On 17/02/2008, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:22:03AM +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote: > > On 17/02/2008, KS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Could you elaborate on the 6-bit / 8-bit bit a bit? When I do finally > > get an LCD (probably in another six months or so, if I can help it), I > > want to know about this. One of the main functions of our desktop is > > Digikam (photos) so quality photo reproduction is important to us. > > > I've only seen a few professionals viewing images on a screen. None of > them were using a CRT. > > I'm a CCU nurse. Sure, one can call up xrays on the normal desktop > display, but if you want to see anything in detail and especially make > any treatment decisions, you go over to the big CRT and call it up.
I've seen those super-high resolution B&W Rentgoen monitors at hospitals. Very impressive indeed, though I don't think that they are very practical for home use. > I bought my 21" Intergraph CRT off-lease for $250. It has a slight > aberration in one corner but I know its there and wouldn't retouch a > photo in that section without panning away from it. Off-lease may be > one options for you to get good image quality without breaking the bank. > > Think of the resolution of a camera. Kodak Kodachrome professional > ISO25 slide film has always been the gold-standard. When you look at > the grain density and do the math, it comes out to around 32 MPixel. > A Nikon digital SLR is around 18 MPixel, with consumer-grade digital > cameras lower still. > > Take an 8x10" glossy print made from that Kodachrom slide. 80 square > inches for 32 MPixel (well, less since the paper isn't as good as the > slide). That's 409.6 Kpixel per square inch. Square-root > that and you get 647 dpi. So, you use a larger monitor. Think of a CRT > at 1600 x 1200. That's 1.8 Mpixel. Double that to 3200 x 2400 and you > get 7.3 MPixel. > > How tightly packed are those pixels? Large-screen flat-panels may give > you large X x Y but at what size screen? How easy is it to edit a > picture at 3200 x 2400 if the screen is 6 feet wide? > > Then you have to look at contrast, number of bits per pixel. My CRT is > the standard X.org max of 24 bits/pixel. > > What is the source of the images you'll be editing? How may MPixels, > how many bits/pixel? If its from physical media, what are the specs on > the digitizer/scanner? What are the specs on the printer you'll use? > > Just some thoughts. > > Doug. We're not doing any photo retouching, only looking at pictures shot with 3-7 MP home cameras. However, as it is our primary way of viewing the photos, we want something decent. I'm thinking about a minimum resolution of 1600x1200 and the best colour possible. Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?