Well, I didn't exactly win the lottery, but I did fall into a a tidy sum
when my previous employer laid me off when I already had two other jobs in
my pocket! Nice severance! Anyhow, that monitor isn't all that expensive
anymore. They just lowered the price to about $950. That's pretty amazing
considering it is just about the best black matrix tube in the industry
right now. I'm using the Matrox Millenium 450, probably the fastest 2D card
on the market (lousy for 3D games however). It was only $150, and it
supports two monitors at once! Like almost all cards these days, it has 32
Mbytes on it, but half that is used for 3D which doesn't interest me in the
least. I actually run at 32 bit color because in some cases (depending on
the memory implementation and layout) that can be faster than 24 bit color,
because of memory alignment. So, 32 bits = 4 bytes. 4 bytes X 1392 X 1856 =
9.2 Megs (1 meg = 1024X1024). Theoretically, that's all you need for 2D but
I don't know what else is going on in there. Certainly gobs of memory are
being taken up by 3D requirements, which as I said, I don't utilize anyhow.
I'm way too old to be amused by video games.
Frank Paris
marshalt@spiritone.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 2:56 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing
> 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
>
>
> OK, I was writing for those of us who haven't won the lottery ;-)
> What video card with, how much memory, do you need to run on for that
> monitor at "true color" (24 bit)?
>
> Art
>
> Frank Paris wrote:
>
> > That's no longer state of the art. My monitor (21" Cornerstone
> p1700) looks
> > best when running at 116 dpi (1856X1392). It won't be too far into the
> > future (within ten years) before we'll have flat panels on our
> desks or in
> > our laps that run at 300 dpi.
