Why does image quality matter to you in one format but not in another? Image quality is universal to me, I dont care whether its a newspaper image, a magazine image, a home theater image, a black and whit print image, a web image, a slide image, etc, etc, etc. Better image quality is better than worse image quality for images viewing. I know that sounds kind of obvious, but you guys are suggesting that better image quality is not better for viewing images in some formats and I disagree. It does not make any sense that image quality only matters in certain formats unless you dont use those formats, and the arguments being presented here are not from people who dont watch home video, they are actaully claiming that image quality doesnt matter to them in that format even though they DO watch/view that format. Its not very credible if taken literally IMHO.
jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Norm Baugher Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 7:43 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Please everyone set up an email filter Ditto. I couldn't give a rat's [EMAIL PROTECTED] ass about TV quality. But I do like a good B&W print... DagT wrote: > No, it is true. I couldn´t care less about TV quality, but I love a > good print. So much in fact that I still make fiber based and > selenium toned BW prints from 6x6 negatives myself. Accept the > difference. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
