Comments

Chienworks wrote on 10/13/2002, 8:57 AM
I don't know if anyone could answer that question without a thorough comparison of the two. However, they are intended for quite different purposes, and a comparison between them may not have much meaning. If you're asking which is the better device for converting existing photos into digital image files, then stick with the scanner. Trying to digitize photos with a digital camera will give you ulcers in short order; it's just not worth all the effort an headaches when the scanner is designed to do this job.

If you're contemplating methods for taking new pictures (35mm film -> print -> scanner -> .jpg file vs. digital camera), then definately consider the camera. It's faster and easier, works natively in digital, and in the long run saves you tons of money on film and processing. You can get very good photographic quality prints for those times when you still wanted a hardcopy of the photos.
vicmilt wrote on 10/13/2002, 10:11 AM
I say, unless you are doing huge amounts of high rez scanning, go with the camera. 1200 dpi is really quite enough for most uses. If you have the need for occasional high res scans, Kodak will do them for a pittance (in 5 different resolutions) and put them on a CD, as well - maybe a quarter a scan or so.
A new camera??? Who could resist??
seeker wrote on 10/13/2002, 5:17 PM
Spidey,

> Which one has a better picture quality, my scanner or the digi cam? <

The short answer is your 1200x1200 scanner. That is based purely on pixel count. I use color negative film in a Canon EOS Elan IIe 35mm SLR, and get 4 x 6 prints because they are inexpensive and they fully cover the 24mm x 36mm negative without any machine cropping of my pictures.

When you scan a 4x6 print you get 4 x 1200 = 4800 pixels by 6 x 1200 = 7200 pixels. The 4800 x 7200 pixel images have 34,560,000 pixels per image. You would need a digital camera with about 30 megapixels to match that image detail. Also, the interchangeable lenses that are available for 35mm SLRs are much higher quality and more versatile than what you can get on most digital cameras. Also, there is less delay when you press the shutter button.

Whether you need that much image detail for use in your Vegas videos depends entirely on how you plan to use the images in your videos. If you plan to "pan and scan" over the image, like following a travelling vehicle on a map or panning over details on a painting, then you could use the oversized images. If you merely need to fill a DV video frame, then the 2.1 megapixel Cybershot should be adequate, even with some image cropping.

-- seeker --
wcoxe1 wrote on 10/13/2002, 5:24 PM
The answer to your question depends entirely on how good you are with the software involved and the selection of hardware settings of both units for different and constantly changing situations.
spidey2002 wrote on 10/14/2002, 9:58 AM
Thank you guys for your inputs. I think based on your replies, I'll stick with my scanner. I'll be scanning my existing pictures and be contented with buying new films, develop and scan them. Thnx again.
Summersond wrote on 10/14/2002, 12:59 PM
If you will be publishing to a vhs tape in the end, remember that it will only show 640X480, so you wouldnt need huge scanner detail. I always take a picture of the pictures with the TRV-900 and dump them to the pc from the flash card. Works fine for me, plus it's quicker than scanning every picture. My 2 cents worth.

dave
nolonemo wrote on 10/14/2002, 2:15 PM
Pixel count is only one part of the equation. The other is what you could call optical resolution, or perhaps true information content. True, a 35mm negative holds far more information than a 2.1 MP digicam (or any digicam image, for that matter). But what the poster appears to be doing is printing the 35mm neg to a 4x6 print and scanning that. The generational loss in quality from negative to print to scan will result in an image that is of lesser quality than a straight 2.1 MP shot out of the camera, IMO. Remember, what's important is not the pixel count, but the information contained in those pixels.

Frenchy wrote on 10/15/2002, 12:30 PM
Spidey:

Here's what I do, and you may want to consider: Have your (color) film processed by a firm like Photoworks.com (there are others). They will process any color film, print and scan at med resolution (640x480 - fine for most video stuff, or high-res, for an extra couple of bucks per roll, for great panning and cropping in Vegas). They store your scanned prints on their website indefinately(for *free*), as long as you have them develop one roll every six months; you can download them anytime, or (for another five bucks) they will send them to you on a cd. Also, included in the price is another roll of film (costs for a 24-exp roll range from $10.70 for 2-4x6 prints, med res scan, to $14.45 for "the works" - 2-4x6 prints, high-res scans, and a cd, both including film, of course).

BTW - I have no affiliation with Photoworks - I have just been extremely happy with their service for several years now, with NO problems to date.

If you're like me, although I've fully embraced digital technology (yes, I'm a tech-weenie), I am "old school" in my use of film and desire for prints(yes, I know one can print digital images). I just like to get that package in the snail mail and have the prints to flip through, and share with family and friends. (yes, I also have a digital still camera, as well as DV, etc...). I'm also looking at getting a scanner, for my older stuff, that is not yet digitized, but there just isn't as much time as there used to be, is there...