digital cameras

From: Sellam Ismail <>
Date: Fri Jul 16 20:16:52 1999

On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Tony Duell wrote:

> > "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. As far as
> > I'm concerend, that's good enough.
> Now compare either of those with the original, unscanned, photo. Unless
> the camera that took that was a very poor one, you'll find there's detail
> missing.

But Tony, I don't intend for these to end up as hard copies. That's why I
also have my regular "point n shoot" camera with me, so that I have
something for my photo album. If I was planning to print the digital
photos out on my color ink jet printer then your argument would make

> They're already out there. But at the moment you can still do a lot
> better (for the money) with conventional cameras. Too many things these
> days are simply 'convenient' rather than 'excellent'. I don't mind having
> to learn to do something, having to take time to do something, etc. I do
> mind wasting (even small amounts of) time on something that's not that good.

Sure, if the resoultion of the average monitor was 4000x4000 (or whatever)
then my digital camera would be woefully inadequate for my web pages. But
as it is at this point in time, its fine.

Sellam Alternate e-mail:
Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.

             Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
                   See for details!
                        [Last web site update: 05/25/99]
Received on Fri Jul 16 1999 - 20:16:52 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:32:12 BST