Digital Cameras and UV light box

Nick Theodorakis nicholas_theodorakis at urmc.rochester.edu
Tue Sep 12 09:52:35 EST 2000


In article <39BE176C.4ADAC644 at virginia.edu>,
  "R. John Lye" <rjl6n at virginia.edu> wrote:
> "Sigurður E. Vilhelmsson" wrote:
>
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > Do you have the Kodak system?  What is your opinion of it?  I have been
> > looking at digital cameras and complete systems, and the Kodak one seems
> > like a relatively good deal.  Do you use their software as well?
> > Opinion again?
>
> I'm not Nick, but we demo'ed the Kodak system when we were
> in the market.  The pictures looked good, and the software was
> pretty useful.  However, it was *extremely* slow.  It took forever
> to load and find the camera. Setting the exposure, and actually
> taking the photo were slow but manageable, but it then took ages
> to transfer the photos to the computer.  It was far too cumbersome
> for our use where lots of different people use the system, so we
> bought a different system.
>
> Hope that helps,
> John
>
>

We have the old Kodak EDAS120 system based on the Kodak DC120 camera. (It
uses the old Mac serial port, which made it hard to upgrade the computer,
grrr).

I concur about the speed of the system. Even if the transfer rate was
faster, just setting it up and getting the image is slower than using a
Polaroid.

Howver, the image quality is good, and the quantification software is
easy to use.

Basically, if I want to take a quick print to stick in my notebook, I use
a Polaroid, but if need a digital image and/or need to do densitometry
(you can also do white light box for autorads or stained gels as well),
then I use the Kodak.

Nick


--
_______________________________________________
Nick Theodorakis
nicholas_theodorakis at urmc.rochester.edu


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.






More information about the Methods mailing list