Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JMD who wrote (19167)	2/15/2001 6:47:41 PM
From: Ausdauer	Respond to of 60323

JMD, What next after Mavica? Don't expect an unbiased opinion here. I still believe CompactFlash is a great medium. The ease of use is the biggest advantage of the floppy, but a CF with a PCMCIA adapter is all you need if you work from a laptop. Worse case scenario is you need to do a one-time ImageMate install on your main PC at work. If your needs are strictly web applications I don't think you need to get a new line of digital cameras unless you are unhappy with the resolution you are getting. Let's say you needed higher resolutions for printed materials. That might be a good reason to upgrade. If you are worried about file sizes I would say that with the current JPEG compression schemes you can select for a reasonable file size for e-mail. I posted a high resolution image a few days ago that only occupies 86KB, yet the resolution is outstanding. That is to say, you can have high resolution and compact file size without compromising image quality. steves-digicams.com As far as digital cameras go, if you feel you need 3.3 megapixel resolution I might consider a Canon G1, a Nikon 990 or 880, an Epson 3000Z. Not that I think Sony or Olympus don't belong in the same class... ...it's just that we have an inventory problem we need to work on. Here is another photo. This is 70KB in size! Message 14585067 Aus

To: JMD who wrote (19167)	2/15/2001 6:52:39 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Mike, first of all, if you are going to e-mail your photos, you can get along with less maximum resolution than 3 mb. Even 2 mb will be on the high side, especially if you send a jpeg compressed file at full resolution. Here's what I would suggest: If you want the 3 mb capability, which will make great prints as well, then make sure the camera is adjusted for a lower resolution for your email photos, or else create a copy on your computer in jpeg at the desired resolution. Also be sure to get a camera with a good optical zoom lens so that you can make your object being photographed as large as possible in the frame. If the camera uses CF, you can easily download the image using a CF card reader, preferably connected to a USB port. After I download my images into the computer, I improve them, using Adobe PhotoShop. To make a high resolution photo for email, first I crop the image, if needed, and then adjust the size to no more than will fit on the average screen of those who are going to receive it. Typically about a 4" x 6" size, and save it in jpeg at medium to high resolution. You'll get a file size of perhaps 300,000 pixels, which is fine on a screen, and which will take only a few seconds to email, using a 56K modem. As long as the photo size remains fairly small, you can have quite a lot of resolution without requiring too much time to send the photo. The result will look great on the screen, and it will also make an acceptable print. Note that adjusting the image with Adobe PhotoShop before you send it allows you to improve the contrast, brightness, color balance, and even the sharpness. The improved image will be much better than the raw image from the camera. I have used this method successfully in sending photos email for publication by newspapers. Art

To: JMD who wrote (19167)	2/15/2001 6:53:32 PM
From: Starlight	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Mike - For backups of photos, a CD is great! A CD will hold 650MB vs. 100MB for a ZIP disk. I've seen external CD burners advertised for less than $70. That would be a good way to store photos off of the hard drive and not use up a lot of HD space. Betty

To: JMD who wrote (19167)	2/16/2001 4:08:16 AM
From: Craig Freeman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

JMD, this is gonna sound strange -- but "buy a Snap!Server". I assume that you have some kind of network at the office but that its capacity is limited. Adding a Quantum "Snap!Server" adds 15-30 GB of storage that everyone can share. It took me well under 1/2 hour to add a Snap! at our office (which uses Netware, NT and more) and it works VERY nicely. Search www.pricewatch.com for "Snap!" and you find a full-blown 30GB Snap!Server for under $700! Once you have virtually unlimited disk storage, you can toss those floppies and move into some REAL cameras ... 3+ megapixel monsters that store photos on flash at hi-res. "Crisp" shots that would easily fill several floppies per click. Store them on the Snap! at full-res and then edit them down as needed using anything from the "Kai's" to "Adobe". Crop, edit, change, and never worry that it will "come out fuzzy". Enjoy! Craig