Shawn Landry asks:

For a Cerambycid field guide I've written, we've had 400 35mm slides scanned and digitized, and I think the result (and conclusion) is not too surprising. The slides themselves have better resolution, of course, but the scanning technology is such that the digital image, when *printed*, is not noticeably different from having the plates made directly from the slides (at least at the magnification we are using, where each slide's worth of image is about 35mm on the final printed page). But, that's for a *printed* version... I've also seen some video capture systems, and though I haven't done direct side-by-side comparisons with our digitized slides, I wouldn't say there was a noticeable difference in image quality - though logically, the poorer the resolution of the slides, the better (relatively) the video capture would become, since the video is of the specimen itself (where the slide adds an extra step in which *some* detail is likely to be lost). I'm not fluent in the fine points of the hardware, but the high-resolution scanning option provides a LOT of lines per inch (or however one phrases digital resolution), and probably not too different from the video system. I'm sure that this is the crucial feature of concern to you, but I've been led to understand (in the process of having my slides done) that not all scanning systems and video systems offer the same digital resolution; probably a matter of how much you're extra willing to pay for successive small increments in quality. My gut feeling is that the video/digital camera is likely to offer the better end product because it cuts out the intermediate step. I don't know how digital camera images compare in lines per inch to video capture, however. Maybe someone else can help you there...