On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 18:15:03 -0700, Patrick Elliott
<sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>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? 

The scanner they use for the negatives? You *are* referring to
chemical prints aren't you?


--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message