Agreed, a standard camera will produce much better resolution than anything but mega-expensive digital cameras but if your just going to digitise and put it on cd/dvd then your very likely going to lose that advantage. Most scanners will give you 300-400dpi, if your lucky !
If your going to use standard film then you need to use standard film techniques and do a proper enlargement without digitising.
I quite agree. but as i am looking at quality. i would never consider home digitising. and pro scanning can give me, virtually the same quality scan, as the original. i totally see the convenience of digi cameras, i use one myself. but for quality? no way. not only is the absolute quality well down on, print film, never mind Transparency film. but most of the users save in JPG, further adding to the degradation of outright quality.( that's why PhotoShop has "enhance" filters) to be of real, quality, the images need to be saved in RAW format, which few of us use. and its still way down on the quality of film.
enhancing an already degraded image, as suggested, gets you a peeped up degraded image. nothing more. the only way to avoid this is have a better quality image to start with. lets face it, with enhancing, how o earth can a program tell what was on the picture, but not recorded because of lack of pixels? it can guess, but nothing more.
as for the cost of scanning? you get an awful lot of scans for the £2000 pluse top digi SLR costs. my 40 year old Canon F1 cost £300 25 years ago. takes better quality pictures than the most expensive DSLR sold. so i have stacks of money to pay for scans, before it cost me a fraction of the cost most DSLR buyers have paid for lower quality units. its often forgotten that these new DSLR's cant do any thing, except auto focus, that my old F1 could not do with one 1.5v battery as power. all those years ago.
