Wow...that's big! But it would seem unusable for anything else. Everything else would be so tiny. So they must run dual monitors and just use that one for images? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 12:19 PM Subject: Re: The Hundred Percenters
> you have a monitor that does 4K x 3K. they exist. > > Herb.... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Taz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 13:05 > Subject: Re: The Hundred Percenters > > > > Please explain this a bit further. Somewhere I'm in the dark here. If my > > file is 3400 x 2200 approximately how can I truly see the quality when my > > monitors top res is 1600 x 1200 and usually it's set on 1024 x 768. The > > previously mentioned file size prints out at approximately 300dpi on a 11.5 > > x 8 full page if I remember correctly. From the tests I've done on my > > monitor I can tell very little difference from a high res photo to a res > > approximately at my monitor res. > > > > > > > >
