Wayne asks:

Here's a question for everybody:  While all Compact Flash modules adhere to
a
standard (actually there are two versions - Compact Flash I and II - I think
that this corresponds to PCMCIA Type I and II cards but I am not sure), what
about the method(s) of storing data on these memory modules?  Could I take
the CF module out of my HP-315 and put it into another brand of camera and
have that camera read the module and recognize my photos?  I don't know if
the 'format'ing of the module is a standard in the industry or not.  I'm
thinking of never deleting any photos from the Compact Flash module and just
buying more Compact Flash whenever I need it.  The cost per photo might be
as
low as $0.41 given what I know now - $139 for 256mb and 340 photos / 256mb.

The CF and CFII cards are indeed slightly different in that the CF II card
is slightly thicker.  If you go to DigitalFilm.com you can get a lot of
information on the physical characteristics of CompactFlash and other
solid-state media.  What is stored on the CF card are simple files, usually
JPEGs.  You can certainly move these files around and manage them with any
device that can physically attach to such a card.  For instance, I usually
take the CF card out of my camera, place it in a PC card holder and then I
slide it in my laptop.  Windows 2000 detects the card and shows it as a
removable disk drive.  I can move the files off the card and onto my hard
drive(s) or the HDD in the docking station, at the highest transfer rate
possible for the media.  If I want to, I can burn the files on a CD-R for
distribution or long-term storage.  I would submit to you that it is not a
good idea to use CF cards as your long-term storage.  These devices can be
erased very easily and your photos would be gone.  I submit to you that
burning them to quality CD-R  (not CD-RW) media is probably the best way to
go.

FWIW, in a photo session, I will easily shoot 100 pictures, hoping that one
or two are usable.  On a recent 3 day trip, I shot close to 200 and delete
50 bad ones before even deciding to look at the others.  Of the remaining
150+ photos, only about 10-12 will make it to a printer.  I have already
blown up 2 of the very best to 8X10.  What I am trying to say here is that
you can go wild with the digicam and take LOTS of pictures.  Soot away, it
costs nothing.  You can then download everything to your computer and go
through the pictures with a more discriminating eye.  You will find that as
you should more and more pictures, you will get better at it.  Already,
after 3000+ pictures on my Digicam over the last year, I have accumulated
about 50 pictures, which I think are pretty good, and about 5 that I have
placed in frames.  In order to keep up with such a shooting regimen, you
will need to empty your CF cards.  (Only 100 pictures on a trip to Europe?
I would have shot maybe 5-600 pictures in a week.)


Right now I am looking at some of HP's brand new photo printers.  They have
one that prints 4x6 size photos direct from Compact Flash (and another
semi-standard type of memory).  I suspect that it's not yet possible to get
a
printer that will support the resolution that the latest cameras work with.
Thus printed photos must come out at a lower resolution anyway.

This last is a common misconception.  You mention that your camera is a 2.1
MP.  This means the pictures have a resolution of 1600X1200 pixels.  Now you
think to yourself this exceeds the capabilities of everything but the best
printers, which go to 1440 or 2880.  Well, that is incorrect.  Your 2.1MP
camera is only able to produce pictures that can print at about 4X6, 5X7 if
you are not too fussy.  You see, on the monitor, the resolution is 72DPI,
(dots per inch) on a printer, to get a good quality picture you need a
minimum of about 200-230 DPI resolution.  The optimum resolution is about
300 DPI in the picture, not the printer itself.  So your 1600X1200 picture
produces a 4X5.3 inch picture at 300.  The resolution will drop at 5X7 and
8X10.  The printer itself will then render the picture at the resolution you
created using its ink jets.  The printer resolution currently exceeds
whatever picture you have, by a wide margin.

Anybody want a sample photo?  I had a lot of fun using the digital camera.
It's an interesting change to be able to see what you just took on the
little
built-in display and then be able to delete photos that you don't want.
Also, unless I print out a photo, the cost of taking each additional photo
is
ZERO.  Now if I can figure out cheaper ways of printing photos, I will have
the total cost of digital photos well below the cost of developing and
printing 35mm film photos.  Anyone have any thoughts on low cost photo paper
for HP's latest type of photo printers???

I use an Epson photo printer for my pictures.  I am able to produce very
nice 8X10, but since my camera is only a 3.34MP model, it gives a resolution
of 192 DPI at that size.  I therefore use a Photoshop plug-in called Digital
Fractals to increase the resolution to 300 DPI.  The files produced are
2400X3000 pixels or 7.2 megapixels.  Actually, it is my understanding that
once cameras reach about 8MP, they will have reached the resolution of
silver-halide 35MM film.  The trick with printers is the combination of
paper and ink.  For the Epson Stylus Photo 875, I use the Epson proprietary
ink, (6 colors) and either the Epson or the Red River Paper.  I buy the
latter in bulk.  I am able to print a stunning 8X10 for about $1.00 with
this paper.  Also, it is important that you place the photo in a sleeve or
under glass for long-term display or storage.  I also use the Epson Matt
Heavyweight, which requires no special handling for long-term.




Kind regards,

Denys. . .

Denys Beauchemin
HICOMP
(800) 323-8863  (281) 288-7438         Fax: (281) 288-7438
denys at hicomp.com                             www.hicomp.com

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *