Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address) wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 08:17:01 GMT, David J Taylor,

wrote:

To me, the original sized images do look excessively sharpened, for
example:

http://www.pbase.com/waltdnes/image/55804454/original

but if I was viewing on my old CRT monitor rather than my current
LCD monitor (without the focus problems of the CRT), I would
probably have said it was OK.

I'm using a 19" CRT, and I don't think I'll be switching to LCD
soon.
I usually shoot images at 2048x1536 and work on them in that size. I
bin them down to 1024x768 for web display near the end. This cuts
down
ISO noise as opposed to shooting at 1024x768.

In linux, you can set up custom modelines to give custom
resolutions.
I can push my card+monitor combo to 2128x1702 (YES!). This just
barely
holds a 2048x1536 image plus the image window and status bar.

When you can get an LCD at that resolution without taking out a
mortgage, I'll consider an LCD.

Well, as you imply large LCD are already here - IBM have a 9.2MP display:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8578

But I wasn't suggesting that you change, as you seem to have inferred,
simply that the LCD will present a sharper picture, and therefore what
might look OK on a CRT could look oversharpened on an LCD.

(On the CRT, the electron beam hitting the screen has a finite size, and
therefore each pixel will be blurred a little. I would expect that when
running your CRT at 2128 x 1720, the individual pixels are not as clearly
resolved as at 1024 x 768, for example.)

David