Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

Please do run a survey, and post the results.  I'll happily admit I'm 
wrong if I am.

Until 12 months ago, I ran my system on a 13-14" monitor (we use
different measurements in Canada, they are based upon the visible 
display rather than the size of the CRT) originally running 640 x 480, 
then moving to 800 x 600, when I upgraded the video card. I then 
upgraded to new system with a 17" monitor and upped the resolution to 
1024 x 768, which I use today. I have used Photoshop since version 2.5, 
which was at least 7-8 years ago and I use it most days, so don't tell 
me people don't use 640 x 480 or 800 x 600 with Photoshop, because they 
do, on this very list.

Art


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,
> 
> 
> How much would you be willing to bet?  "Most people" is distinctly different
> than "most people who have filmscanners", which is what this mailing list is
> about.
> 
> How many people on this list do you think use PhotoShop?  I believe PS has a
> higher user interface requirements than the scanner driver, which was the
> origin of this discussion (scanner driver screen space requirements).