Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
A conventional scanner would give you the flexability to take fingerprints, palmprints, and/or footprints. That would probably be a better way to go. The fingerprint scanners I've seen are mostly intended to take a single, adult finger.
Does a conventional scanner have enough resolution and/or contrast to pick up the ridges in a fingerprint? Would it show all of the loops, arches, and whorls, or a picture of a finger?