Re: Iris Photos (digital cam)

Larry Doucette wrote:
> 
> 2.  I've seen iris catalogs prepared using the Video-Snappy approach and the
> results are very impressive..

What is the resolution of the Snappy? I thought it was 72dpi, which
would make it barely useable for print. Am I mistaken?

> 3. Konica is still  very reasonable - but you must plan the shots ahead of time
> (horizontal shots, close-ups, etc)  The snapshots can then be converted to a BMP
> file which have approx. 241,000 bytes. (uncompressed)
> 
> (4)  I like the scanner method - but it does take up table-top space and the end
> results uses lots of bytes.. (yesterday I had an iris photo scanned and it used
> over 3 MEGS ! )  Even compressing won't help that much - that's a lot of
> bytes... !  Most of my images scanned professionally are close to 1.5 megs +..
> 

Storage size is sort of independent of the methodology. It is the number
of pixels per sq inch, times the sixe of the area being scanned, times
the number of bytes used to store the color information (typically 1 or
4 bytes per pixel) The reason most commercially scanned photos take so
much storage space is they scan at high resolution, and 32 bits (4
bytes) per pixel. Reducing the resolution by half reduces the storage
requirements to one fourth. Me, I opted for a LaCie flatbed scanner 600
dpi with interpolation to 1200 dpi. Now if someone would come up with a
$600 dye sublimation printer capable of 1200 dpi, I'd be in 7th heaven.

John                     | "There be dragons here"
                         |  Annotation used by ancient cartographers
                         |  to indicate the edge of the known world.
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index