Funny that the user interface doesn't require the monitors run at the same
resolution. I have a 450 and I just looked. Actually haven't tried it, tho.
I had a 400 for about a year and replaced it with a 450 essentially so I
could give my son a nice Christmas present (the 400). The 400 produced
beautifully sharp images at 1856x1392, 32 bit color, and 75 Hz refresh rate
on my Cornerstone p1700. Can't say I notice any improvement on my 450, but
how can you improve on perfection? Funny how that "in depth" review never
actually did say how it actually *looked*. Just a lot of technical analysis
that doesn't amount to a hill of beans without actually checking it out.
There was no indication in the review that they even tried it. Personally, I
can vouch for it. The 450 AND the 400. For 2D stuff. Who cares about 3D? Not
filmscanners qua filmscanners.
Frank Paris
marshalt@spiritone.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Eli Bowen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:36 PM
> To: 'filmscanners@halftone.co.uk'
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
>
>
> Unfortunately, the Matrox "dual-head" cards require that the two
> monitors run at the same resolution, which can be a problem if
> your monitors
> are not the same size.
> We had one in my workgroup (the 400, not the newer 450) and it got
> passed around from person to person because no one liked it.
> Exactly why, I
> don't know, but no one seemed to be happy with it.
> Here is a very in-depth analysis of the 450:
>
>
>
