The other method of capture which failed to come up to scratch was the single frame of videotape which with hindsight was pressed into service in an area for which it was not intended. In comparison with other versions of the images, for instance those captured on negative or slide film and transferred via PhotoCD, this one was poor in all the identifiable criteria, as was the Still Video version. Inevitably there was a grainy look to the end result which may not be as noticeable with a continuously moving image. This has implications for the re-purposing of videotape material, and it does not necessarily apply to all videotape. Beta SP tape, for instance, may yield better results than Hi8 and some moving images may be more blurred than others, also lenses designed for the capture of moving images are often designed to lower toerances.
Examples have to be assessed individually on their merits.
In isolated instances the better scores achieved with the low budget equipment exceeded the worst scores achieved with the high budget packages. Overall average figures for the capture of slides via Rostrum 1 were better than the figures for Rostrum 2. However a comparison of the results between Rostrum 1 and Rostrum 2, or between Scanner 1 and Scanner 2, did not conclusively indicate whether one cost system was preferable to another. The plant taken from the photographic print scored higher for colour quality on the low cost rostrum camera than on the higher cost system. The soil profile print was judged to be better in colour quality when captured by Rostrum 2 than Rostrum 1.