RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution

["Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>]

> 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.

Certainly there are people who use 640x480 to do image editing.  If that is
the tool set you have, then that is what you use.  But, I will guarantee
you, those tools are an exception to the rule.  The direction things are
moving in is higher resolution, and you build your product for the
future...not to live in the past.  It's the same issue with memory,
processor speed and storage capacity.

> > 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.

Buy used.  I am sure you can buy Hitachi 802 monitors used in AU.  Video
cards are cheap too.

> 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.

Understood, but you can do well buying used, if you know what you are
looking for.