er Gilbert"
Subject: Re: Resolution Anecdote
I prefer drinking. It works on live subjects as well as digital
renderings, and doesn't change with proximity.
On 10/7/2010 12:08 PM, John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 07:55:56AM +0100, Bob W wrote:
[...]
But the point of all this
It's amazing how much better some images look when viewed from a couple of
rooms away.
Mark !
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "John Francis"
Subject: Re: Resolution Anecdote
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 07:55:
: "Igor Roshchin"
Subject: Re: Resolution Anecdote
Thu Oct 7 07:28:34 CDT 2010
Doug Franklin wrote:
On 2010-10-07 2:55, Bob W wrote:
> [...]
>> But the point of all this is that it's amazing how much sharper some
> photos
>> look at 1920 x 1200 on 15.4&
On Oct 7, 2010, at 10:13 , Walter Gilbert wrote:
I prefer drinking. It works on live subjects as well as digital
renderings, and doesn't change with proximity.
MARK!
Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com
There is no off position to the genius switch.
Genius can, however, be observed as i
I prefer drinking. It works on live subjects as well as digital
renderings, and doesn't change with proximity.
On 10/7/2010 12:08 PM, John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 07:55:56AM +0100, Bob W wrote:
[...]
But the point of all this is that it's amazing how much sharper some
photo
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 07:55:56AM +0100, Bob W wrote:
> [...]
> > But the point of all this is that it's amazing how much sharper some
> photos
> > look at 1920 x 1200 on 15.4" as compared to the same image at
> > 1920 x 1200 on 24".
>
> you can achieve the same resolution by taking a couple of s
Thu Oct 7 07:28:34 CDT 2010
Doug Franklin wrote:
> On 2010-10-07 2:55, Bob W wrote:
> > [...]
> >> But the point of all this is that it's amazing how much sharper some
> > photos
> >> look at 1920 x 1200 on 15.4" as compared to the same image at
> >> 1920 x 1200 on 24".
That's why what looks ok
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Doug Franklin
wrote:
I don't know what panel technology it uses, but the gamut looks
> pretty good.
i love that show, Wallace and Gamut.
Dave
> --
> Thanks,
> DougF (KG4LMZ)
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listi
On 2010-10-07 2:55, Bob W wrote:
[...]
But the point of all this is that it's amazing how much sharper some
photos
look at 1920 x 1200 on 15.4" as compared to the same image at
1920 x 1200 on 24".
you can achieve the same resolution by taking a couple of steps backward...
True, but one typ
[...]
> But the point of all this is that it's amazing how much sharper some
photos
> look at 1920 x 1200 on 15.4" as compared to the same image at
> 1920 x 1200 on 24".
you can achieve the same resolution by taking a couple of steps backward...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
A little anecdotal ... well, it's not really evidence ... let's just
call it an anecdote and leave it at that.
I've been using high resolution displays since the early 1980s when I
was writing device drivers for document imaging systems. Of course,
back then, a "high resolution" display that
11 matches
Mail list logo
