Oh no! Let's not start a long debate about whether it was On or Off topic!
Can we not let this item rest in peace?
Don
At 06:58 PM 23/06/2002 -0400, you wrote:
I have to say, I have been following this 'debate' from afar. Very afar,
because after the first few posts I, frankly, lost interest.
If this thread continues any longer, I will put all of the participants in
my killfile. That would be a shame because I think you all appear to be the
kind of people that I would normally like to read the comments of. This
isn't like a Usenet group where I can easily ignore a thread. Instead my
I support Ken. I'm currently scanning a large number of rolls of negative
film. They are just 10x.6.67 inch by 72 ppi images for screen display. I'm
keeping them in an electronic catalog of my images. Unless something has
changed in Photo Shop 7, which I recently acquired, sharpening is much more
I use an onboard video card (8MB?) in an 800MHz Pentium 3, 512MB RAM PC. I
can't compare speeds to a 32MB video card but the speed of my editing is
fine. Maybe I don't appreciate the speed of a 32MB video card but I can't
imagine a huge difference when I manipulating 27MB (8 bit) or 55MB (16 bit)
a technical explanation
of why sharpening has so much more visible effect
on jpegs as opposed to TIFFs?
At 10:22 AM 09/06/2002 +0200, Anthony wrote:
It doesn't.
On Sunday, June 9, 2002, at 07:46 AM, Don Marcotte wrote:
I support Ken. I'm currently scanning a large number of rolls of
negative
film
