Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Picture CD vs Photo CD

This is topic Picture CD vs Photo CD in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002809

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-27-2003, 12:34 PM:

My mom has been taking pictures with a 35mm film camera thinking that she can just hook it up to her computer and have "digital images" ready for e-mail. I told her that her only option was to get the negatives scanned to a Picture or Photo CD while they were being developed. I don't think Photo CD is available anymore, but Picture CD is. I have never dealt with a Picture CD, so I have a few questions for those that have. The most important question is #1:

1. Does a Picture CD allow you to just grab the images themselves and copy them to the hard drive, or do you have to use proprietary software included with the CD?

2. What is the maximum resolution of a picture on a Picture CD? (I am looking for the resulting pixel resolution of the digital file, not scanned DPI).

3. Will Picture CDs work with Mac OS X?

4. Any idea on the average cost of a Picture CD (ballpark figure)?

5. I tried Kodak's web site and you can search for places that process Picture CDs. Is there anywhere I can search for places that process Photo CD?

I may have asked these questions long before, but I probably wasn't paying attention.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-27-2003, 01:06 PM:

My experience has dictated that it all depends on how good the scanner is. If a CD is where they will all eventually end up then her purchasing a digital camera would pay for itself over a short time of not having to have photos scanned first. When it comes to printing the pictures fomr a digital file I've pretty much quite doing it myself on my HP. Instead I just go down to Office Depot and they make upto an 8 1/2 by 11 for 1.20 each. Their pictures are printed out on a $50,000.00 laser printer that is way out of my financial league.
Mark

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-27-2003, 02:05 PM:

I agree about the digital camera, but she wants the pictures that she has now to be digital. Maybe I can convince her that her pictures are not good enough to be associated with the term "digital". She is using Fuji film.. Not sure if that would work well with Kodak Picture or Photo CD. They may cancel each other out.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-27-2003, 09:44 PM:

I am using an Epson Perfection 3200 scanner (at Bobby Henderson's recommendation) that has a dpi of up to 6400. I'm betting it would beat any "picture cd" hands down. It can scan negatives, prints, etc. Do some math and you may find it would be cheaper to just buy one and convert them yourselves.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-28-2003, 12:06 AM:

The cost of said scanner?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-28-2003, 01:06 AM:

$280 at www.newegg.com

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 01-05-2004, 03:29 AM:

quote:
My mom has been taking pictures with a 35mm film camera thinking that she can just hook it up to her computer and have "digital images" ready for e-mail.

Your mom is crazy, & if you lived in Florida you could have her "Baker Act"-ed & committed. Then you could assume her assets and put them to proper use.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-05-2004, 01:40 PM:

Well your mom is pretty hot, William. All us guys think so.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-05-2004, 09:57 PM:

A couple of photo developers in our area came out with the option of getting a CD of photos with the prints, and the results were not very good.

The Picture CD option that she is probably hearing about is something that Kodak has been advertising. Since I bought my digital camera, I haven't done too much print developing, and I've never been willing to pay for the option to get the Picture CD.

I do have a "Walgreens Picture CD" that I received from a client. I don't know if there was a choice about the resolution, quality, etc. so take this for what it's worth:

It comes with an Autoplay picture viewer that shows thumbnails of all the images on the disc.

The "previews" are 768x518, and the pictures themselves are 1536x1037.

Each full picture is about 2.5MB - 3.0MB in size. The quality is not the best, but would probably be OK for E-Mailing. I wouldn't use them for printing, but that's just me.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 01-06-2004, 12:25 AM:

quote:
Well your mom is pretty hot, William. All us guys think so.

What is it about old women with Alzheimer's that seems to attract so many of these young men today? Is it the incontinence?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-06-2004, 10:26 AM:

Here's a comparison of the technical specs for Kodak Picture CD and Kodak Photo CD:

Compare Kodak Picture CD and Photo CD

FAQ for Kodak Picture CD:

Kodak Picture Info

Kodak Picture CD FAQ

Here's Kodak Photo CD Information:

About Kodak Photo CD

Kodak Photo CD Technical Papers

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-06-2004, 02:47 PM:

Is there a mistake on the Newegg site? They have the 3200 at $500 while the 4870 (Optical resolution: 4800 x 9600 dpi) is only $408.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-06-2004, 05:11 PM:

That must be a mistake. The Perfection 3200 regularly runs in the $300-$400 price range (and likely cheaper than that depending on which site you visit). The model 4870 is a newly released model.

Sometimes the picture CD thing is a good item to have. First you have an analog 35mm film strip that is going to last for a long, long time. You can get enlargements made of it and all kinds of other stuff.

The downside with digital camera photos is protecting the data. No matter how hard you try, you are always going to lose a few photos here and there. You'll lose them through hard drive failures. You'll lose them to a screwy CD burner, thinking you made a successful backup to disc, deleting the original files from your hard drive and then finding out the CD got corrupted.

The computer industry really has to double their efforts, and then double them again, on the subject of reliable data backup. There's a lot of it out there that isn't worth a shit. It ranges all from cheap CD burners with ever worsening quality to all kinds of other quality lowering crap in the vein of lowering costs. For example, Dell puts shitty CD burners in their computers now. They really suck much ass. Same goes for their DVD+R burners. Crap. My old Dell machine has a much more reliable CD burner in it.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-06-2004, 06:51 PM:

There's a solution... support the hard drive manufacturers and never delete anything that is somewhat useful. It's worked for me and the 6 200GB hard drives in my main machine do a good job at heating my apartment.

Speaking of Dell, Michael Dell announced that he is stepping down as CEO, effective July 16, on Thursday.

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/corp/pressoffice/en/2004/2004_03_04_rr_000?c=us&l=en&s=corp

quote:
Twenty years after founding Dell, Michael Dell will transfer the title of chief executive officer to Kevin Rollins, with whom he has led the world's fastest growing, most profitable computer systems company since 1997.

Dell's board of directors, meeting today in New York City, appointed Mr. Rollins CEO effective at the company's July 16 annual meeting of shareholders. Mr. Rollins, currently president and chief operating officer, will become president and chief executive officer. He will also be nominated for election to the Dell board at the annual meeting.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-07-2004, 07:10 AM:

Agreed with Bobby. The current state of backup technology sucks. Hard. Either you spend the big $$$ on an SDLT or LTO drive (and about $40-50 per tape!) or you are stuck with crappy CD-Rs and DVD-Rs which are unreliable at best over a period of time.

I'm still using a 2gig 4mm tape drive, which isn't the most reliable thing in the world, but the tapes are cheap and capacity isn't (yet) an issue, since I'm not (generally) dealing with large music or image files.

Plextor makes (used to make?) the best CD burners. The top-of-the-line SCSI model is about $200. I've had one for a few years now and have no complaints and have only burt one or two coasters. Two thumbs up. Also, I highly recommend Taiyo Yuden CD-Rs. I believe that Mitsumi is also good, although I don't use them. Either will be far better than the "100 blanks for $1" variety that you will find at the typical discount store.

[ 03-07-2004, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Scott Norwood ]