Re: Digital vs scanning

[P3D Marvin Jones <72657.3276@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Second of all, yes I am "Clearly...hung up on digital," in the sense that my
>whole aim is to post quality 3D images on the Web.  Scanning and direct
>digital photography are the only two ways (known to me) of achieving that.
>{Also practice would help, but that's another issue.}  And yes, I have
>budget concerns.  Don't we all?
>
>Consider a 35mm print, scanned.  If we assume a 4x6 inch glossy (10.16 x
>15.24 cm) scanned at 1200 dpi (472.44 dpcm) the image field is then
>4800x7200 pixels.

Actually, if you're planning to put your images on the Web, you're talking a lot
of overkill here. Remember that a normal computer monitor has a MAXIMUM
resolution of 640 x 480 pixels at 72 dpi (even people who use other resolutions
usually only go to 800 x 600). Netscape's buttons and other visible garbage cut
that 640 x 480 down to something like 600 x 300. Scanning an image at 1200 dpi
is a waste of time and disk space. And to reiterate my original comment, which
got a little lost among the people jumping in to demonstrate how much more they
knew than I, a decent desktop scanner, scanning a snapshot, will produce a much
better image than a comparably priced digital camera in today's technology. I'd
even venture to say that you could get a better scan from one of those little El
Cheapo hand scanners (although their software won't give you nearly as much
control over the initial size of your finished file).


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