> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:18 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> Certainly, screen updates at 1600 x 1200 are going to be slower than
> lower resolutions.
With modern cards, there's no way the human eye could notice the difference.
> It also means ridiculously small icons,
> tools and cursors, unless you have a large screen size to begin with.
As I mentioned previously, this is easily overcome. The point of large
resolutions is smoother textures in images and more well-formed text. All
this assumes you do have the bandwidth to handle the higher resolutions
without sacrificing refresh rate, easily handled by current offerings, and
you don't have to pay an arm and a leg anymore to get this performance.
> Oh, did I mention your monitor will probably burn out sooner at that
> screen mode?
Why? Because it's running at a higher frequencies? That's like saying a 33
Mhz Pentium will last longer than a 900 MHz Pentium III. What I've found is
that modern monitors running at much higher frequencies last a lot longer
than monitors built five and ten years ago that run at much lower
frequencies. They've figured this stuff out, Art. There's no percentage in
being a Luddite these days when it comes to video technology.
Frank Paris
marshalt@spiritone.com
