[rollei_list] Re: why I'm not digital -( just for interest)
- From: "Bob McClelland" <rdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 09:54:57 +0100
Fair Point Eric.
What it shows to me is that the quality of the 'section' is pretty good,
both in terms of colour, detail and sharpness - but I suppose that only
applies to someone who is looking at it a) with personal experience of
handling digital on a screen then printing it and b) with reasonably good
gear - by which I mean, say, a decent 1280 by 1024 screen in 32bit colour .
(I accept that it would look pretty rough (or meaningless) on a 640 by 480
screen set to 256 colours). It's only a rough guide of course : 'just for
interest' - but then again, I'm biased, insomuch as I've done the A3 print
from this and seen how impressive it looks. :-)
Bob McClelland
Cornwall (U.K.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 2:00 AM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: why I'm not digital -( just for interest)
Not jumping down your throat, Bob, but at a loss to understand your
point. Screen resolution is about the lowest of the low... what is it
that we are supposed to be judging?
Eric Goldstein
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
