Re: Fascinating - a must read!
Yes, Brain, I think so. It's Sunday and we missed church again? (INSANE GRIN) Cotty wrote: On 24/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: The other camera is for my daughter's 19th birthday. We visited her last weekend in college and she complained about the price of developing her prints in Washington DC. She is my best photographer and enjoys taking pictures. Anyone thinking what I'm thinking? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
RE: Fascinating - a must read!
I think the most intriguing point she makes is about the film based cameras to be without any further scope for development in terms of features, wheras Digital has plenty. But how she gets from there to predicting the death of digital I don't know. Surely the hype factor will wear off, but by then the technology will have matured enough to be part of everyones picture of the world. Just like VCR, personal computers, film based cameras and automobiles have entered reality. But lack of hype factor will not kill digital because everyone suddenly will wake up an see how lousy it is. Not that I think they will either. :-) Jostein Quoting Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Trouble is, that the people extolling the virtues of digital don't agree it is in its infancy. This 'infant' product is said by many to have already killed film. What she is writing is to try and point out the fact that it is still not developed enough to fulful the promises being made - not that it never will. -Original Message- From: arnie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 October 2003 00:42 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fascinating - a must read! I imagine this is what they wrote when they came out with the 35mm format. digital is in its infancy, everyone understands that. to predict its death now is ridiculous. what will they say when standard digital is a 50mp sensor with 20 stops of tolerance and 1 tb (terabyte) cards cost $25? granted currently there are issues that still need to be worked out, but that what all these companies are working on currently. about printers. HP recently invested $900,000,000 in redeveloping their printer technology. they are not making any of that back when i buy a 5550 for $99. they do however make plenty of money when i buy a cartridge for $35. keep in mind that if the cartridges did not subsidize the printer it would probably cost in the thousands. arnie - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:17 PM Subject: Fascinating - a must read! http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html I really enjoyed reading this one - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
On 24/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I have to copy and paste sites like that into a simple text app and change the font colour to black, and then read. What I normally do in such situations is just highlight the all text in the browser. That usually changes it to black-on-white which is much easier to read. Cheers, - Dave Nice one Dave, thanks. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: Fascinating - a must read!
On 24 Oct 2003 at 12:10, Jostein wrote: I think the most intriguing point she makes ... One slight point, she's a he. http://www.dantestella.com/info.html Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
True enough. It took 35mm 30 years to reach the point that it was considered good enough for professional use and another 10 to become mainstream. Digital is moving much faster than that but it is still an infant prodigy. Rob Brigham wrote: Trouble is, that the people extolling the virtues of digital don't agree it is in its infancy. This 'infant' product is said by many to have already killed film. What she is writing is to try and point out the fact that it is still not developed enough to fulful the promises being made - not that it never will. -Original Message- From: arnie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 October 2003 00:42 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fascinating - a must read! I imagine this is what they wrote when they came out with the 35mm format. digital is in its infancy, everyone understands that. to predict its death now is ridiculous. what will they say when standard digital is a 50mp sensor with 20 stops of tolerance and 1 tb (terabyte) cards cost $25? granted currently there are issues that still need to be worked out, but that what all these companies are working on currently. about printers. HP recently invested $900,000,000 in redeveloping their printer technology. they are not making any of that back when i buy a 5550 for $99. they do however make plenty of money when i buy a cartridge for $35. keep in mind that if the cartridges did not subsidize the printer it would probably cost in the thousands. arnie - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:17 PM Subject: Fascinating - a must read! http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html I really enjoyed reading this one -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
Where did she say that? What I got was that it has potential but is not really there yet. That the main benefits of digital presently is on the sellers side of the equation. In her last paragraph she basically says that digital has the potential to wipe out conventional photography, but we shall have to wait and see if it acually does. Or, at least, that is how I read it. Jostein wrote: But how she gets from there to predicting the death of digital I don't know. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
RE: Fascinating - a must read!
Me too. Way I read it, he is saying that digital will get there, but that it has a looong way to go - which is in total contrast with what the marketing machines tell us! Digital is sold as the answer to everybodies problems, but it introduces probably more problems than it solves. I have to agree, despite having just bought the *istD. Film was easier to get better results, just took longer to get them. -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 October 2003 15:20 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fascinating - a must read! Where did she say that? What I got was that it has potential but is not really there yet. That the main benefits of digital presently is on the sellers side of the equation. In her last paragraph she basically says that digital has the potential to wipe out conventional photography, but we shall have to wait and see if it acually does. Or, at least, that is how I read it. Jostein wrote: But how she gets from there to predicting the death of digital I don't know. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
RE: Fascinating - a must read!
Thanks, you illustrated this far better than I could. I had to tread lightly because I didn't have the knowledge of history to make any claims, but based on what you say, this is the first time in the photographic industry that there has been such a large uptake of such an immature product. Normally something would be well developed before the pros use it, then it would be even better sorted before becoming mass market. Digital became mass market wy before it wa ready - because the people were ready before the media was, and the marketing departments saw a massive demand and made promises that have still to be fulfilled. This has, however, speeded up the development and I believe within 5 years those promises will be met. -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 October 2003 15:02 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fascinating - a must read! True enough. It took 35mm 30 years to reach the point that it was considered good enough for professional use and another 10 to become mainstream. Digital is moving much faster than that but it is still an infant prodigy. Rob Brigham wrote: Trouble is, that the people extolling the virtues of digital don't agree it is in its infancy. This 'infant' product is said by many to have already killed film. What she is writing is to try and point out the fact that it is still not developed enough to fulful the promises being made - not that it never will. -Original Message- From: arnie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 October 2003 00:42 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fascinating - a must read! I imagine this is what they wrote when they came out with the 35mm format. digital is in its infancy, everyone understands that. to predict its death now is ridiculous. what will they say when standard digital is a 50mp sensor with 20 stops of tolerance and 1 tb (terabyte) cards cost $25? granted currently there are issues that still need to be worked out, but that what all these companies are working on currently. about printers. HP recently invested $900,000,000 in redeveloping their printer technology. they are not making any of that back when i buy a 5550 for $99. they do however make plenty of money when i buy a cartridge for $35. keep in mind that if the cartridges did not subsidize the printer it would probably cost in the thousands. arnie - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:17 PM Subject: Fascinating - a must read! http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html I really enjoyed reading this one -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
I think it is interesting to note that the first DSLR's were built from Nikon's by Kodak for the Associated Press (AP-2000, I believe). From the press's point of view the ability to send the photos over the telephone is the major one. First photos of a major breaking news event are the most valuable. That overrides almost all other considerations for press photography. The combination of a DSLR and a satellite phone gives such an overwhelming advantage to the press photographer that all other considerations are subordinate. Event photographers also find the ability to deliver prints on site an immense competitive advantage, just ask Dave Brooks here on the list. In both these cases speed of delivery is the major economic factor involved. Digital, whether cameras or scanners, also gives control of his images back to the serious amateur who has no space for a darkroom. Outside of those, and similar, considerations the advantages of digital is more imaginary than real. For some strange reason we humans seem to respond more eagerly to imaginary advantages than we do to real ones. Also, from Joe Public's point of view, press photographers are the only professional photographers they have much knowledge of as the see them out and about and on TV all the time. Next comes wedding photographers and they seem much the same as press photographers. Portrait photographers come next, but they use such big cameras and all those lights. I wouldn't want to do that. So if the press photographers are using digital that must be the best camera, I will buy one of them (never mind that the press photographer has a $5000 digital and Joe Public has a $200 digital. In his mind Joe has the same kind of camera that the pros use. That happened with 35mm SLR's too, they did not take off until the press started using them. You can even go back to folding cameras, Joe thought of his folding Kodak as a professional camera just like Weegee's Speed Graphic. So this phenomenon is nothing new by any means. Rob Brigham wrote: Thanks, you illustrated this far better than I could. I had to tread lightly because I didn't have the knowledge of history to make any claims, but based on what you say, this is the first time in the photographic industry that there has been such a large uptake of such an immature product. Normally something would be well developed before the pros use it, then it would be even better sorted before becoming mass market. Digital became mass market wy before it wa ready - because the people were ready before the media was, and the marketing departments saw a massive demand and made promises that have still to be fulfilled. This has, however, speeded up the development and I believe within 5 years those promises will be met. -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 October 2003 15:02 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fascinating - a must read! True enough. It took 35mm 30 years to reach the point that it was considered good enough for professional use and another 10 to become mainstream. Digital is moving much faster than that but it is still an infant prodigy. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
I'd disagree with a lot of the opinions expressed in this thread. But in this post I won't talk about digital in the pro market. Digital penetration of the mass market isn't because of agressive marketing; it's because digital is a better product, *when judged by the criteria that are important to the consumer*. Film is inconvenient for many reasons. You have to take it to a store to have it processed; a roll of film is too long for it all to be used up on a single occasion; you can be caught without film. Digital solves all those problems, and adds the immediacy that made polaroid cameras so popular. You can take three or four pictures, then see them within minutes. Image quality was always good enough for display on the TV, or for emailng a shot of the new grandchild to the folks back home. With almost all photo printers, you don't even need a computer; if you want a hard-copy print to send to a relative who is still in the pre-computer stone age you can have one in a matter of a few minutes. And the current crop of 6x4 (or smaller) printers are compact enough to fit just about anywhere. But what about long-time image storage? Well, what about it? I'm sure my mother-in-law isn't the only person who throws away the negatives and just keeps a handful of prints for a while. Photography isn't an archive medium for the masses - it's all about the moment. Filing negatives just isn't important. People don't buy digital cameras because they are gullible dupes of the marketers, or because they are ignorantly aping the professional photographers thay see (when was the last time you saw a pro using a Sony? An Olympus?). They buy a digital PS because it is the right tool for the job.
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, John Francis wrote: But what about long-time image storage? Well, what about it? I'm sure my mother-in-law isn't the only person who throws away the negatives and just keeps a handful of prints for a while. Photography isn't an archive medium for the masses - it's all about the moment. Filing negatives just isn't important. I disagree with that statement. I've been to many family gatherings that end up with people thumbing through 30-60 year old prints (usually kept in a non-archival shoebox) and remembering relatives or events. I doubt that the negatives are around for many of these prints and the quality of the print isn't that important, but people do keep them and look at them. alex
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
Hi, Friday, October 24, 2003, 6:35:23 PM, you wrote: On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, John Francis wrote: But what about long-time image storage? Well, what about it? I'm sure my mother-in-law isn't the only person who throws away the negatives and just keeps a handful of prints for a while. Photography isn't an archive medium for the masses - it's all about the moment. Filing negatives just isn't important. I disagree with that statement. I've been to many family gatherings that end up with people thumbing through 30-60 year old prints (usually kept in a non-archival shoebox) and remembering relatives or events. I doubt that the negatives are around for many of these prints and the quality of the print isn't that important, but people do keep them and look at them. that tells us that the end product is not the negative, or the digital file, but the print. Even some professional photographers I know have not fully considered this, and haven't given any thought to the permanence of their prints. If I think of my own generation (i.e. people in the 40s and older) I know I have photos of my grandparents when they were children, which makes the photos about 100 years old, and I have a daguerrotype that must be considerably older. This ought to be the very shortest expected lifespan for a consumer print kept in a shoebox. I wonder how many modern prints, digital or otherwise, will last that long. If you want to be the Atget or Belloc of the next century, make sure your prints are archival. The famous photographers of our times will be the ones whose pictures survive! -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
- Original Message - From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where did she say that? You're right. (S)he didn't. Must have been very tired last night when I read it. Jostein
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
I know what criteria are important to the consumers. Zoom, quality doesn't matter, at least 5x - 10x is better. Notice that the focal length also doesn't matter (what is that, anyway?). The megapixels - at least 4, noise is not important. Next is the macro function, which must be present and will allow better results than a SLR (and you don't need costly macro lenses). And it has to work as a webcam. You must buy such camera, because it's digital - the film is dead, obsolete, nobody uses it anymore (and because of this I should trade my MZ-6 for a 2mp pointshoot). I have a slightly different oppinion. Alex Sarbu --- Acasa.ro vine cu albumele, tu vino doar cu pozele ;) http://poze.acasa.ro/
RE: Fascinating - a must read!
...is a necessity if you want to stop prostate cancer in its early stages? -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24-Oct-03 10:31 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fascinating - a must read! Digital penetration ...
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: that tells us that the end product is not the negative, or the digital file, but the print. So I recently bought 2 digital cameras. One was for the 24 year old son. He and his new wife are getting a puppy. They wanted a better digital than she had to take pictures of the dog. (He pointed out that her family regularly takes pictures of their dog. Just snapshots, but still rolls and rolls, week in and week out of the damned dog. He wants to avoid the expense.) The other camera is for my daughter's 19th birthday. We visited her last weekend in college and she complained about the price of developing her prints in Washington DC. She is my best photographer and enjoys taking pictures. The point is, both kids are computer literate and equipped with cd writers. They don't need to print everything they take. They don't need to keep it all, but they can. The digital stuff is just fine for them. They will make their own prints. And I am still a committed film user... Regards, Bob S.
Fascinating - a must read!
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html I really enjoyed reading this one
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
Hi, Thursday, October 23, 2003, 5:17:36 PM, you wrote: http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html I really enjoyed reading this one I'm surprised you were able to. You'd think someone working in a visual medium would know better than to put bright white text on a black background, especially with a serif font. The text dances so much I refuse to take the trouble to read right to the end. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
60 Hz is very low, Bob. I can very well imagine your problems; my previous screen didn't support any higher refresh rates. In the end I developed a chronic headache. Usually, the graphics card in the PC support higher refresh rates than the screen. Try to set it as high as the screen will allow. Personally, I prefer 85 Hz or higher, but most people at work are happy with 75 Hz or higher. With CRT screens, that is. If you have a TFT screen, 60 Hz is reasonable. But I don't think you would have been troubled by that on a TFT...:-) Best, Jostein - Pictures at: http://oksne.net - - Original Message - From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:25 PM Subject: Re: Fascinating - a must read! Hi, Thursday, October 23, 2003, 7:57:36 PM, you wrote: Bob, Sounds like the refresh rate on your monitor is low. I had no trouble at all reading it. While I agree that it was not the best way to lay it out, it didn't cause me any real problems - not enough to even notice until you pointed it out. Refresh rate can be a big problem with monitors and cause very uncomfortable viewing depending on what is being displayed. The refresh rate is 60Hz. I don't know if that's high or low. It's a pretty good monitor, but that web-site is all over the place. Perhaps I'm just too fussy. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
The refresh rate is 60Hz. I don't know if that's high or low. That's low. Minimum specs for workplace monitors in some parts of the EU is 72hz. I have my home monitor set to 85Hz. 60Hz with a low-persistence phosphor will cause flicker. Even worse is if you are using the system in a workspace that is lit by fluorescent lights; the flicker of the lights and the flicker of the monitor combine to make things very unpleasant. If your monitor and display card can handle a higher refresh rate, try it - you'll thank yourself for it later.
Re[2]: Fascinating - a must read!
Hello Bob, 60 hz is quite low. At that rate, your peripheral vision is going to pick up all kinds of jitters. Minimum should be 72, preferrably higher than that if your video card and monitor can handle it. --- Bruce Thursday, October 23, 2003, 1:25:32 PM, you wrote: BW Hi, BW Thursday, October 23, 2003, 7:57:36 PM, you wrote: Bob, Sounds like the refresh rate on your monitor is low. I had no trouble at all reading it. While I agree that it was not the best way to lay it out, it didn't cause me any real problems - not enough to even notice until you pointed it out. Refresh rate can be a big problem with monitors and cause very uncomfortable viewing depending on what is being displayed. BW The refresh rate is 60Hz. I don't know if that's high or low. It's a BW pretty good monitor, but that web-site is all over the place. Perhaps BW I'm just too fussy.
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
Hi, Thursday, October 23, 2003, 10:14:35 PM, you wrote: 60 Hz is very low, Bob. I can very well imagine your problems; my previous screen didn't support any higher refresh rates. In the end I developed a chronic headache. Usually, the graphics card in the PC support higher refresh rates than the screen. Try to set it as high as the screen will allow. Personally, I prefer 85 Hz or higher, but most people at work are happy with 75 Hz or higher. With CRT screens, that is. If you have a TFT screen, 60 Hz is reasonable. But I don't think you would have been troubled by that on a TFT...:-) Mine seems to support only one setting. It is a TFT LCD; to be precise, it is an NVIDIA Quadro4 500 GoGL, 1600x1200 resolution on a 15 inch screen. I rarely, if ever, see any flickering. The visual interference on that web page is not, I think, a function of my monitor, but of the web-page design. White-on-black is just bad design, and would be bad design on paper, just as the hotspots on this grid always interfere, whatever the medium: http://www.optillusions.com/dp/1-1.htm -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[2]: Fascinating - a must read!
Bob, Being an LCD, 60 is the normal refresh rate. I viewed the website on an LCD also, but did not get bothered as much as you. I suspect that the small size of pixels on your screen may make the phenomenon more noticeable than on mine. 1600X1200 on a 15 is quite small pixels. I viewed on 1280X1024 on a 16 screen. I think we all agree that it was poor design on the part of the web page author, but not bad enough to not read it. Perhaps it was also that the content for you was not something you cared to read? --- Bruce Thursday, October 23, 2003, 3:08:15 PM, you wrote: BW Hi, BW Thursday, October 23, 2003, 10:14:35 PM, you wrote: 60 Hz is very low, Bob. I can very well imagine your problems; my previous screen didn't support any higher refresh rates. In the end I developed a chronic headache. Usually, the graphics card in the PC support higher refresh rates than the screen. Try to set it as high as the screen will allow. Personally, I prefer 85 Hz or higher, but most people at work are happy with 75 Hz or higher. With CRT screens, that is. If you have a TFT screen, 60 Hz is reasonable. But I don't think you would have been troubled by that on a TFT...:-) BW Mine seems to support only one setting. It is a TFT LCD; to be precise, it BW is an NVIDIA Quadro4 500 GoGL, 1600x1200 resolution on a 15 inch BW screen. I rarely, if ever, see any flickering. The visual interference BW on that web page is not, I think, a function of my monitor, but of the BW web-page design. White-on-black is just bad design, and would be bad BW design on paper, just as the hotspots on this grid always interfere, BW whatever the medium: http://www.optillusions.com/dp/1-1.htm
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
In my opinion, it should be closer to 72 Hz. Mine performs well at that speed. 60 Hz is right at the edge of being a visible flicker... keith whaley Bob Walkden wrote: Hi, Thursday, October 23, 2003, 7:57:36 PM, you wrote: Bob, Sounds like the refresh rate on your monitor is low. I had no trouble at all reading it. While I agree that it was not the best way to lay it out, it didn't cause me any real problems - not enough to even notice until you pointed it out. Refresh rate can be a big problem with monitors and cause very uncomfortable viewing depending on what is being displayed. The refresh rate is 60Hz. I don't know if that's high or low. It's a pretty good monitor, but that web-site is all over the place. Perhaps I'm just too fussy. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
On 23 Oct 2003 at 16:08, Keith Whaley wrote: In my opinion, it should be closer to 72 Hz. Mine performs well at that speed. 60 Hz is right at the edge of being a visible flicker... The frequency of the light emanating from a back lit LCD is many times the display refresh rate unlike a CRT plus LCD pixels are relatively slow to change states so lower screen refresh rates are possible. Visibility is a function of text to background contrast ratio, ambient lighting and screen resolution. It not sufficient to say white text on a black background is just bad design. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
I imagine this is what they wrote when they came out with the 35mm format. digital is in its infancy, everyone understands that. to predict its death now is ridiculous. what will they say when standard digital is a 50mp sensor with 20 stops of tolerance and 1 tb (terabyte) cards cost $25? granted currently there are issues that still need to be worked out, but that what all these companies are working on currently. about printers. HP recently invested $900,000,000 in redeveloping their printer technology. they are not making any of that back when i buy a 5550 for $99. they do however make plenty of money when i buy a cartridge for $35. keep in mind that if the cartridges did not subsidize the printer it would probably cost in the thousands. arnie - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:17 PM Subject: Fascinating - a must read! http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html I really enjoyed reading this one
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
All true, but to clarify, my comment re 60 Hz referred to the refresh rate on a CRT, not an LCD. keith Rob Studdert wrote: On 23 Oct 2003 at 16:08, Keith Whaley wrote: In my opinion, it should be closer to 72 Hz. Mine performs well at that speed. 60 Hz is right at the edge of being a visible flicker... The frequency of the light emanating from a back lit LCD is many times the display refresh rate unlike a CRT plus LCD pixels are relatively slow to change states so lower screen refresh rates are possible. Visibility is a function of text to background contrast ratio, ambient lighting and screen resolution. It not sufficient to say white text on a black background is just bad design. Rob Studdert
