RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution

["Frank Paris" <marshalt@spiritone.com>]

I set my monitor to 1856x1392 and adjust the font size to the point where I
can read them comfortably. My video card/monitor combination is capable of
2048x1536 but when I go that high I am pushing the bandwidth of the system
and things start fuzzing up. I'd use 5000x3000 if I could get away with it,
and then set my font size to 400% (or whatever it would work out to be). I
haven't been as "low" as 1600x1200 on my 21" monitors for two years.

Frank Paris
marshalt@spiritone.com
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 4:52 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.
>