolscan, although there are a couple
of other film scanners in the same price range (somewhere not too far over
$1000). A flatbed scanner is fine for prints, although I wouldn't recommend
those "transparency lids" for film--my results with them have been mediocre,
certainly in comparison to a film scanner like the Nikon.


------------------------------