Message-Id: <mailto:199408180034.TAA22408@library.wustl.edu> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 18:48:04 EDT From: Robert Rosenberg <mailto:rarosenb@GANDALF.RUTGERS.EDU> Subject: Re: [Q] Which Scanner for manuscripts To: Multiple recipients of list IMAGELIB <mailto:IMAGELIB@ARIZVM1.BITNET>
> Bob Rosenberg said:
>
> If you can scan them at the desired resolution and color depth, then there is
> no particular advantage to the camera.
>
> I----------
>
> I assume that you mean (photagraphic)(ie., chemical) camera. In which case
> I must say that you are wrong.
>
> Firstly, the "slides" provide a second archival medium for a record.
> Secod/Second, they are inevitable a higher resolution than anything that
> you could dream of digitizing. The particale size /resolution of even
> 35mm film far exceeds the 4000 pixel resolution of "high-res " digitization.
> If you made 4x5 slides. The comparison would be so extreme that the
> comparison is sort of ridiculous.
> Third, the portability and ease of use. There are many circumstances in which
> 35mm slides are simply easier to use, ie., submissions for publication,
> presentations at conferences, etc.
> Fourth, 35mm slides are easier to get digitized than odd-sized paper.
> There are all sorts of slide scanners as was pointed out in previous
> discussions.
>
Ooops. Vineet's query was a response to a private post. I was talking about a digital camera.
Bob Rosenberg | Trying to understand learning by Thomas A. Edison Papers | studying schooling is rather like Rutgers University | trying to understand human New Brunswick, NJ 08903 | sexuality by studying bordellos. mailto:rarosenb@gandalf.rutgers.edu | --Mary Catherine Bateson