Couldn't it double as a table, or your computer desk? ;-)
Art
Steve Greenbank wrote:
> A cheap way to buy a good large monitor is second-hand - nobody wants the
> 20"+ models (at least not in the UK as we mostly have rediculously small
> houses).
>
> I recently had the oppotunity to buy an Eizo
>He may be concerned about the much higher contrast ratios available in
CRTs.
>-R
Julian,
would you still get the CRT rather then an LCD? What kind of work are
you doing? In other words, is color reproduction very important in your
work?
Robert
_
Sent: quarta-feira, 16 de Janeiro de 2002 22:03
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging
--- Julian Vrieslander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, I am not trying to argue that LCD's are better. When we upgraded
> our systems earlier this year, I
ne.
Steve
PS. I like Iiyama montors.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 4:29 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:52:13 -0500 Paul Chefurka ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrot
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:52:13 -0500 Paul Chefurka ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I'm not sure why one would use older cards instead of newer ones, given
> the
> probability of support issues as they age further. In addition, the idea
> of using two PCI slots instead of one AGP slot with a dual-hea
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:43:59 -0500 Dan Honemann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Doest the Matrox G200 have digital out, or only analog?
Analogue only - composite, not BNC. It's ancient kit, about 2yrs old :)
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanne
>> I have yet to be convinced that a LCD can match a decent CRT
>> for image processing work (or fast moving games).
Having used a wide selection of LCD screens for all sorts of work (and
in particular for fast-moving games) I'd say they are far better than
conventional CRT screens. There's no
That's ok, I wanted to read your comments. I learn a lot from you
guys.
Denise
- Original Message -
From: "Ken C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 1:26 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging
Oops
On 1/15/02 7:46 PM, Steve Greenbank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote:
>I have yet to be convinced that a LCD can match a decent CRT for image
>processing work (or fast moving games).
>
>The imaging expert at Tom's Hardware agrees:
> "Graphic artists shouldn't even consider picking up
a suitable viewing angle.
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Honemann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 7:09 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Video card for imaging
Paul,
How nice to see a familiar face here in the filmscanners list.
the dual G200 cards if it works as well as Tony says.
Owen
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Honemann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:16 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Video card for imaging
> Matrox G200 are super
> Matrox G200 are superb cards for photo editing at up to 1600x1200
24bit.
> Later Matrox cards with more features and twin monitor capabilities
are,
> if anything, slightly less sharp and with some driver issues.
Is it possible to put two G200 cards in a Win 2k or XP box and have dual
monitor ca
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:17:57 +0200 Alex Zabrovsky ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> So there is no point to spend more then minimum for today's video
> adapter,
> right ? (80-150 $ are fine)
Matrox G200 are superb cards for photo editing at up to 1600x1200 24bit.
Later Matrox cards with more feature
Great, thanks Bob. I never used it to scan prints so won't worry about it!
Ken
- Original Message -
From: "Robert E. Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That "calibration card" proably was never available for replacement, it
isn't worth the shipping (mail) cost!
The suggestion to use a white pie
work better at prints than the Photosmart.
Bob Wright
- Original Message -
From: "Ken C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 11:42 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging
Aargh! And to make matters worse, I inclu
>>So there is no point to spend more then minimum for today's video adapter,
right ? (80-150 $ are fine)<<
As far as speed goes, most cards are adequate. You'd be best off buying a
name brand, rather than generic card when it comes to support. They also
provide regular driver updates, which is ve
th my issue.
Regards,
Alex Z
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken C
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 9:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging
Alex,
No worries about being "on topic" since we&
January 13, 2002 1:17 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Video card for imaging
Thanks.
So there is no point to spend more then minimum for today's video adapter,
right ? (80-150 $ are fine)
Regards,
Alex Z
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf O
Aargh! And to make matters worse, I included all the previous messages. OK
to try get back on topic, does anyone know if the calibration card that was
supplied with the original HP PhotoSmart film scanner is still available? A
search of HP's site suggests that I can just use a piece of white
pa
Most major video cards will do fine.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Alex Zabrovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 12:30 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Video card for imaging
Well, to be on-topic one additional question which is related to PC
20 matches
Mail list logo
