Storage of photos whilst travelling?

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 11:23:02 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

You don't have to scan anything with digital.

You don't have to use any disk space with film.

But the post I replied to didn't mention space - it talked about the act
of scanning itself.
--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:50:30 +0000, Reid wrote:

Following up to bigbrian

As far as cost is concerned its a total no brainer.

only at the low quality end. Full frame SLRs are still
prohibitively expensive

Yes a decent digital SLR costs a bloody fortune. At least as an initial
outlay - which is enough to put a lot of people off.

As an aside, there was a snippet in a recent New Scientist that mentioned
the Mt. Palomar Observatory. It has a video done by Patrick Moore back in
the '80s saying that the telescope used a CCD device for capturing images -
0.5 Mega pixels. Amazing. I wonder what it used nowadays, and other
telescopes for hat matter, as none of them have used film for years.

Aha, I just visited their website. It's effectively a 161 megapix jobby.
fx fast-show jazz club voice Nice /fx

That would get you some serious hard-disk space problems, I'd have thought.

--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

Tim Challenger writes:

Aha, I just visited their website. It's effectively a 161 megapix jobby.
fx fast-show jazz club voice Nice /fx

But it is made from 112 individual CCDs, making each CCD only about 1.5
megapixels.

That would get you some serious hard-disk space problems, I'd have thought.

Apparently some images are 8000 megapixels in size, when certain
scanning modes of the imaging device are used.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Following up to Mxsmanic

That is why I looked for a camera which has a good lens, rather than one
which has lots of pixels. From what you say, that approach would also be
appropriate to someone who is the same as you without the wish to sell large
prints?

If monitor display is the only objective, just about any resolution will
do; all recent digital cameras (and of course all film cameras) handily
exceed monitor resolution.

Lens quality is always essential to image quality.

I certainly don't intend to decide the quality of my stored
images on the basis of current monitor size (where 300K files are
adequate) in ten years time we may be looking at images in a
"picture frame" on the wall several feet across.[1]
There is only one quality level suitable for future proofing,
maximum.

1] this statement will probably turn out like "one day every city
will have a telephone"
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale, Thames path, London, landscapes "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain,cuisines and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap