> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
>
> 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.
Well, here's your response. I bought a ViewSonic 19-inch monitor for $275USD
(including
$50 rebate) two months ago and run it at 1280x1024 @85 Hz. I set the desktop to
large
fonts and 48px icons and everything looks beautiful. Video card: nVidia
Geforce2 GTS
32MB-DDR. Even with the 17" monitor I had before this I ran at 1280x1024 with a
Matrox
G400. For a couple of years actually. More pixels makes editing much easier. I
run the
same high screen resolution in RedHat Linux in a dual-boot setup.
Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia
; http://www.bahaivision.com -- "Behind all these
manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The
function of art
is to reveal this radiance through the created object." ~Joseph Campbell
