IMHO, I would go for the scans. If you shoot dv, lighting has to be right to avoid reflections and you are stuck with dv resolution as opposed to higher from scans (though you only really need higher res if you plan on zooming in on them.

As far as adding them to the timeline, I believe the steps are more or less as follows:
1) number them in order and start at 0001
2) import them into the project in Vegas.
3) Check the settings in file/preferences/"still image length" (apply your choice) and "automatically overlap events when added" set choice of seconds) - all this is from memory so apologies if I get the wording wrong!
EDIT: actually have doubts whether the settings are under file/preferences or Options/preferences/editing - someone help? (not in front of Vegas at the mo...
4) now select all the images (windows method of clicking on first still, scrolling down and clicking on last still whilst holding caps key.
5) once all are selected, drag the FIRST still (holding onto the selection) and drag onto timeline
and there you have it: all stills should be on your timeline in order and with your choice of length for both stills and crossfades..

Does it work???

regards

Paul.

I agree with PDB, scanning is the way to go. You have perfect control over each image.

The easiest way to do this is to get yourself a light table. Basically a table with 2 lights on the side and a mount for a camcorder directly above the table. You put the pictures on the table, then you frame them properly with the camera, then capture a few seconds of video and then just bring that into Vegas. You can also use that method for xooms and pans on the picture as well. We have been using this method for quite a while now and have yet to get a complaint from a client, usually just praise :)
It works best if you use a 3CCD camera, that will give you the best image.

Using this method you'll probably be able to capture 5-10 pictures in the amount of time it will take to scan 1 picture. It's a HUGE time saver and the quality will be just as good.

To save time when scanning photos, put as many on the flatbed as you can fit and scan them all as one .png file. Use a resolution of about 300.

Then, in Vegas, use the Pan/Crop tool to frame up each image individually (and fine tune the composition at the same time).

The disadvantage is that you can't do the auto fades as described in the other posts because you are using the same image multiple times.

However, if you have Excalibur, Gap Wizard makes this a non-issue.

Gary

I have been doing photomontages for over 10 years and have used every technique there is. The best one that has worked for me (quality, speed) is to use a digital slr like the Canon 10D with a good short zoom on a copy stand. Set to medium fine resolution. Creates jpegs that can be dug directly to timeline. Takes just a very few seconds to capture each photo. A couple of photofloods to light the stand (don't use flash). Turn camera's preview off to speed things up. Don't forget to white balance to light being used.

If time is a REAL issue as your post suggests, take them into a Walmart or Kodak store, pay the .60 per image to have them scanned at 300 dpi and burned to a disk. Nichols Photo in SLC can do this in about 2 hours with their autoloader, most Kodak stores have them too. Yep, that's nearly 200.00, but it's time saved if it's a big project. Shooting with a matte is faster than scanning, but do you want fast, cheap, or good? Good can be cheap, or Good can be fast. But not all three. Even with uncompressed video, resolution and accuracy will generally be better with a 50.00 scanner.

Forgive me repeating myself, but like Spot says, scanning is the best way to go. Have tried the camera on the copystand technique. It works, but it is limiting. With images scanned at 300 ppi, you can zoom in very close. The video Christmas card we just did is a good example of how images can be zoomed in on without loosing resolution.

Another vote for scanning them in. I finished up one with 200+ pictures and I did all the scanning. I just used the color photo defaults on my scanner which is about 200dpi. It's amazing how fast it flows when you use Photoshop, or the like, and get an assembly line going. Very fast scanning. If you are using decent quality photo's you don't need a lot resolution on scanning. Spot has a "Tip" in his Vegas 4 Editing Workshop book that says scanning at too high a resolution can create artifacts on the video image.

I've done a few Photomontages and usually scan the pictures.

However, just for the heck of it I tried the "take a digital picture" method and as far as I could tell, it worked out quite well.

I brought the file into Vegas, panned up nice and tight and the image quality appeared quite good.

So, at this point, I now have a question. What advantages are there in scanning the pictures instead of just taking a digital shot of them?

There's a difference between "take a digital picture" and using the video camera to "tape" the picture. If you just video the picture and then try to zoom in, you will pixelate quickly. If you "take a digital picture", you be getting far better resolution allowing for some zooming.

I scan mine.

I scan with an auto loading HP scanner. Quality is acceptible and with the USB2 connection the speed is good. Pictures with the digital Camcorder are just terrible in comparison.

Scanners have become quicker, I have 2 HP scanners, 1 scanner takes about 45-60 seconds.(to long) The other takes about 14-18 seconds. There is no warm-up time and it automatically scans only the picture it sees. There are times that some pictures need to be cropped. But I do that when I put them in the Photo editor.

I also have taped pictures, used a digital camera, used a video camera directly to the Video Toaster,(this is the fastest method for me), but for me because I do a lot of track motion and pan&crop, I prefer scanning.

How about this wheeze?

1 - Set up camie and lights

2 - Use the Camera option in Windows to "view" the image

3 - Tke Picture directly into pc

I've "viewed" miniDV tape thro this simple little programme and have "captured" images directly from tape. My idea would be to just have the camera ON and the image should be seen thro firewire . . . can't see why this would work? You can capture stills as quickly as you can put on the "board" a new photo and click the button on the pc . . It's gotta be worth a shot - yeah? The prog is the same that comes up when you attach a cammie via firewire. Now, if you actuate the cammie icon you get to see what is ON the tape . . I would think that - I think I've actually done this - leave the cammie on RECORD and the image appears on the pc screen. Now from here all you need to do is click on something that is "Snapshot" - I thinbk that is it . . ..

. . anyway my 2pennies worth . . . sorry to be vague about this, but I don't have my cammie at hand to confirm this - yeah?

Regards

Grazie