Message-Id: <200106130346.UAA25894@dns.ccit.arizona.edu> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:45:01 -0700 From: Trudy Levy <mailto:trudy@DIG-MAR.COM> Subject: Re: information contained in surrogates To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
<pre>
And who says monitors will stay with 72/96 ppi. Already, IBM along with Intel and Standford are proposing a 22 inch mon
tor with 9.2 megapixel display. Of course today it requires 16 of Intel's Pentium 4 processors to run it, and would cost
about $200,000. But in the future (Intel says five years) there may be a 10 megapixel display for $2,000.
>The answer, or at least one of them, is in the question. You don't know if
>an image has an object or person in it which will be required in the future
>but isn't the primary subject of the image at capture. So for zooming in
>think cropping to a small area of an image then outputting that at a
>required resolution and final image size for magazine quality reproduction.
><snip>
>Frank.
>
>At 16:50 30/05/01 -0700, Mark Jordan wrote:
>>I'll ask the naive/uninformed question -- what kind of uses of these files
>>requires that much detail? I understand the need for sufficient resolution
>>to zoom in to see fine details in images, and the need to have more than
> >standard monitor output at 72/96 ppi, particulary for preservation but do
>>people actually scan, and preserve, large numbers of images at these high
>>densities? Isn't 400 or 600 ppi a good tradeoff, especially for
>>text-oriented images.
>
>Technology Manager
>News International Product Development
>mailto:mailto:Frank@news.co.uk
>mobile +44 (0)7836 293359
-- Trudy Levy Image Integration The Digital Imaging Guide 7 Third Ave., SF, CA 94118 415/750 1274 Images are information - Manage them http://www.DIG-Mar.com</pre>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 12 2001 - 22:48:50 CDT