"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:ap4450hf21kev8g9fhkmj1ges36c450tuu@4ax.com...
> >A
> >scanner, as you say, is only needed to get the image into the digital
realm,
> >but the point was you could have much higher quality without entering the
> >digital realm.
>
> But there's where the fun stops. It continues once we step into the
> digital world.

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:22:58 -0700, Patrick Elliott
<sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I may as well use a normal camera and get 30 or more photos
> and have the advantage of negatives I can losslessly blow up to 100 times
> the normal photograph size.

This post, which sparked the sub-thread, is clearly referring to an analog
(ie non-digital) method.  That's why referrence to a scanner was
unnecessary; the scanner would never be a part of the process, and the image
would never be converted to a digital format.

-- 
...Chambers
http://www.geocities.com/bdchambers79

Post a reply to this message