Re: [photo-3d] slides from negatives?

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Reynolds" <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [photo-3d] slides from negatives?


> Michael Levy wrote:

> Having a small monitor shouldn't be a problem.  So long as the pixel
> resolution is the same, a smaller monitor will have a finer dot pitch
> and will look better than a large monitor.  Sun standard pixel
> resolution is 1152x900.  The old 14 and 15 inch monitors (back when 15
> inch really meant 15 inches of usable area not counting overscan and
> other unused portions of the tube) looked much better than the 17, 19
> and 21 inch monitors that came afterwards.
>
> --
> Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
> reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
> http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
> NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"
>

Usually a larger monitor will produce better results than a smaller monitor.
It is not the dot pitch by itself that makes the difference, but the dot
pitch per screen size.  For example, a 15 inch monitor with a .28 dot pitch
would not have as fine a pitch across the screen as a 32 inch monitor with a
.40 dot pitch.  With the larger monitor, you get back further to photograph
the same picture image area, and the pitch becomes finer for the same image
as displayed larger.  Also, the larger monitor minimizes other artifacts
such as signal dropouts, missing pixels, and even small dust particles.

Still, if you do not yet have the equipment, you will find that you can get
better quality for less money by using a scanner and a printer than shooting
off of a monitor.

JR