Re: Digital vs scanning

[P3D Marvin Jones <72657.3276@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Look at your quote.  See the word "All"?  As in "All of the digital
>cameras I've seen..."?  That tells me something different than what
>you've just said.  Now, if you'd said "All of the *inexpensive* digital
>cameras I've seen..." then I'd agree with you completely.

Sorry. I'll submit all my posts to a thesis evaluation committee for a thorough
critique of my wording in the future.

>But I still don't believe (and I'd like to be shown otherwise) that a
>slide scanner in the same ballpark is going to produce a significantly
>better image.  And certainly not an "INFINITELY" better one.  To get
>a significantly better image, you need a much higher resolution imaging
>element, and those cost big bucks.

You have agreed with me (above) that an *inexpensive* digital camera (which is
what we have been talking about all along) returns a pretty bad image. On the
other hand, a scanner which is priced comparably to a low-end digital camera is
a pretty good scanner--it's not the equivalent of a major graphic house's
high-end machine, but it is capable of excellent reproduction for DTP or
multimedia purposes. Further, this scanner would be used to scan a photo or
negative, which in turn was presumably taken by some kind of standard 35mm (or
other) camera. A photograph taken by a standard 35mm camera is (pardon my
hyperbole) "infinitely" superior to a photo taken by our comparably priced
digital camera, because said camera is, in your own words, a "much higher
resolution imaging element." Taking this "much higher resolution element" and
scanning it with a scanner of pretty good quality will produce an image which is
(again, pardon my hyperbole) "infinitely" superior to a comparable image taken
directly with the digital camera.

My video company uses scans made by a Microtek ScanMaker II and/or a Nikon
Coolscan (each roughly equivalent in price to our hypothetical low-end digital
camera) for all of our scanning used for four-color slick magazine ads, videobox
covers, video graphics, etc., and while we don't have MGM's graphics department
looking over their shoulder, we do have an advertising budget (here's that
hyperbole again) "infinitely" smaller than theirs, too. Would we, on the other
hand, ever use the output from a low-end digital camera in our graphics work?
Get serious!



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