RE: Copying old stereo to new...

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> * Is the resolution of the original preserved as well as when copying
>   on film? 

Oh no!  Not that again!!!!  Well, actually, it's a different topic.
Scanning of prints is very different from "cameras".  There isn't
the equivalent-shutter-time aspect, and the area of image is much
larger.  And scanners are MUCH cheaper.

The stereocard I mentioned to have scanned last weekend was scanned with
a resolution less than my $205 scanner is capable (600 x 1200 dpi
optical resolution).  My scan was only about 9 Million pixels, but
recall that the previous-thread pixel comparisons talked about
*capability* of 35mm film.  Most stereocards I've seen, expecially
the one I scanned, doesn't, IMHO, contain useful photographic 
"information" anywhere near the maximum that of current film technology.

As I mentioned previously, when I printed the card out on a (now)
ancient Epson Color Stylus at a measly 720 dpi it looked *better*
than the original.  Note: I say "better" in the sense that I like
the photograph better, not in the curator sense of preserving every 
imperfection or preserving the muddy-look of a somewhat faded card,
or maintaining every bit of original grain, etc.

So whether or not it's "better", it certainly seems adequate.

> * Is digital storage as portable as film?  When I mentioned going to 
>   Greece and carrying a small viewer and 100 slides in a small box, 
>   trying to locate the different sites photographed a century ago, 
>   I don't think I could have done that (viewing them in-situ) with 
>   digitally stored pictures.


You could print the images out, slightly shrunk, and then freeview them
in Greece.  The images then are flatter (more compact) and no viewer
is required at all.

Then throw them away or give them away in Greece, you can print more
as desired (and "on demand") when you get back.

> 
> * Can a group of people enjoy the same picture at the same time using
>   only one projection device, as in stereo projection?

If one specifically wants to use projection for sharing of images, then
the digital image projectors currently available probably are too expensive
and probably of lower quality than desired.

Seeing as how we are talking about archival storage of images, 
the digitally stored images also will fade much less over time than
even Kodachrome.  Even less than B&W film.  A LOT less.  With 
proper digital storage, the image should last forever (almost 
literally).  Even the very best "analog" film doesn't claim that.  :-)

Mike K.

P.S. - "Rangefinder" magazine is a "pro" magazine that in the last year
       or two has significantly moved into digital photography.  One of the things
       I've seen in it lately are some medium and large format digital
       cameras (actually digital backs) that, for some photography purposes,
       has resolution that would blow away the Nikon-body one that is mentioned
       here from time to time.  I didn't want to "start things" my mentioning
       it, but seeing as how the worm has already fallen off the hook....  :-)


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