At 09:28 PM 2/4/99 +0000, you wrote:
>> are quite adequate. Screens are about 72dpi, my Sony Mavica FD-71 is
>> 640x480 (or a little over 100dpi for a 4x6 photo).
>
>Digital cameras are not cheap enough to be worth buying just to stick
>pictures on the web. For the same cost I could probably get a second-hand
>'classic' camera, and have a lot of fun restoring it, and then take some
>real pictures.
Consider:
Sony Mavica: $660
Take picture, size, and upload.
Scanner (Cheap) $50
Cheap 35mm Camera $50
Film - dollar or two per roll
Developing (Cheap) $4 per roll
ScanTime (I got it down to 4 minutes per pic)
So, for 24 pics:
Sony Scan
$660 $105 Equip/Supplies
$ 0 $ 96 Scan time (at $60/hr)
$ x $ x Size/Upload (same for both)
---- ----
$660 $201
Now for multiple rolls (say 5):
Sony Scan
$660 $125 Equip/Supplies
$ 0 $480 Scan Time
---- ----
$660 $605
The more you take, the more cost effective it becomes. (Mind you, I don't
know how you value your time, but waiting for a scanner hardly seems a good
use of my time).
I know I've taken a lot more than 5 rolls worth of digpics -- Take a look
at <
http://www.sinasohn.com/urbadv/phalbum.htm> for example. And I've got
a lot of classic computers to take too.
The Mavica is not the cheapest DigCamera either. If you go for one of the
less expensive models, your costs go way down.
>
>Also those digital cameras are too darn small. I don't fancy having to
>fix the thing...
>
>-tony
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger_at_sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California
http://www.sinasohn.com/
Received on Fri Feb 05 1999 - 18:59:14 GMT