L.D. Best wrote: >John, >First thing I noticed about your large image of the middle picture is >that it is relatively low quality, very grainy. Did you use a digital >camera to take it, or did you scan a photograph?
Neither. My drugstore/developer has a service that puts jpegs, (scanned inverted negatives) on their website for downloading. The pic's come in three sets of resolutions; averaging 2.5M, 750K, and 150K ea. I downloaded the med. res. ones, thinking they would suffice. But even those I can no longer find. I must have erased them when I nearly ran out of disk space. All I've got left are some copies of an even lower resolution. In the mean time I got a CD reader, so from now on I'll have them put on disk instead. > P.S. I just realized what I was writing about, and I find it > flabbergasting that this level of technology is now available to anyone > who can afford a bundled computer system! Ms Josephine Blow now has > better graphics & storage technology available, on that cheapo system > she bought, than "Lights & Magic" had for the first version of E.T. !!! > Technology is running so fast ... I hope we can find valid and valuable > uses for it once in awhile. I'm sure we are. Speaking for myself, my life has been enriched tremendously in the last decade, and almost without cost to me. Or better said it happened thanks to the thousands, if not millions, of hours that computer hobbyists put in, to provide "free" software and infrastructure. And it's all there for any of us to tap into. My hobby is heterodox economics, and this new medium has enabled me to communicate, on equal footing, with some of the foremost minds in the field. The fact that the truly eminent are interested to talk to lay people, because they are aware of their own theories' incompleteness, is something I couldn't even have dreamt of before the internet and its discussion groups. Take care, John V
