RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution

[Enoch's Vision, Inc. \(Cary Enoch R...\)]

> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]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.enochsvision.com; 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