Re: Digital vs scanning

[P3D Tom Deering <deering@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > 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 very true.  Unless I misunderstand the idea here, scanning would be far superior 
to any afforable digital camera.  The part about a scan being a "copy of the image" 
is true, but in this case, the copy is still way better than a digital snap.  If 
your scans are unacceptable, then let's talk about getting better scans.

Here's an analogy: it's like comparing an original newspaper photo to glossy 
photograph, (which is a copy of the negative.)


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