[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

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
hardware: is it important to chose certain Video Adapters for further image
editing or just anyone available today will do fine ?

Regards,
Alex Z


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging

[Ken C]

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
paper...haven't tried that yet thought it might be better to get the real
item.  I won't be able to compare results directly since the plastic card
got eaten by a hungrey whippet.  Maybe this is a sign that I should get a
better scanner, but my budget doesn't support that right now.

Ken

- Original Message -

> Oops. sorry I thought I was off-list.  sheesh, not enough coffee this
> morning.
>




Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

Correct - I bought an nVidia about a year ago (you might consider dual-monitor 
capability in case you want to add a second monitor later) for about $130.

Maris

- Original Message - 
From: "Alex Zabrovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, 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 Of Maris V. Lidaka,
Sr.
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 9:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging


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
hardware: is it important to chose certain Video Adapters for further image
editing or just anyone available today will do fine ?

Regards,
Alex Z



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body




Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] RE: Video card for imaging

[Alex Zabrovsky]

Great Ken.
Let's go off-line, OK ?
Some fellows might be pissed off if we will continue to talk on-list about
that issue.
I listen to you very carefully and actually dragged your messages into
separate, PC-related directory as a reference together with other nice
Listeners helping me out with 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're not "on list".  Just about any
decent modern video card will do fine for image editing these days.
Something with 32 meg of memory would work fine, and should be reasonably
priced.  Where the new video cards are headed, with high costs, is in the
realm of performance for games.  So unless you're a major gamer who has to
get the best frames-per-second performance as your hero kills or maims his
opponents, you don't need to go for the latest and thoroughly expensive 64
meg nVidia whatever card.

Having said that, if you do 3D graphics development that involves having to
render the file, I'm told that a fast video card can help speed that up,
though a fast cpu is what determines how quickly your file will be rendered.
What graphics apps do you use?

I built my latest pc with the express purpose of using it for graphics and
web work.  I have a Sony 19" monitor and was finding it bothersome and slow
to have to always drag the application's dialogue boxes out of the way to
see parts of the image I was working on.  This was always a sore point with
me for PhotoShop, and I found it a pain with Dreamweaver.  So, I built this
box specifically to run Windows XP so I can run dual monitors.  My second
monitor is a 15", which is fine because I just drag the dialogue boxed onto
it.  Just completed that mod this weekend and I love it.  You need to
install a 2nd video card, unless you get a special video card (Matrox sells
one) that are dual head.  This second card only needs to be basic enough to
run a monitor at the resolution you need (and must be compatible with this
function onXP).

If you run XP you'll need lots of RAM but if I recall you were going to
start at 512 meg, which is what I have and is certainly enough for XP - more
would be better of course.  And if you have more than 1 pc, networking is a
lot easier to set up with XP as is Internet access.  I have used W98SE
successfully but it's not as stable, but be sure to avoid Windows ME, it's
not a good product.

Feel free to ask anything else, I'm in and out but can usually respond
fairly quickly.  I don't mind having a conversation with someone with
similar interests.

Regards, Ken

- Original Message -
From: "Alex Zabrovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 11:30 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Video card for imaging


Well, to be on-topic one additional question which is related to PC
hardware: is it important to chose certain Video Adapters for further image
editing or just anyone available today will do fine ?

Regards,
Alex Z



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body





Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging

[Moreno Polloni]

>>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 very important throughout the life
of the card.

I've also noticed that some video cards, like Matrox and ATI, can often make
a monitor look sharper and better focused. For 2D work, it's hard to beat
Matrox, and all of their cards are reasonably priced.




Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging

[Robert E. Wright]

That "calibration card" proably was never available for replacement, it
isn't worth the shipping (mail) cost!
The suggestion to use a white piece of paper was always the recommendation.

Calibration, with the card, was only functional for scanning prints.
A very cheap flatbed will 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 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
paper...haven't tried that yet thought it might be better to get the real
item.  I won't be able to compare results directly since the plastic card
got eaten by a hungrey whippet.  Maybe this is a sign that I should get a
better scanner, but my budget doesn't support that right now.

Ken

- Original Message -

> Oops. sorry I thought I was off-list.  sheesh, not enough coffee this
> morning.
>





Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging

[Ken C]

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 piece of paper was always the recommendation.
.
Calibration, with the card, was only functional for scanning prints.




Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging

[TonySleep]

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 features and twin monitor capabilities are, if
anything, slightly less sharp and with some driver issues. You may have to
buy s/h, but expect to pay peanuts as nobody wants them, the fools.

Regards

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info
& comparisons

Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] RE: Video card for imaging

[Dan Honemann]

> 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 capability for Photoshop?

Dan



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging

[Owen P. Evans]

Hi Dan,
Unlike Tony, I am using a Matrox G450 ( current card is a G550) with great
success. My buddy uses a G400 with great success. These are dual monitor
cards.We both work with 48 bit scans and our res is set to; 1152 x 864. I
use a laptop CRT for now as the second PS Tools monitor so I can't tell you
about the resolution on the second screen. My buddy uses two crts (Viewsonic
PF 795 & a 15 inch for PS Tools) and his images are sharp on both.
That said, I just tried 1600 x 1200 and the resolution is poor.
This is on an XP system with a Viewsonic PF790 crt
So you should pursue 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 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 capability for Photoshop?

Dan




Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body





Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging

[Steve Greenbank]

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 one
of these gadgets"

Full review:
   http://www4.tomshardware.com/display/02q1/020114/index.html

Conclusion CRT v LCD here for those who can't be bothered to read the rest:
http://www4.tomshardware.com/display/02q1/020114/lcd-26.html

Steve

PS As the 2nd output in a dual head system it would be OK if you could
arrange 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.  It's
been awhile for me, but I'm at the wrong end of a rather steep and
ominous learning curve with my brand-spanking new SS 4000 (the slide
holder for which I am now considering storing in a safe-deposit box),
VueScan version ___ [updated hourly, or so it seems--thank you, Ed], and
Photoshop.  Trying to make this trek on an old Dell Inspiron 3500 maxed
out at 256 MB of RAM and using a pretty shabby 15" LCD is hardly
helping.  I need some new hardware, pronto.

I'll check out the Matrox cards, for sure--especially if I build my own
box.  Gateway has a pretty good deal going with its X700, and the new
18.1" flat panel is supposedly quite usable for imaging--but they bundle
it with an ATI card; if there's any interest, you can read some user
comments here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=2034766

Dan





Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging

[Julian Vrieslander]

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 one
>of these gadgets"
>
>Full review:
>   http://www4.tomshardware.com/display/02q1/020114/index.html
>
>Conclusion CRT v LCD here for those who can't be bothered to read the rest:
>http://www4.tomshardware.com/display/02q1/020114/lcd-26.html
>

I did not read the entire article, but my skimming did not catch any
mention of the Apple LCD monitors.  Their current models (22" Cinema
Display and 17" Studio Display) are being used by quite a few graphics
pros.

We have the Studio Display in our office, and on the desk next to it is a
highend Sony 21" CRT (GDM-F520).  Both have been calibrated and profiled
with the new LCD/CRT version of ColorVision's Monitor Spyder.  The Apple
display is brighter and has a greater dynamic range than the Sony.  Color
balance varies slightly with viewing angle, but not nearly as much as
earlier generation LCDs.  Both are excellent displays.

--
Julian Vrieslander 


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging

[Denise E. Kissinger]

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. sorry I thought I was off-list.  sheesh, not enough coffee this
morning.

Ken

- Original Message -
From: "Ken C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [filmscanners] Video card for imaging


> Alex,
> No worries about being "on topic" since we're not "on list".  Just
about
any
> decent modern video card will do fine for image editing these days.
> Something with 32 meg of memory would work fine, and should be
reasonably
> priced.  Where the new video cards are headed, with high costs, is
in the
> realm of performance for games.  So unless you're a major gamer who
has to
> get the best frames-per-second performance as your hero kills or
maims his
> opponents, you don't need to go for the latest and thoroughly
expensive 64
> meg nVidia whatever card.
>
> Having said that, if you do 3D graphics development that involves
having
to
> render the file, I'm told that a fast video card can help speed that
up,
> though a fast cpu is what determines how quickly your file will be
rendered.
> What graphics apps do you use?
>
> I built my latest pc with the express purpose of using it for
graphics and
> web work.  I have a Sony 19" monitor and was finding it bothersome
and
slow
> to have to always drag the application's dialogue boxes out of the
way to
> see parts of the image I was working on.  This was always a sore
point
with
> me for PhotoShop, and I found it a pain with Dreamweaver.  So, I
built
this
> box specifically to run Windows XP so I can run dual monitors.  My
second
> monitor is a 15", which is fine because I just drag the dialogue
boxed
onto
> it.  Just completed that mod this weekend and I love it.  You need
to
> install a 2nd video card, unless you get a special video card
(Matrox
sells
> one) that are dual head.  This second card only needs to be basic
enough
to
> run a monitor at the resolution you need (and must be compatible
with this
> function onXP).
>
> If you run XP you'll need lots of RAM but if I recall you were going
to
> start at 512 meg, which is what I have and is certainly enough for
XP -
more
> would be better of course.  And if you have more than 1 pc,
networking is
a
> lot easier to set up with XP as is Internet access.  I have used
W98SE
> successfully but it's not as stable, but be sure to avoid Windows
ME, it's
> not a good product.
>
> Feel free to ask anything else, I'm in and out but can usually
respond
> fairly quickly.  I don't mind having a conversation with someone
with
> similar interests.
>
> Regards, Ken
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Alex Zabrovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 11:30 AM
> Subject: [filmscanners] Video card for imaging
>
>
> Well, to be on-topic one additional question which is related to PC
> hardware: is it important to chose certain Video Adapters for
further
image
> editing or just anyone available today will do fine ?
>
> Regards,
> Alex Z
>
> 
--
--
> 
> Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
title
> or body
>
>


--
--
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
title or body


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] RE: Video card for imaging

[Mark Otway]

>> 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 blurring, and the colours are much
more precise...

Mark


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging

[TonySleep]

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 scanner info
& comparisons

Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging

[TonySleep]

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-head card just
> doesn't make intuitive sense to me.

I agree! I'm not dissing the G400/450 at all, rather saying that the G200 I
use (AGP incidentally) is excellent and extremely sharp at 1600x1200 on a
Sony G420 19". They are also dirt cheap *because* they have been replaced
by newer cards, so for po' people like me they are a good option because it
allows you to spend more on the monitor itself. Which seems to me *the*
most crucial part of a dig.imaging system.

Trying to work with a poor monitor undermines everything. I had to do this
autumn 2000 when my 2 least-worst monitors blew up, and it was alarmingly
difficult to get decent results using the piece of junk I borrowed until I
could afford a new one. When I look now at scans I did during that period,
I often find slight but obviously wayward colour and unspotted crud I just
missed because the display was so poor.

The G200 was in the system all the time. Everything was calibrated, but
still crap.

I'd say this to everyone who has reservations about their screen : never
mind about fast disks, graphics cards, memory and CPU. All that stuff will
just help you make mistakes faster ;) if you don't have a really good
quality monitor. Get that first. Being able to see clearly is more of a
productivity benefit than umpteen MHz, and it's an accuracy sine qua non.

Which also makes one very good monitor much better than two mediocre ones.
Less user-friendly, but better for the scan quality. A crummy one would be
fine for the tools stuff tho'.

If you can afford that, the obvious thing to do is get a G450 or whatever.
I will someday, as I have an ancient but OK Amstrad 10" Trinitron. However
I just don't have the space. A bigger desk will be the next upgrade :)


Regards

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info
& comparisons

Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging

[Steve Greenbank]

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 Flexscan F78 (21") for £142
(about a 1/10th of retail).
Sadly I have nowhere to put one.

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])
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-head card just
> doesn't make intuitive sense to me.

I agree! I'm not dissing the G400/450 at all, rather saying that the G200 I
use (AGP incidentally) is excellent and extremely sharp at 1600x1200 on a
Sony G420 19". They are also dirt cheap *because* they have been replaced
by newer cards, so for po' people like me they are a good option because it
allows you to spend more on the monitor itself. Which seems to me *the*
most crucial part of a dig.imaging system.

Trying to work with a poor monitor undermines everything. I had to do this
autumn 2000 when my 2 least-worst monitors blew up, and it was alarmingly
difficult to get decent results using the piece of junk I borrowed until I
could afford a new one. When I look now at scans I did during that period,
I often find slight but obviously wayward colour and unspotted crud I just
missed because the display was so poor.

The G200 was in the system all the time. Everything was calibrated, but
still crap.

I'd say this to everyone who has reservations about their screen : never
mind about fast disks, graphics cards, memory and CPU. All that stuff will
just help you make mistakes faster ;) if you don't have a really good
quality monitor. Get that first. Being able to see clearly is more of a
productivity benefit than umpteen MHz, and it's an accuracy sine qua non.

Which also makes one very good monitor much better than two mediocre ones.
Less user-friendly, but better for the scan quality. A crummy one would be
fine for the tools stuff tho'.

If you can afford that, the obvious thing to do is get a G450 or whatever.
I will someday, as I have an ancient but OK Amstrad 10" Trinitron. However
I just don't have the space. A bigger desk will be the next upgrade :)


Regards

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info
& comparisons


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] RE: Video card for imaging

[Nuno Sebastião]

Hi all,


What about video cards for laptops. Is the default card enough or should
we go  for an update. I think that laptops video cards are quite bad?
Any comments on this!

Nuno Sebastião



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Robert Meier
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 went for the Sony CRT.  But I have
> to
> admit that the Apple LCD on the next desk is very nice indeed.  Each
> has
> its advantages and disadvantages.

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

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in
the message title or body


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging

[ryan brooks]

>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

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in
the message title or body



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body




Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging

[Arthur Entlich]

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 Flexscan F78 (21") for £142
> (about a 1/10th of retail).
> Sadly I have nowhere to put one.
>
> Steve
>
> PS. I like Iiyama montors.
>




Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body