Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

digital worse than film, proof:

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 8:15:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Not unlike a picture from a typical digital camera, a digital fingerprint
provides less complete detail than a traditional photographic image. "

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&u=/chitr...
icagotrib/digitizedprintscanpointfingeratinnocent&printer=1
January 3, 2005 8:15:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Developwebsites wrote:
> "Not unlike a picture from a typical digital camera, a digital fingerprint
> provides less complete detail than a traditional photographic image. "
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&u=/chitr...
> icagotrib/digitizedprintscanpointfingeratinnocent&printer=1
>
>
It isn't a digital vs. film issue. It is a matter of execution, and that has been an overall problem for the FBI in recent
years.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 8:15:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Developwebsites" <developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM> wrote in message
news:20050103121532.08086.00002841@mb-m05.aol.com...
> "Not unlike a picture from a typical digital camera, a digital fingerprint
> provides less complete detail than a traditional photographic image. "
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&u=/chitr...
> icagotrib/digitizedprintscanpointfingeratinnocent&printer=1
>
>


I suggest you read the article again. It has nothing to do with comparing
digital camera images to film camera images. It has to do with the process
of digitizing a fingerprint and what happens to it after that.

Mark
Related resources
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 8:15:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Concerning the finger print problem, it has nothing to do with the medium
itself. It has to do with how the images are being handled after the fact.
To save cost on bandwidth in the transport of the pictures, they have been
dropping the resolution of the pictures, and this is causing the problem.
The original picture source is excellent, and accurate from what I have been
informed.

--

Jerry G.
=====

"Developwebsites" <developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM> wrote in message
news:20050103121532.08086.00002841@mb-m05.aol.com...
"Not unlike a picture from a typical digital camera, a digital fingerprint
provides less complete detail than a traditional photographic image. "

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&u=/chitr...
icagotrib/digitizedprintscanpointfingeratinnocent&printer=1
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 8:15:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Developwebsites wrote:
> "Not unlike a picture from a typical digital camera, a digital fingerprint
> provides less complete detail than a traditional photographic image. "
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&u=/chitr...
> icagotrib/digitizedprintscanpointfingeratinnocent&printer=1
>
>

Wouldn't that depend on what camera, and what film one used? There have
been some pretty horrible film cameras over the years. One of the early
problems with consumer cameras was that the film didn't want to lie
flat, making focus irregular across the picture. The quality of the
image on those cameras was MUCH worse than the worst digital I have seen.
A digital fingerprint will contain however much detail the scanner of
the fingerprint delivered, no more, no less. If the print was scanned
at 8000dpi, then it would probably be better, not worse, than a 35mm
camera would provide. In short, a pretty subjective statement.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 8:15:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Here is a link that will not get truncated. http://tinyurl.com/44pmq



"Developwebsites" <developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM> wrote in message
news:20050103121532.08086.00002841@mb-m05.aol.com...
> "Not unlike a picture from a typical digital camera, a digital fingerprint
> provides less complete detail than a traditional photographic image. "
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&u=/chitr...
> icagotrib/digitizedprintscanpointfingeratinnocent&printer=1
>
>
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 8:15:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rudy Benner" <bennerREMOVE@personainternet.com> wrote in message
news:10tj5hels3dvl4b@corp.supernews.com...
> Here is a link that will not get truncated. http://tinyurl.com/44pmq
>
>
>
> "Developwebsites" <developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM> wrote in message
> news:20050103121532.08086.00002841@mb-m05.aol.com...
>> "Not unlike a picture from a typical digital camera, a digital
>> fingerprint
>> provides less complete detail than a traditional photographic image. "
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&u=/chitr...
>> icagotrib/digitizedprintscanpointfingeratinnocent&printer=1
>>
I would think and hope that the referenced technique is to find a close
match and before they throw you in the clanger your actual prints are
compared against the original source. In any event, except for those readers
who are phographing their fingertips, who cares.
Dave Cohen
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 3:48:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 12:36:13 -0500, Marvin <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net>
wrote:

>Developwebsites wrote:
>> "Not unlike a picture from a typical digital camera, a digital fingerprint
>> provides less complete detail than a traditional photographic image. "
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&u=/chitr...
>> icagotrib/digitizedprintscanpointfingeratinnocent&printer=1
>>
>>
>It isn't a digital vs. film issue. It is a matter of execution, and that has been an overall problem for the FBI in recent
>years.

Executions have never been a problem for the FBI! Ho-ho!


andyt
!