HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mary Ellin D'Agostino <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 21 May 1998 18:44:43 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (59 lines)
Problems with digital cameras:
 
1. The resolution of the pictures is not nearly as good as old fashioned
film unless you get one of the really expensive models.  In fact, the
picture quality is fine for websites, but if you need the pictures for data
purposes, I  would strongly recommend going with old fashioned film.  Film
also has the advantage that we know how it stores archivally.  If your
picture data is stored electronically, five or ten years from now you may
not be able to find a program that can read the data...
 
2. They can be battery hogs--this may depend on the model.  Make sure you
have an ac/dc adaptor and lots of batteries.
 
3. They are often limited as to the number of pictures they can hold unless
you purchase lots of memory cartridges/disketts.  If you are not
downloading the pictures to your computer regularly, this could be a problem.
 
4. Make sure you have a really big disk for downloading the pictures to--if
you get a camera capable of reasonably high quality pictures, the images
are going to take up a *lot* of space.
 
It is probably cheaper to use regular film and have it processed by Seattle
FilmWorks or some other company that will give you digital copies as well
as your slides and/or prints.
 
Cheers,
Mary Ellin D'Agostino
(who doesn't own a digital camera, but has several friends that do)
 
At 08:58 PM 5/21/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>Has anyone used a digital camera in the field?
>We've been given a small technology grant and
>are considering the purchase of a digital camera.
>
>Yet, we're a bit unsure as to the relevance of it.
>Is it worth it, or is Kodak still the way to go?
>What are the advantages/disadvantages of it in
>the field?
>
>If anyone has experience could you please e-mail
>off line (unless all of you want to read this stuff)?
>
>Thanks for any help.
>
>Regards,
>Chris Ricciardi
>(BC-ARC)
>
>
********************************
*  Mary Ellin D'Agostino       *
*  [log in to unmask]   *
*  Department of Anthropology  *
*  University of California    *
*  Berkeley, CA 94720-3710     *
********************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2