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: Road Walker who wrote (21417)	1/6/2002 10:42:28 AM
From: Tumbleweed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

re 110 comparison... ..that is a very good point John. I had forgotten this, but many years ago, in instamatic days, most of my friends used those, whilst a few of us 'discriminating' photographers used 35mm and poured scorn on their efforts. But we were in the minority. As an experiment I have just taken a picture at 640 x 480 with my new camera (using medium JPEG compression). The resulting picture is just under 100k (and the menu tells me I can fit another 809 on my CF card compared to 78 in the mode I normally have it set to!) With my old 1MP camera a 6 x 4 print wasnt too bad. Noticeably worse than a 35mm print, but acceptable (to me) unless compared side by side. The 640 x 480 print is pretty bad, but not as bad as I thought it would be. I'd say similar to the old instamatic or 110, maybe a bit worse. So I think you could be right and I was wrong. I sincerely hope so as that should push up CF sales :-) I can see them being sold on the basis of 'never buy film again'. Tw