P3D Re: Scanned image from Stereo World (Test results)

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> >leaving for work.  Scanned a random page of a random
> >issue. 
> >
> >	The 120 dpi jpeg image, to me, looks great!
> >
> >Nowhere near "worthless".  Other than it being of
> >a page in an issue I already have.   :-)
> 
> I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't want to read an article or
> a whole magazine this way ... constantly scrolling around to see one part

That can be a good point, however I think it a matter of ANY CD-ROM format.
Whole issues won't show without scrolling and still be readable.

On my 17" monitor at home I see full-width of the page and *only*
scroll vertically.  On my 25" monitor at work, I see almost the whole page
at once (and would see the whole thing if not for netscape's overhead usage)
and it's about the same as looking at the "real" page.  Because
of different screen dpi's the image on my home 17" monitor also makes
larger images than my 25" monitor.

The size it appears on the screen is a matter of image dpi and the
viewer's dpi.  This also could be "fixed" to make it "anysize".

Nevertheless, the quality of print and the images (compared with my
"original" printed page) looked quite good to me.  Surprisingly so,
especially with the low resolution and jpeg compression (set to
only mild compression, it could be compressed a lot more, but didn't
try... that was my one and ONLY scan and compression test).

> or another (and I have a 21" monitor).  Also, I had trouble fusing the
> stereo pairs, though I don't with the magazine.  Perhaps this is because at
> that resolution, the pairs appear larger than original on my screen, and
> are thus too large to fuse comfortably.

I can freeview most images in the magazine, although these particular
ones are a bit larger than many in SW.  They seem to vary in freeview
ease.  When looking at the scan on my 17" monitor where it's quite
large, then I needed the lensed helper thingie (or to move back quite
a bit), while on my 25" monitor where the images are smaller, freeviewing
worked ok at normal distances.

Perhaps a 96-dpi scan may be better for practical computer screen
reasons (image on your screen would be 20% smaller).  I suspect the text would 
continue to look just fine.  Maybe even smaller would be better for
practical reasons.  Of course, a particular viewer may also have
scaling abilities where anybody could freeview the nominally
stereo-card sized images (which nominally are too big w/o "help").


Mike K.

P.S. - As to reading a whole issue this way, I think I agree.  I'd rather have
       the paper version and coil up in my recliner in front of the fireplace
       to read it.  Howevever, I don't think the suggestion was so much to 
       distribute SW in this form instead of paper, but rather as a back-issue
       resource where the *primary* use would be for reference of single articles,
       and I can see reading a single article in this form as being perfectly
       acceptable.  With perhaps a lower dpi to make the images (and file) smaller.

> 
> -pd
> 
> 
> --------
>                              Peter Davis
>                Funny stuff at http://world.std.com/~pd
> 
>           Boycott spammers and other intrusive advertisers!
> 
> 


------------------------------