(Fwd) Re: Video/printers
filter at firthcom.demon.co.uk
Sat Dec 23 17:26:41 EST 1995
In article <9512220713.AA00811 at allserv.rug.ac.be>,
mario.vaneechoutte at rug.ac.be wrote:
>Digital camera's could indeed be very convenient to
>replace Polaroid camera's:
> less loss of resolution,
No, sorry most digital cameras and certainly al video cameras give you
musch worse resolution than a Polaroid print.
>immediate digitalisation (i.e. no need for scanning the gels), cheaper.
Only cheaper on the consumables and you'd have to do a heck of a lot of
work to make it worthwhile.
>Video camera's still are expensive.
And low resolution, even S-VHS/Hi-8 only gives a resolution of around
756x520 pixels, and this is pushing the limits.
>If someone knows about useful digital camera devices, let us know.
A Leaf Lumina would give you good resolution for static subjects and has
good resolution, but the price is still very high (over GBP 2500) and the
camera needs to take long exposures so only static subjects are worthwhile.
In my own experiments, I had reasonable results using a single pass desktop
transparency scanner capable of scanning 36bits per pixel at a resolution
of 2400 pixels per inch. This is good for stained, dried polyacrylamide
gels but of no use for ethidium bromide stained gels. The 36bpp referred to
above is not a misprint, these scanners are built to overscan the image to
improve ability to resolve images with a high contrast.
More information about the Diagnost