On 1/04/10, Andy posted:
> "Bert Coules" <mal@bertcoules.co.uk> wrote:
>> Andy,
>>
>>> The resolution is too low.
>>
>> For whom? Not for me.
>>
>>> Get a 12 megapixel digital camera and capture higher resolution in a
>>> fraction of a second, compared to a scanner.
>>> You'd need to fashion an easel to hold the pages and a tripod.
>>
>> And this space-consuming, Heath Robinson setup is supposed to be
>> superior to a beautifully small, low-profile, well-designed bit of
>> desktop gear? Thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks.
>>
>> Bert
> Let's each take an identical set of 100 pages. You scan with your scanner
> and I'll photograph the same pages with my Nikon 12MP.
> Not only will I be a finished in 1/100th the time that it will take you
> to finish, mine will be 8 times higher quality than yours at the oddball
> 600x1,200 scan rez, then extrapolated to 3,600x3,600 dpi rez.
> You obviously never comprehended tabletop tripods with a digital camera?
> More portable than a 'puter and scanner on the remote scene! You don't
> need an easel, I just figured you wouldn't think to masking tape a page
> bounding box so the pages consistently drop into the same position, so
> you don't have to move the tripod!
> You and your other two Einsteins are unprofessionally clueless.
> Andy
Ahem.
600x1200x8.5x11 = 67.2 MPixel.
No barrel distortion.
No pincushion distortion.
No incorrect white balance.
No noise due to inadequate illumination.
No motion blur or else no tripod taking up a few cubic feet of space.
No many separate steps to be coordinated, just scan and save, scan and
print, or scan and run OCR, while easily seeing the quality of the
result.
HAND
/S/A. Einstein
--
Gene Bloch 650.366.4267 lettersatblochg.com