posted on July 22, 2001 12:13:58 AM
Could someone tell me if a $300 Digital Cam pics compare in quality on the net with pics from a scanner....Also any info on how the dig cam is more beneficial would be appreciated......Patrick
posted on July 22, 2001 01:11:39 AM
Provided you have a good digital camera, and you know how to use it, I personally think digital pictures are superior in most cases. I also think they are much easier to use, and you go right from taking the picture to fixing, cropping and sizing it on your PC without having to scan it as well.
I think scanner is better for things like books, magazines, post cards, etc. where it is most important to be able to display printed text crisply and you can put the actual object itself in the scanner.
Gerald
"Oh but it's so hard to live by the rules/I never could and still never do."
Before I invest in a scanner I am going to try my husband's scanner hooked up to my computer. I sell alot of postcards and books.
I think it would probably save alot of time using a scanner. I use the digital outside for a clearer image, and I wouldn't have to wait for the right weather or time of day.
I was wondering though. I had him scan & email two postcards. One back viewed as crisp & clean when in fact it had brown spotting. Does this happen alot? The other
looked fine. My husband said he only cropped to send, nothing else.
[Edited because I left out a word, cause I am not awake yet!]
[ edited by labrat4gmos on Jul 22, 2001 03:58 AM ]
posted on July 22, 2001 06:51:50 AM
depending on the size of your items you may need both.....i scan my books and flat paper items like that that fit on the scanner. for others i use my dig. camera. even if an item will fit on the svanner, i.e a wallet or purse, shoe, doll, etc, i use my dig camera. the camera can capture several sides of an item when used properly.......i likes em both
posted on July 22, 2001 09:59:22 AM
If it is only for taking pictures, a good digital camera goes a long way. Plus, you save yourself the cost of developing, and having to have the pictures developed. Your digital camera will save the pictures in JPG format...ready for transfer to your computer. Obviously you should get a USB digicam. 32MB storage for your digicam will get you 100+ high resolution pics.
posted on July 22, 2001 10:07:25 AM
I have both and I can tell you that a scan of a photograph doesnt match an actual photo taken at 1.5 megapixels or better. With dropping prices, you can get a great camera for $300, particularly if you buy a discontinued model or a refurb. But there are plenty of new models in this range, like the Toshiba PDR-M61 (2.3 megapixel zoom).
posted on July 22, 2001 10:29:35 AM
It really all depends what you sell.....We do not have a dig camera yet.(Want to get one soon.)
But, We mostly sell magazines,Books,ads and use a scanner for those....if you want to get detail...A scanner is a must IMO.
We recently bought a lot of old prints and posters from an auction...those are being held until we get a digital camera.
posted on July 22, 2001 12:15:12 PM
Can a 2 mega pix dig cam put up on auctions an image of a photograph as good as a scanner scanning it at 200 resolution??? I scan at this setting and would like to take pics as equal to this with a 2 mega pix dig cam.....also when i change the size to smaller the image suffers...does dig cam resizing do this also???
posted on July 22, 2001 12:26:59 PM
Typical resolution for a monitor is 72 dpi. Even a 640 X 480 digicam, which is under one megapixel, will do a good job. Your 200 dpi scans are probably resulting in overly large files. To give you an idea, I took a photo of a battery at 2 megapixels, where the battery took up about 20% of the photo. I cropped out everything but the battery and ended up with an image of about 50k. I used software to shrink the image to 25k and tried to put use it in an auction. It took up the whole width of the screen. So I brought it into the software again and compressed the size by 50%. It was still too wide. So I brought it in again and compressed it by another 50%. The resulting 10K file was finally the right size.
posted on July 22, 2001 03:55:53 PM
There are good and bad quality of everything out there. There are great scanners just as there are really terrible scanners. The same applies to digital cameras. There are some really pathetic digital cameras out there. Beware of very low priced digital cameras. You'll be dealing with very low resolution and plastic optical components.
There are lots of great cameras out there for average use in the $300-500 range. A big issue is control. The more control you have over the image you are creating, whether it be digital camera or scanner, the better output you will have.
Read reviews and, if at all possible, take some test shots of something typical of what you sell. Keep in mind though, if you're taking a picture of something very small you will generally run into two problems with less expensive digital cameras. 1) The camera won't be able to focus close enough. 2) If you are indoors, the flash will wash out all detail due to over exposure.
The ideal combination is a scanner and a digital camera. Very small items can be placed on a scanner bed and scanned. Larger items that can't easily be placed on a scanner can easily with a digital camera.
What you have to spend or the importance of detail quality is entirely up to you and your budget. Buy what you can afford but try to buy within product lines which will give you the quality you need.
I started out with a PaperPort Scanner and an Olympus 320L digital camera. That kept me within a range I could afford at the time. Both probably cost me $400 at the time.
Today I use a Canon scanner which also has negative scanning capability and an Olympus E-10 camera with all the available lenses and accessories. Ebay has treated me well so I can afford to buy $3500 in digital camera equipment. The scanner is pretty reasonable just because most scanners have come way down in price. Buy what suits you and your budget and grow with it.
