> Bill,

> This is a completely new one to me, and I'm sure we would all 
> like to here a fuller story.
> (See what you've done now - let yourself in for it :-) )
> 
>> For 3D objects CCD scanners are much better than the cheaper CMOS 
>> scanners, for depth of field reasons. There are a number out there, 
>< but you have to look at the specs. I use UMAX Powerlook IIIs.
>> Bill Blank
>> http://kernunnos.com (Celtic studies and numismatics)
>> http://www.druidry/org   http://www.druidry.org/board

Dear Terry, dear Bill, 

one of the answers is already given on the homepage of Bill: the differences
between the three scanners (UMAX) are striking and really very interesting,
not only for numismatics but also forsimple minded pathologists. I remember
a similar article about depth of fields in a German journal for computers
(c't) a couple of years ago. 

Maybe this article
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.o
rg.uk/mag/artapr01/dwscanner.html is also interesting to you too.

Alexander Nader MD
Vienna, Austria

_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet