• Is A Print Better Than Film?
  
• How Big Is A DVD?
• Printing Movies
• Unknown Software

From various articles I’ve read, I’m under the impression that scanning film in a film scanner gives an overall better-quality scanned image than scanning a print in a flatbed scanner. When I discussed this with a friend, he said that the bigger the initial scanned item (i.e., a print), the better the scanned image because more pixels are used. I can’t explain why the film scanner should give a better image. Can you help us understand?

While your friend is correct about the larger the item, the better the scan, all other things being equal, there’s something missing in the equation: Where did the print come from? Unless you’re shooting large-format negatives (where the print might be the same size as the negative), it’s safe to say that the print is an enlargement from a negative (even a 4x6 is an enlargement). Scanning from the original captured image (a negative or slide) always has the potential of a better scan because there’s more information in that original than a copy (which an enlargement is).

In addition, the print has just spread the same image over a larger area; it hasn’t created new image resolution. If you have enough pixels to capture all the data needed in a negative or slide (and you do need enough for any given size print, which is why negative and slide scanning require higher resolution), then scanning a print from that film at any resolution will give no additional data. However, since the print usually has less information than the film, it will actually give less quality than the film scan.

A Digital Versatile Disc, or DVD for short, comes in several flavors. There are single-layer discs, dual-layer discs, and single-sided and dual-sided discs. There are even dual-layer, dual-sided discs! But the only type of disc that you can burn yourself is a single-layer disc. The other flavors need to be manufactured with the data already on the disc.

According to the DVD specification, a single-layer DVD holds 4,700,000,000 bytes of data. And since prefixes like “kilo,” “mega” and “giga” represent multiples of 1,000 (103, 106, 109), you’d think that a DVD holds 4.7 gigabytes. Well, that might be true if we weren’t involved with computers.

In the computer world, Windows and Macs count bytes in multiples of 1,024 rather than 1,000 (this is because computers are binary machines and they count in multiples of two). So the terms “kilo,” “mega” and “giga” have different meanings in the computer industry. They now mean 2^10, 2^20 and 2^30, respectively.

Now, back to your original question of how much a DVD holds. It holds 4.37 GB of data, but at the same time (if you don’t use the prefix), you can say that it holds 4.7 billion bytes of data.

Before you start writing to me about how your DVD at home wouldn’t fit 4.37 GB of data on it, there’s one other consideration. The storage capacity I’ve been discussing is raw storage capacity. There’s some overhead in managing the data that will take up space on your disc. Your previously blank DVD disc is going to need some sort of directory so that you can find the bytes on the disc. And your very small files are going to take up more space than they might normally because the structure of the disc directory requires that files be a minimum size.

Most digital cameras record movies using motion JPEG at 15 frames per second, which is contained in a QuickTime movie. If you open the movie in a QuickTime player, you should be able to print a single from the movie. You also can capture single frames from many video-editing programs.

If you didn’t need the movie, you’ll find that many digital cameras offer high-speed continuous modes that capture separate images. These can be printed easily from any image-editing program.

There’s a catch, though. Both of these shooting modes result in an image size known as QVGA (which stands for 1/4 VGA). Since VGA’s image size is 640 x 480, the QVGA’s image size is 320 x 240, a very low resolution, which might not give you the results you expect.

When I checked my e-mail yesterday, amidst the usual screen full of spam was one item that sounded intriguing, to say the least. An outfit offered a full version of Photoshop 7.0 for only $44, shipping included, without retail packaging or instruction manuals, etc. Still, it sounded too good to be true, and I’m wondering if this might be just a way to add to my previous Las Vegas losses.

Ray Brown Via e-mail

At least in Las Vegas you know what your odds are.... Okay, let’s see what happens when we take a look at this offer.

First, I did a search for the outfit you mentioned and I couldn’t find it (strike 1). In case something is missing, damaged or not what was advertised, will this company be around when and if you receive the software?

Second, you said there’s no retail packaging or manuals with the software (strike 2). Why is there no retail packaging? Most software requires some sort of installation code or serial number in order to work. What if you receive the disc, but no installation code? What if the installation code actually belongs to someone else and you want to contact the manufacturer with a question or want to upgrade in the future? (This also is the case if you buy unauthorized upgrades that might taint your original, legally owned version of the software.)

Third, the price is too good to be true (strike 3). If someone were to offer you something for free, isn’t your first response “What’s the catch?”

I can think of at least three answers: 1) the offer is just a scam to get you to go to a Website so they can sell something else; 2) the software offered isn’t legitimate—either it’s stolen or it’s an unauthorized copy; and 3) you’ll never receive the software, but your credit card number will be stolen.

Fourth, this offer is by way of “spam” or Unsolicited Bulk Email (UBE). (Strike 4—I know the metaphor is “three strikes and you’re out,” but this offer is really, really bad.)

You noticed this ad “amidst the usual screen full of spam.” If you buy this software, you’re telling the spammer, “It worked! Send me more spam! Tell all of your spamming friends that I want all the spam you can send me!”

Anytime you respond to spam, you’re encouraging the spammers. No matter how good it looks, just toss it. As someone whose e-mail address is published, I can tell you that spam is a big problem (can you tell how upset I am in my answer?)