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
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
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
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]
[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
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
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
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
. 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
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
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
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.
- 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
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
...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 ...
[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
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html
I really enjoyed reading this one
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,
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
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
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,
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
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
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.
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
: Fascinating - a must read!
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html
I really enjoyed reading this one
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
