I'm interested in the camera better than scanner aspects because I'm currently trying to buy an A3 scanner in order to scan a large number of magazines. I will have to buy a sheet of glass and see how well my camera works for this. If it does go well it will be cheaper to buy OCR software and build a stand than to buy a scanner, that's for sure. Even using my Canon 30D would probably be cheaper per page than a scanner with "free" software (assuming the camera only lasts 50,000 shots before the shutter needs to be replaced at ~$500, and the scanner lasts more than 10,000 pages).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ereszet
I guess that a film camera (i.e. still photo film camera) can produce a better result (in terms of resolution and color) than a digital camera.
|
A digital camera will do substantially better than a film one for this task, largely because of the speed which which you can check and reshoot photos. Unless you work in a photo lab the time it takes to check a film exposure is at least a day.
A DSLR (the equivalent of most film cameras) will produce slightly better images than a film one for this purpose, but as your results show very clearly the problems are not with resolution or colour so much as distortion, noise and unevenness. Digital will almost certainly do better than film on all of those (there are b&w reproduction films that would probably do well but those are probably unobtainable in 35mm these days, I think you would need to use microfilm or large format cameras).