I may need to acquire a digital camera for a tree condition survey which will end up with 100-200 images.

Any experience with image quality with different cameras out there?

Any experience with different methods of digital transfer from camera to computer? Some seem to have a built in memory with a max size, you need to upload the first batch before taking the next. Others seem to have a mini-diskette or PC-Card that can be swapped out by the batch. Do you need a special drive for those mini-diskettes?

Are the per print costs (color ink and high quality paper) when outputting from your computer more of less than traditional photo prints?

Are there indexing schemes that tag or identify each image so it can be referenced in a database table?

TIA

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on June 25, 1999 at 10:50:08:

Hi Scott,

I've been watching the market for a while. I feel that the image quality still isn't quit good enough for my purposes, so I'm still taking 35mm and scanning them in with an HP 6200C when I need in a report.

The best resolution in the under $2,000 range is still only half or third as good as a normal 3x5 photo taken with a 35mm.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of being 15 miles from nowhere and runing out of camera memory. I plan (when I finally break down and buy one) to purchase the Sony (under $1,000) that uses a standard 1.44 meg floppy, or else get a laptop that I download to while in the field. I believe that the Sony has a built-in image ID feature.

I still have a handful of $40 memory cards for my outdated word processor, and don't plan to do the same with camera memory cards.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on June 25, 1999 at 10:50:08:

I agree with Paul. The image quality is still limited and there are several technical issues, such as battery life, as well. If you plan to ever use the images in a court case be aware that some courts may not accept the digital image unless you can show a sound chain of command Digital images are extremely easy to manipulate, while if you can submit an original negative, it is harder to ramper with.

By the way, for thos eof you wanting to scan slides look at the HP Photo Smart scanner. I just purchased on. It does prints up to postcard size, slides, and negatives. Amaxingly, it converts the negatives into prints right on the screen and then you can adjust colour balance etc and print it out as a colour photograph. Very easy to install and use and very affordable.

Take prints, scan them in and edit to your heart's content.

Julian

Reply to post by Paul M Davis, on June 25, 1999 at 10:50:08:

Paul & Julian, thanks for the prompt replies.

The issue in the case that's prompted my query is more time budget than image quality. Will probably be over 150 maybe over 200 images. That's a lot of time putting physical prints in a report or scanning them into the computer one at a time. Client will not need the images for decision making, they are purely for future record and documentation. They'd be comfortable with my handing them a diskette or CD for those purposes.

Then again, how many documents do we all have on 5 1/4 floppy diskettes in an operating system and apploications pkg we can't even run anymore. So maybe film is a good idea.

I understand the issue about litigation and the potential for altered images. Not a problem here but important elsewhere. (Read Rising Sun).

Russ suggested the 1.44 meg floppy may not hold many images, maybe 20-40, depending on resolution. Taking some 100's without uploading could be an issue.

It's been suggested trying good quality video (some hours worth of shooting time) and the Snappy (TM) still capture device. I guess a lot of select and capture time. As a plus you get audio notes.

My old reliable Nikor lenses and Kodak film processing and digitizing are sounding good.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on June 25, 1999 at 10:50:08:

I have been using one for about six months. Small, Kodak around $500.00. Comments on clarity is right. I have purchased a couple of extra cards 15mb for about $80.00 each. Do not use for legal stuff for the same reasons. We have been shooting dead or dying trees and storing. When tree owner contests the death of the tree in winter, ("see, the leaves fell off like all the others") we can show them the image. I have heard some talk of loosing clarity and color if stored too long, but have not experienced. As for the 1.44 floppy disks. I have been able to save only four or five. My main machine is a four gig hard drive. I'm saving them there and no problems with space.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on June 25, 1999 at 10:50:08:

My 2 cents-

Digital cameras have come a long way, but the 'consumer' versions are not yet good enough for the quality most of us want, and no where near photo (film) quality.

The issues-
Resolution: getting better, but still not good enough. High-end professional cameras can do the job, but costs are in the $2000 and up range. If you really want to know, check out the Canon site. Cameras are now approaching 1600 ppi (pixels per inch), still less than good photographic film.

The other half of the picture (pun intended) is the viewing resolution. All the pixels in the world won't cut it if you can't view the image at high res. You monitor screen probably gives you about 72 ppi. Printers run from about 300 dpi (dots per inch) to 1440 (higher for the big commercial printers and some laser printers). A cameraq with a really high resolution printed on a low dpi printer wastes the image quality. So the printer AND the paper quality must match the image quality.

Storage:
memory capacity is a BIG question. The floppy memory (SONY Mavica) is handy, but slow. Takes a few seconds to store the image, so you can't take a quick succession of images. Limited capacity, too. The good news- cheap and readily available.

Many of the newer cameras use Compact Flash cards, a small memory chip about the size of a large postage stamp (BTW, have you seen the new Franklinia stamps for Bartram's Gardens?). These CF cards are now available up to 128 MB (for $400).

Downloading can be a hassle. The floppies are direct- just pop it in and save to file or manipulate on the disk. Most cameras allow you to connect directly camerqa to desktop or notebook. If your camera uses the CF cards, there is at least manufacturer that makes a card reader that is fast and easy to use, so the camera isn't connected.

Batteries:
Cameras are power hogs, especially if they have a digital view screen. Given a choice, consider a camera that uses standard batteries that are easy to replace. Get a handful of rechargeables, to keep the cost down. Dedicated batteries mean you need two or three to carry with you. Turn off the digital screen if possible. Some cameras have an optical viewfinder.

Optics:
This is still what makes the camera (odd it wasn't mentioned) Clarity of lenses is not usually an issue these days, but focusing accuracy is. Make sure the camera can focus where you want it. There should be a manual option for focusing. Check minimum focusing distance, since you may need to get those closeups.

Zoom ratio is the final big item. Most of the consumer cameras offer none, or 3x. This isn't much for technical work with a single camera. You can find snap on lenses for some models, which helps. The SONY cameras have a 14x ratio, which is great. A few others are beginning to show up with extended zoom ratios.

Now for a comparison. What about using that old 35mm camera?

The good news is that they are not yet obsolete. As mentioned in this thread, image manipulation is easy with digital images. Film is much harder to manipulate, and nearly impossible to fudge without leaving evidence. If you have cases that may end up in court, film is the still best way to go.

It is now economical to scan the photos (slides or negatives) into the computer or to disk. In fact, most processing places will do this, either in house or outsourced. Cost should only be about $4 to $8 per roll, depending on how many pictures and what storage type. You can have several rolls put on a single CD-ROM disk.

Film scanners are like the digital cameras. Resolution is the key ingredient, and are comparable to the digital cameras in this category. You only get out what you put in. The good n ews is that you still have the original film, if you need regular prints. Costs are now as low as $400, but expect to spend twice that for a good unit. They scan any film- slides and negatives, and convert negatives to positive images via the software included (simple filtering). Make sure you have a place to put these scanned images- the size adds up quickly. Also, time is a factor- Scanning a single frame can take for half a minute to several minutes each, depending on scanner model.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on June 25, 1999 at 10:50:08:

Thanks for the update Russ.

RE: Optics and focusing and zoom. Joe McNeil advises there is a big difference between optical zoom and electronic zoom. You want optical for good image quality and resolution. The new Sony Mavicas are apparently optical zoom. Joe also advise the high optical zooms are great for canopy and high trunk shots.

RE: CD delivery of processed film images. If you send Kodak or whomever some number of rolls can you specify delivery on a single CD? Any idea how many images fit on a CD? Am I correct in assuming you can manipulate and print an image (say put in pointer arrows) but not save the alterations to the CD? Or are these writable CDs if you happen to have a CD writing drive?

RE: Scanning. You have to consider the time involved in sorting through your prints and slides and then scanning them in.

RE: Indexing images. How are you handling indexing images (scanned or otherwise but in digital format) and linking to your flat or relational database table or spreadsheet?

Reply to post by Scott, on June 26, 1999 at 01:13:25:

To take them in order:

1) Optics- Joe is correct. There is a big difference in optical vs. digital zooming. Optical magnifies the image before it is recorded, through the lenses. Lens Quality is the factor here, since the light being recorded is magnified (spread out so a smaller sample is recorded). In the process you lose some sharpness and detail, if lens quality is not great. In contrast, digital zooming is post-recording enhancement. It is the same as making a larger print from a slide or negative. Again you are apreading out the light, but you have a less exact image to start with. This basically involves computer enhancement and extrapolation of the data in the image.

With optical zooming, you have millions of photons, so resolution is nearly infinite (for practical purposes). Once the light hits the image sensor, it is recorded as distinct dots, or pixels. Instead of infinite resolution, you are now limited by the number of data points or pixels in the sensor. When using digital zooming, you are only interpolating the limited number of pixels you have to start with, not the infinite number you start with in optical zooming.

2) You will have to ckeck with the processing firm you select to see how they store the images, and whether you can continue to add to a CD disk. I heve been using Seattle FilmWorks recently, and they send a CD with 'high resolution' images now. A roll of 38 images (I usually squeeze an extra one or two) is 4.6 megabytes, or about 76K per image. These are compressed in their own format, and the software for viewing them is included. One CD disk can hold up to about 650 megs, so there is a lot of room left.

If you use a film scanner, depending on resolution, you can expect much greater file sizes, up to 20 or 25 megs, possibly more, per image. Storage costs now become a factor, if you are scanning yourself. Again, to find out what Kodak and the various processers can provide, ask them. I haven't researched that aspect myself.

3) Time- Always have to factor the time element. In any case, you will have time for photo review and selection. If you have someone else store the images, you have to view them, although most processers provide a proof sheet with 'thumbnail' images, so you can see which is which.

If you are scanniong your own, you have to first learn the setup and software (overhead cost, maybe not direct to the client?). You do have scanning time, too, but you can sort and view your pictures first, and then scan only those you need or want to keep on disk. As I mentioned in the previous message, scanning time will vary depending on the scanner, software, and resolution of the image you are saving.

4) Indexing- Since I haven't gone fully digital yet, I haven't actually cross-referenced the images. I have given it thought, and even set up my database system to do that, however.

I record data on every shot I take: Date, time, roll number (following a numbering system I set up), frame number, camera (I use several), lens, film type and speed, exposure settings, electronic flash if used, client information and subject notes. (All this now goes into my PalmIII datapad, and gets transferred to the desktop database files.) The database is set to hold either the scanned image (this will make your database huge), or a filepath reference. Using the filepath, I only have to drop in the right disk to view the image on screen in my database, with all the information. I can also print report pages directly from there.

If you aren't quite fully digital, get a small pocket notebook to record all your photo data, and use it every time your press the shutter. Keep your film/disks carefully labelled and in order (OK, I plead guilt on one count of disorganization [g]). Keep the proof sheet, if you have them. By all means, use a database on the computer. It makes finding the right roll for a client or topic a breeze.

If enough people are interested in a database for this, I can make one later this year.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on June 26, 1999 at 13:39:51:

Oops! Forgot to address the addition of "Circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one..."

Once the images are on disk, you can do a lot with them. THis is good, and not so good. As mentioned previously, it is easy to create new images, delete parts, add stuff that just ain't there, etc. For this reason, digital originals may be suspect in a court of law. If you shoot film and scan in it to disk, you still have originals to back up your claims of accuracy. Even just enhancing contrast or color blend is consider manipulation.

Now to adding emphasis. With the image on disk, you open it in an image software application (Kodak Photo Deluxe or Adobe Photoshop, or similar: No endorsement or preference implied here). Most of the applications work with 'layers', with the image on the bottom layer. Be sure you make changes on different layers. Add the features- arrows, circles, text comments, etc. - then print what you end up with. If you don't save the new file, you won't have it on disk, but your original image will be unaltered (especially if it is on CD, since you can't change anything there.)

Now here's a neat trick to save disk space on your computer. Working in layers, you can't delete individual layers. Think of it like putting your photo on a table, them putting a sheet of clear acetate over it and drawing on that. When you're done you pull out the photo (delete the botton layer) and you now have a small file with just the additions. You can index this and save it, and if you need to make more copies, pull up the image from disk, add the overlay, and your back where you started.

One note here: Keep in mind how things will look when you print them. Don't try tto put a light color over a dark one- most printers will print all the layers. To use light colored arrows, etc., you may need to put a different background behind them. Check a few to see how your software and printer handles this.

Don't forget you will need to add captions, and page header/footer information if using these in reports. Plan accordingly for space.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on June 27, 1999 at 12:09:10:

This looks like a memory hog no matter how you go about it. How'bout a using removable drives for individual projects so all work is segregated?

Reply to post by John S, on June 27, 1999 at 12:26:00:

Not a bad idea. Both to maximize available space on your primary storage devie and to minimize housekeeping by keeping the removable medium with the hard file - how often it seems we have to find it all years later.

A lot of the computers are coming through with Zip, Jazz or Super disks (all TM) installed. Up to 100 MB I think. But if Russ suggests that scanned images can be 25meg each that's really not a lot per disk.

That makes writable CD drives really attractive, not just for capacity but since blank CDs are a couple of bucks vs many many bucks for one of the blank disks.

Reply to post by Scott, on June 27, 1999 at 12:33:44:

Re which scanner and costs. Check out the link below. I found it when doing background research to decide which slide scanner to get. I settled with the HP Photosmart on the basis of this review. It took about 5 minutes to set up (unpack, browse the manual, plug into a SCSI card). It handles slides, film -ve, and postcard sized prints. It is incredibly simple to use, very fast (much easier and faster than my flatbed scanner) and I love working with it.

I am not yet using it to archive pictures, so much as using it to suck in illustrations for reports and place them in at any size I want. I normally edit with Photoshop and or Pagemaker. Both allow me to make up nifty photos with labels and they look very professional in the report. Originals are simply stored with the project file.

Russ, I would be interested in learning more about the data base you have set up.

Cheers

Julian


http://www.sphoto.com/photosmt.html

Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on June 27, 1999 at 13:52:39:

Seattle Film Works scans your photos for free and loads them on their server. You have a limited time to download them individually. After that limit is past you must download the entire roll to get them. They also send you the slides (or photos) and negatives for whatever you get, and a replacement roll of film all for about $8 for a 36 exposure roll. Quality is average; not a custom lab, not photomat.

It seems to work for me, all the clutter is on their server. They will do CD's as well for a fee.

Wayne

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on June 25, 1999 at 10:50:08:

In yesterday's paper there was an article about digi cameras. The writer took pics, printed on quality paperr and showed them to several people. They could not tell the difference from a print photograph. I can't remember what camera he used but it was a consumer price with , I wish I remembered for sure, something like a million pixels per image. Does that sound right? His claim was that the higher pixel count makes for a clearer image.

A few years ago I heard a story of a guy getting a ticket for parking in a No Parking zone. He went to court with a picture of the street and told the judge that there "... was no No Parking sign, see?" The judge was suspicious and did some checking. Turns out the guy did a digital edit. The judge was not amused. He got workhouse time!

Tom

Reply to post by Scott, on June 27, 1999 at 12:33:44:

THe raw file size does get large. THis is the basic scanned image, though, and can usually be made much smaller by saving to various formats, such as .gif or .jpeg files. THese will be much smaller, again depending on the resolution you set for them, and the actual size of the scanned image. Yu can often get them down to a few hundred kilobytes, or less.

Removable storage is really the only way to go if you do much of this. AS Scott pointed out, Zip and Jazz (tm) are quite popular, and the newer Superdisks, catching on (and improving). These are all mostly magnetic, so permanence can be a concern. Disks can go bad without warning. Same applies to external hard drives.

The most stable available right now are the CD-R, DVD-RAM, and other optical systems. A bit costly initially, but cheaper per meg in the long run. CD-R drives are now less than $300US, then blanks are less than $2US each. THey hold up to 650 Megs. DVD is still new, and improvements are coming. Capacity is much greater (over 5 Gigabytes), but drives are over $700US and disks aver $50US each.

Like the rest of it, you have to consider your needs, and research the possibilities, advantages and disadvantages, and the costs. Can you say 'Needs assessment?' [g]

Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on June 27, 1999 at 13:52:39:

My entire business is built around a series of databases. I have learned to create the files quickly and easily, and they make life a little simpler in the long run.

Here's a short list of the types of files I've built:

Contact management (address book, phone call log, letters, invoicing, etc)
Photographs
Bibliography
Glossary terms*
Case management & time log
TreeValues 2.0**
TreeShadow Locator 2.0**
Risk Assessment module**
Inventory (for small accounts)

THese are all built in FileMaker, and currently require that application to run the files. I am working on a few of them as stand-alone files (marked **) and will consider others as time allows.

FileMaker is available for both Macintosh and Windows, and the files can run on either platform. Currently listed as $199US, with $50US rebate ($149US total). I'm willing to share some of the files as is. Runtime (stand-alone) versions will be available for a modest fee, when ready.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on June 28, 1999 at 10:38:31:

Oops, forgot the single *....

Imagine having a searchable file that would export a list of chosen terms, ready to paste right into your report. Would that be useful to you? Just checkmark the words and phases, click the button, and your list is ready. Let me hear your support.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on June 28, 1999 at 10:38:31:

Russ, is FileMaker a "flat file" program or a true relational database?

Flat file programs allow you to create lists, say of trees, with a number of FIELDS or data slots for each entry or RECORD. Tree A for instance has a species field, a size field a condition field a location field and so on. You can create multiple fields say for work history but only a fixed number of them and they are assocated only with that record.

True relational databases also have lists or TABLES or DATABASES, let's use the same example of trees and each RECORD has fields. Each record can be indexed by a KEY or unique identifier. You can have related tables, say of work histories. This TABLE has unlimited entries, it's a list itself and each entry is a RECORD not a FIELD. So Tree A has a unique ID in both the Tree table and the History table and you can relate them. Or you can relate all the histories for all the trees. Say how many work orders were issued for elm trees over 36" diameter in the summer months over the last six years.

Or, list all the photographs of elm trees in my photo table, or list all the photographs of tree # 1579 or list the work history for tree #125 over the last 17 years (42 entries, you would'nt want to have 42 extra fields in your tree list to accomodate such a long history).

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on June 29, 1999 at 22:44:10:

Iv'e thought about something like that, but don't do enough now to do anything about it.

My idea was to have it like a spell-checker, searches for the word\phrase in the database and if found prints it as a footer or in apenix form.

Reply to post by Scott, on June 29, 1999 at 22:44:10:

FileMaker is truly relational, with full one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many relationships possible. It is every bit as capable as Access (or more so) and much easier to learn and use. It is being used to develop POS systems for stores, management for government agencies, and every imaginable use. It is quite powerful, if you know how to apply it.

An simple example:
My TreeShadow Locator database has two related files. The master (parent) file contains client information, location, and data about the tree. The second (child) file holds the data about the times and sun positions, and performs the calculations that yield the data about the shadow. All the data in the second file can be viewed directly in the parent file.

An unlimited number of files can be relationally linked- I have well over 30 files that are interconnected to perform a range of tasks- contacts, scheduling, invoicing, letters, email, phone calls, and all the technical stuff like photo logs, tree value, risk assessment, etc.

Reply to post by JPS, on June 29, 1999 at 22:49:52:

Thanks, John. What a wonderful idea. Wish I'd thought of that. But I just added that capability to my Glossary file. Just paste in the text (a whole report will do nicely), click the button, and in seconds you have a complete glossary of the terms in your report (if they are in the gloassary file), sorted and ready to export to your report.

Now I just need more definitions to add to the list.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on June 30, 1999 at 07:14:29:

Thanks for the update.

As you might have guesssed, my inquiry was intended to provide some generally useful information to the Knothole audience. I'm glad to hear the FileMaker is easy to use/learn. I've had Access for several years now and have never had an application need that required me to take it out of the box (came bundled with MS Office) and learn it. Access is based on the PC grand daddy of data base products, dBase. (For the PC history buffs, MS was developing the Office suite, wanted to add relational database capability without starting from scratch and so acquired FoxBase, one of the dBase super-set clones, to base it on and added the GUI.)

For anyone wanting to utilize databases, absolutely go with a truly relational product. For quick and useful applications, ease of use and short learning curve are essential.

However, for really large and sophisticated applications more difficult products may still provide some additional functionality, particularly if you need a programing language.

FYI, the dBase superset clones like FoxBase and Clipper were developed to meet the demand for stand alone applications without the burden of the Run-Time licensing fee to the software maker. They also made the applications run much faster. MS still sells FoxPro which has all that capability, but there is a big time learning curve and it's not suitable for small, in-house applications unless you just happen to already have the skills.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on June 25, 1999 at 10:50:08:

Without reading all the responses, let me say that what I read so far was interesting and helpful. I too have been considering the issue.
Having had an early digital camera which is no longer any use, the issue of how many years of service to expect versus the cost comes to mind.
Also the time it take to load and manipulate digital images is greater. The real benefit to the client is rarely there.
Being able to E-mail photos is sometimes a help and they can be zoomed to fit reports - improving graphic layout quality.
Not having to waste a whole roll of film is good.
So far the best compromise for me is the CD from outfits like Mystic or Seattle Filmworks. This was I get very high quality digital images e-mailed and on CD and good achiving. They return negatives so you have benifits of both worlds. I also get to use all the lenses and such that I have collected for my Nikon over the years.
I love technogizmos so its hard to drop the idea of getting a digital camera, but...
Good luck

Reply to post by Scott, on July 01, 1999 at 23:29:04:

I hang out in several forums and discussion groups for FileMaker and other database users. The concnesus in most is that FileMaker is fully capable, and some of the top developers have gone over entirely to FileMaker. Some still use Fox Pro for a few things. Just because it is relatively easy to learn and use, doesn't mean it isn't powerful and functional.

All that FileMaker can do (and probably most of the other apps as well) can't be learned by reading the books. YOu have to get your hands dirty working with it, and ask the questions.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on June 25, 1999 at 10:50:08:

I purchased a Kodak DC220 Zoom, It comes with all the software you need to catagorize jobs and you can even record a voice message into the camera. Ken