Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ausdauer who wrote (8614)	1/7/2000 5:37:00 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

I used to think that 2 megapixels was the minimum needed to get good results, but I've found even 1 mp will do fine with enlargements up to 8 x 10. There are so many ways to enhance a photo to make it look sharper and to bring out shadow details or tone down highlights with the right printing software that I rarely use the full 2.1 mp resolution of the Nikon 950. One reason, of course, is that it takes a LONG time to write the image to the CF, during which time you just have to sit there and wait, with the camera unavailable for further shots until the write process is complete. Before getting too wrapped up with the potential of 3 mp, I'd suggest thinking about the read/write times of those higher resolution images. I also should note that the type of paper you use for prints makes one heck of a difference. I found a matte surface Epson photo paper that is just magnificent. The results remind you of a fine oil painting. After getting the hang of making digital enlargements, I can now say that I may never use my old 35mm cameras again, and I won't even miss them. Conventional color print photography, except for high end professional shots, is toast.