ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution



Heck, some of us are still using a 15" LCD display at 1024X768 32 bit, but
saving for a 21" trinitron and another video card. The dual display is
really the way to go, after trying it on a friends system. The LCD on a
moveable arm, and the desk real estate occupied by the 21" is a very usable
setup, great for photo editing. Does anyone use this type of setup, and what
type of video cards? I have seen where the same make of card was a good
idea, and my friends setup uses a NVIDIA Twinview card feeding both
monitors.
Edwin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:52 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
>
>
> Austin wrote:
> > The right tools for the job.  Having a 'resolution' of at
> > least 1280x1024 is not untypical for most people who do
> > image editing.  In fact, I'd bet most on this list have
> > 1600 x 1200.
>
> Geeze, Austin.  Several people have already responded saying
> they are editing files at resolutions as low as 640x480.  I've
> yet to hear a response from anyone else who uses 1280x1024 let
> alone 1600x1200.  I'd be very suprised if "most" people
> regularly use 1280x1024 let alone anything higher.
>
> > You can buy a decent monitor for around $400 (the one I am
> > using now for most of my image editing I paid $375 for.
>
> In the USA maybe.  Remember also that a lot of the people on
> this list are not in the USA and don't have access to the
> cheap prices you do.  I live in Australia and I'm reasonably
> certain that I couldn't buy a monitor that would workably
> do 1600x1200 or even 1280x1024 for everyday editing at a
> price of AUD$800.  My existing 17" monitor and video card
> can do 1280x1024x24bit, but the interface would be unreadable,
> or at least cause me far too much eyestrain.
>
> Please don't force out those of us who don't do image editing
> for a living, or don't have the money to spend on high end
> hardware.  There's a lot of folks with film scanners who
> aren't professional photographers or graphic artists.
>
> Rob
>
>
> Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
> http://wordweb.com
>
>
>
>




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.