on 3/8/01 8:17 PM, Frank Paris at marshalt@spiritone.com wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Elmar Pinkhardt
>> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 6:26 PM
>> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>> Subject: AW: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
>>
>>
>> If you have a monitor with a maximum dot pitch of 0.24mm and a viewable
>> image area of 406*305 mm (these are the specs of the Hitachi CM823F) your
>> maximum physical resolution is horizontal 406/(1/0.24)= 1691
>> So 1691*x is what you get.
>> Even if you say that its average dot pitch is somewhere about 0.23 mm you
>> don't get 1856*1392.
>> You can't get anything more without loss of image quality, even if the
>> fairytales of most manufacturers try to tell you something different.
>
> Again, your spec is wrong on the Hitachi 81x and Cornerstone p1x00 (5, 6, 7)
> monitors. It is .22.
>>
>> By the way, what do you really win out of a higher resolution?
>
> I've explained it already, several times. You get finer dot pitch, and so
> images and fonts of the same physical size look smoother. What would you
> rather look at all day, a 12 point font that is constructed with 8 vertical
> dots or one constructed with 20 vertical dots? That's about the difference
> between 800x600 and 1856x1392. I don't understand why this isn't a
> no-brainer.
>
> Frank Paris
> marshalt@spiritone.com
>
>
>
I suppose this has all been gone over before, but I guess I missed it.
Seems to me that it is a no brainer IF one wants to see the entire image
area at the higher resolution. Otherwise, one can always pan across with
the sliders, right? So you can see the detail fine without the large
monitor. OTOH, who could complain about full image at high resolution?
And the monitor dot pitch does limit the quality of the image on the screen,
and so isn't it true that manufacturer's claims fail to acknowledge that
limitation when they make resolution claims like 1200 x 1600 for a 17"
monitor with 16" vis? Of course, they often do state a recommended
resolution.
I do know that my home monitor, a 15" NEC (13.8" vis) at 768 x 1024
certainly does not match my 19" Dell Trinitron at the same resolution, that
I have at work. Other than that, I am not speaking from experience, but
just exploring the issues. But isn't it true that the number of pixels on
the screen is more constraining than the "resolution"?
I also read about the triadic structure of each screen pixel, so that you
can actually get an effective resolution greater than the 0.25 or whatever,
with a capable video card, but--as I understand it--not greater color
resolution. Do I sort of have this right?
It seems that 19" or larger monitors are preferred by many on this list who
have expressed an opinion about this matter. I am still working with a 15"
but am looking forward to working with adding another monitor, either 17"
Apple or 19" something else. It would be nice to get the menus and tools
out of the way.
-Berry
