P3D RE: Digital vs. Film

[cyponline@xxxxxxxx (Dale Mann)]

In Response Tom Deering wrote:

>On the other hand, if you get your photos on a Kodak Photo-CD, you will
get
multiple resolution images as large as 3000x2000 pixels, far higher than
any digital camera.  These bad boys are way better than you can get from
scanning a snapshot.  But these super high resolution pictures are like
fifteen meg each, and you can't get 36 of them on a floppy."

>"If you want to "see and compare the results from Kodak's (expensive)
digital processing equipment", then get a Photo-CD.  It seems unfair to
judge Kodak's "very expensive equipment" using the compressed,
necessarily
crappy images you received squeezed on a diskette."

It's also seems unfair to suggest we compare anything close to 3000x2000
pixel images to the 640X480 pixels provided by many digital cameras. 
Besides who needs images of such size? Certainly not for web work -- not
for anaglyphs, not on computers, most of which are set to display in
800X600 mode, not unless you're happy with seeing only a small portion of
an image on screen at any time,  viewing with a scroll bar a mile long.  

Just in case anyone thinks they can, on a PC, reduce giant size digital
images down to a usable size, all the while hoping to retain something of
the larger image's superior quality are, I'm afraid, in for a
disappointment.  I've tried such experiments often with no visible
advantage.

Also, I'll add, the 600x400 scans returned on the floppy are "not"
crappy.   They look great.

--R.D.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5484/3d-0.htm


_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


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