In article <3dbs40djq5o6hubm38mdjb4fgef5cdopes@4ax.com>, no### [at] spamhere 
says...
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:22:58 -0700, Patrick Elliott
> <sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
> >Given absolutely no other choice, so would I. However, that still means 
> >my camera that 'could' have taken around 30 high quality images (at 
> >around 2MB a piece with PNG, maybe less) can only take at most 10 images 
> >*if* I am using a 64MB memory card in it (with RAW and TIFF taking 5-6MB 
> >per image). 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. A digital camera *needs* to be able to at 
> >least match the same number of photos a normal camera can or what is the 
> >point?
> 
> Now you are talking, but then the scanner is going to have to be a
> good one.
> 
What scanner? Most places now will provide you with a CD containing 
digital copies of everything you took with the normal cameras. This may 
differ outside the US I supposed. Also some CD drives had issues reading 
the format, but generally only older models. The only real advantage a 
digital camera gives is "instant use" of the image or the ability to 
transfer it to your laptop as you take it (which inevitably saves the 
result in the same crappy JPG format. I swear that a few of them may even 
make it worse, since the camera probably uses group of settings, but your 
photo editor uses something else, so different artifacts get added in 
each process. After all, the programs don't save the file that came right 
off the camera, but a new version 'they' write based on decoding the 
image to view it.

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message