On Tuesday, September 04, 2001 at 16:23, Daniel J. Mitchell
<olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote on "RE: [OM] Re: Digital Musings," saying..
> > A scanner is something I'm more or less looking at, though not at all
> hard.
> > It would be nice to share some stuff with others interested in the art and
>
> > I do feel left out at times not doing so. Just seems so expensive now.
> Plus
> > the time to do it and maintain the site and all that.
>
> Oh, but scanners are _cheap_. Film/slide scanners are expensive, but a
> generic flatbed scanner that'll scan prints shouldn't set you back more than
> US$100 at the absolute max -- $50 if you shop around a bit/pick one up used.
> Sure, it won't get you the 4000x3000-sized monster images that a slide
> scanner will, but if all you want to do is put prints on a web page, it'll
> be more than adequate.
Oh? Scan a 4x6 print at 1200 dpi, get a 4800x7200 file.
Yeah, quality, sharpness, dMax suffers by going thru the extra step.
But BIG? no problemo.
Tom
------------------------------------------- http://abacurial.com
tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ICQ:57647974 +1 613 291-1168 fax:594-5412
415-400 Slater St. Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7S7 N45.41694 W75.70462
*After 2001 Oct 20:758 Albert St, Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8*
,__ô Laws are the spider's webs which, if anything small falls into
_-\_<, them they ensnare it, but large things break through and escape.
(*)/'(*) -Solon, statesman (c. 638-c558 BCE)
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|