Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

Austin Franklin 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.
> 
  I'd bet you are wrong. Most people are using 17" monitors these days, 
which is the sweet spot in the pricing structure right now, and although 
people doing scanning "might" push that number a bit, I still would be 
surprised whether this list would skew results much from the norm. 
Further, there are many non-americans on this list and monitors are a 
heck of a lot more expensive outside of "consumerland".  Lastly, even if 
my video card and monitor can produce 1600 x 1200 pixel screen, I'd be 
unlikely to use it that way, due to the way it would shrink icons, 
cursor and tool sizes on a 17" screen.

Art
Art

> 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...it's a Hitachi 802U
> SuperScan...and is damn good).  Video cards are around $100 that support
> this kind of resolution...
> 
> Unless you are using a notebook, which is a horrible image editing
> environment anyway...you really might want to consider upgrading your
> monitor/video card.
> 
> This is like saying programmers should limit their program size so they can
> fit on floppies...or something like that...  Do you at least have a CD ROM
> drive?
>