7 Jun
1997
7 Jun
'97
6:18 a.m.
Hello,
I have been doing some image transfer in the last few months. I bought a Color
QuickCam for about $150. The resolution isn't that great but it is easy to use. I
also bought a scanner last month through Onsale for $139 + $20 shipping. It came
with Photoshop LE which I could sell (I already have Photoshop) for $30. Anyway
that brings the cost for a color flatbed (300 x 600) scanner down to $129. It
will scan photos with incredible resolution. Photo developing is $6-$10 per roll
though.
I've never used the camcorder method but I can't imagine it'll be any better
than
the QuickCam. I did buy a TV card for the PC (I'm still putting together) for $65
a while back. I think it has screen/image capture software and video inputs. If
you already have a videocamera that would be your cheapest alternative. Besides,
then you can watch Gilligans Island on your computer!
I have been trying to decide the best way to get
images into digital form.
Naturally, a digital camera is one way, but not the only. There's also the
photo/scanner method, camcorder/video capture, and probably others. As I
see it, the pros/cons are:
DigCam: + Easy to use, convenient
- Expensive to buy, somewhat limited capacity,
no hard copy of images (except printer output)
Photo/Scanner: + Hard Copy, can be used for other stuff too
- Film and Developing can be expensive, takes time
Camcorder: + Easy to use, Allows for selecting the right image
from several views
- Video capture hardware/software isn't cheap
So, does anyone have thoughts on which is best? I'd like a scanner for
other things, but they're expensive too. There's also the question of 35mm
vs. polaroid and type of scanner. (Not to mention where the heck would I
put it!) I've got a camcorder and my girlfriend's mac supposedly can do
video capture as is, but I've got to find software and figure it out.