I was just re-reading some of my mail, and when I came across this comment, I wondered, what is the dot pitch specification of your Sony LCD monitor? Or, is there any such?
Grossly speaking, changing the pixel count setting of one's monitor does not change the mask of the monitor, so in the end, what one sees on the screen can only be as sharp as the monitor itself permits. For example, my monitor has an 0.27 dot pitch. That means the picture elements are (.27 X .0394") = 10 1/2 thousandths of an inch apart. Therefore I cannot see or display any image 'sharper' than that on my screen. My digital camera might well be capable of taking and storing an image with finer resolution, but unless I get it translated to some photo paper, I will never enjoy it... The normal eye can see much better than that, perhaps down to a thousandth of an inch or so, so whatever .jpg I open has those sharpness limitations. I suppose that since everyone _else_ who has a CRT display is laboring under the same crippling effect, we're all more or less equal. Except for, possibly, those with LCD screens... I am aware that an LCD monitor works differently from a standard cathode ray tube monitor, but don't know what the equivalent maximum possible resolution might be. I'm not sufficiently familiar with them, so I ask, how does Sony specify that characteristic? Thanks, keith Henry Henry wrote: > > Hi Keith, > > I just report what I saw with my eyes, which of course is not a scientific > way to judge the image quality. > > I saw horrible noise and artifects at the children's faces, at 100% view > from my Sony LCD monitor which is set at 1024x768 pixels. I watch it pixel > by pixel. > > I have done a crop on the original large photo and put it on my web server: > > http://www.irenhenry.com/imgp0125-crop.jpg > > If it is the problem of my monitor, I probably have to buy another one > before my *ist-D arrive. > > Cheers! > > Henry > 16/3/2003 > > >From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: Disappointing test samples of Optio S > >Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 > > > >Henry, > > > >I have a 17" monitor, and I viewed the children's .jpg in "Expanded > >View," which turns out to be 30" wide (roughly 2 1/2 screen widths for > >my monitor) and looked carefully at the children's faces. > >From 30" viewing distance, I found it very hard to discern any degradation. > >With prior notice, like you gave us, I might be persuaded that there > >might be some, but would casual viewing notice it? Not at all... > >If I got up to within 11" of the monitor screen, I noticed some areas > >where the skin tone MIGHT be degraded, but it could also be smudges on > >the cheek or forehead. Nothing like what I expected from your description. > > > >I particularly liked the detail in the shadows of the shrine > >structure. > > > >Overall, not bad at all in my humble opinion. > > > >If one expects to produce National Geographic quality images, you'll > >have to buy a 12 or 16 Mpixel camera, not a 3 Mpixel one! > >For what it _is_, I think it did a quite commendable job. > > > >keith whaley > >_ _ _ _ > > > >Henry Henry wrote: > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > The Taiwanese website Photosharp has posted two test samples of Optio S: > > > > > > > >http://www.digital.idv.tw/dc-test/Pentax/OptioS/intro/index-optioS-intro.htm > > > > > > http://www.digital.idv.tw/spec/dgpentax/OptioS/imgp0087.jpg > > > http://www.digital.idv.tw/spec/dgpentax/OptioS/imgp0125.jpg > > > > > > The colour rendition is on the saturated side and image noise is on the > > > high side (on the shadow of the Chinese roof at photo 1 and on the > > > faces/clothes of the children in photo 2). A bit disappointing... > > > > > > My desire for *ist-D has cooled down a bit... > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Henry > > > 15/3/2003
