> > 'Fantastic Pictures' tells me nothing. Have you attempted to measure the
> > resolution? If so, how?
> "Fantastic" being that when you look at the picture you can see the same
> detail on a computer screen as you'd get from a scanned photo.
After _DOWNGRADING_ them to some bumpy 400x300 or less
> > Because they're convenient? No film to buy, you can erase your mistakes,
> > you can stick the results in a computer document or on a web page, etc.
> Exactly, and that's why they are useful. In a few years, this argument
> will be moot as the digital cameras coming out will impress even you.
Agreed
> > Err... You do realise that's the equivalent of about 4 or 5 lines per
> > milimeter on an equivalent 35mm frame. And that the _worst_ SLR lens than
> > one of the major UK photographic magazines ever tested gave something
> > like 40 lines/mm. And that was noticeably unsharp...
> If I can see the detail of the structures I've taken pictures of in the
> tiny 1" x 1" viewfinder then they should come out just fine on a 15" or
> 17" monitor.
You're argueing within the low (or no :) resolution class of devices.
Just try to fix one of the inscription plates you might see in the
museums on one 320x200 shot and read them afterwards ... and I'm not
talking about the one or two glyphs per stone thingys. You can get
a better result with any USD 10,- camera (including film) ...
Servus
Hans
--
Traue keinem Menschen der 5 Tage blutet und immer noch nicht tod ist.
Received on Fri Jul 16 1999 - 07:01:17 BST