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 : CYRIX / NSM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AB who wrote (32477)	5/21/1999 5:27:00 PM
From: Scott Carr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 33344

Paul, as much as you might like to, you couldn't carry George Gilder's jockstrap. You should start your own thread called: "for arrogant techno-geeks only".

To: AB who wrote (32477)	5/21/1999 7:20:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33344

See Robert Sheldons post just back a few.... "The chip allows for unlimited potential for enlarging or reducing photographs without graininess or reduction in clarity." In effect, even Joe consumer would be able to see a diference...and he'd like it a lot. And Professionals love it right now, or so I gather from an unusually reliable source.

To: AB who wrote (32477)	5/22/1999 5:17:00 AM
From: Craig Freeman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33344

AB, modern films are capable of resolutions well in excess of the typical camera lens. Using 100 lines-per-mm as a working standard, it would take >6 megapixels to provide an image as sharp as you might obtain with a decent 35mm SLR. But that doesn't include the delicate shading and edge clarity provided by the variable granularity of film .. especially in B&W (rather like comparing the harsh sound of a digital CD to a phonograph record playing on an audiophile's tube-type stereo). It would require upwards of 100 megapixels per picture to satisfy an Ansel Adams afficianado. Craig