Thinking about D70... Need advice

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

mc wrote:
[]
> You can't put a 6-megapixel image on a web page (or a computer
> screen) at full resolution.

You can with the right display - IBM make some approaching that
resolution.

David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:34vitmF4fg8vqU1@individual.net...
> mc wrote:
> []
> > You can't put a 6-megapixel image on a web page (or a computer
> > screen) at full resolution.
>
> You can with the right display - IBM make some approaching that
> resolution.
>
> David

if you ask me it's a bw issue rather than one of displays...

sid

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

sid derra wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:34vitmF4fg8vqU1@individual.net...
>> mc wrote:
>> []
>>> You can't put a 6-megapixel image on a web page (or a computer
>>> screen) at full resolution.
>>
>> You can with the right display - IBM make some approaching that
>> resolution.
>>
>> David
>
> if you ask me it's a bw issue rather than one of displays...
>
> sid

Oh, a 6MP image could easily compress down to under 1MB - I've downloaded
plenty of files that big! I would make a point of avoiding any Web site
that had such an image as a regular feature of its pages, though.

But it was the computer screen to which I was referring. The IBM T221-DG5
22.2 inch Flat Panel Monitor is 9.2 megapixels!

http/www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=-840&langId=-1&partNumber=9503DG5&storeId=1

Cheers,
David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:39:35 -0500, "mc" <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote:

>"sid derra" <ng_NO_@_SPAM_emolife.net> wrote in message
>news:34r2hkF4b9fh4U1@individual.net...
>> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
>> news:vJidnR3mR6ktwXrcRVn-ow@comcast.com...
>>> I'm seriously thinking about getting a D70, but when I look at comparison
>>> photos on the Net I'm not impressed. Most of the photos from the D70
>>> look
>>> kinda fuzzy to me,
>
>You can't put a 6-megapixel image on a web page (or a computer screen) at
>full resolution. Anything you see on the Web has been downsampled to less
>than a megapixel.

That's a very over-simplified sweeping statement, to the point where
it's wrong.

Many good camera review websites have full-sized samples for you to
download and see for yourself.

http/www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/nikon_d70_samples.html

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:34vpniF4gdcheU1@individual.net...
> sid derra wrote:
> > "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
> > news:34vitmF4fg8vqU1@individual.net...
> >> mc wrote:
> >> []
> >>> You can't put a 6-megapixel image on a web page (or a computer
> >>> screen) at full resolution.
> >>
> >> You can with the right display - IBM make some approaching that
> >> resolution.
> >>
> >> David
> >
> > if you ask me it's a bw issue rather than one of displays...
> >
> > sid
>
> Oh, a 6MP image could easily compress down to under 1MB - I've downloaded
> plenty of files that big! I would make a point of avoiding any Web site
> that had such an image as a regular feature of its pages, though.
>
> But it was the computer screen to which I was referring. The IBM T221-DG5
> 22.2 inch Flat Panel Monitor is 9.2 megapixels!
>
>
http/www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=-8
40&langId=-1&partNumber=9503DG5&storeId=1
>
> Cheers,
> David

i suppose you have broadband? i had to live out in kansas for a year and
there was no cable provider - you would be surprised how many areas still
have to go with lo-speed internet - and those folks have a helluva hard time
downloading 1mb files on regular sites.

sid

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

sid derra wrote:
[]
> i suppose you have broadband? i had to live out in kansas for a year
> and there was no cable provider - you would be surprised how many
> areas still have to go with lo-speed internet - and those folks have
> a helluva hard time downloading 1mb files on regular sites.
>
> sid

I keep trying to remind people about this, but I still find many slow Web
sites due to graphics which are too large or needless. I try and keep my
own downloads down to a few hundred KB for just the reason you mentioned,
and graphics down to 10 -30KB.

Presumably, people in Kansas could use a satellite connection?

Cheers,
David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:26:15 -0000, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems "David
J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>I keep trying to remind people about this, but I still find many slow Web
>sites due to graphics which are too large or needless. I try and keep my
>own downloads down to a few hundred KB for just the reason you mentioned,
>and graphics down to 10 -30KB.

Agreed.

>Presumably, people in Kansas could use a satellite connection?

Yes, but only as the absolutely last resort for the severely addicted.
Even though DirecWay finally went to true two-way satellite ops a while
back it still isn't anywhere as quick as a good cable modem, expensive and
still there is a quota on your dls under their "Fair Access Policy" You're
limited to 169 MB after which your connection can get throttled to 47 kpbs.
http/hns.getdway.com/fap.html Cost is U$600 up front for hardware and
U$60/month for 15 months or U$99/month. Pretty steep.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http/edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ed Ruf wrote:

> Yes, but only as the absolutely last resort for the severely addicted.
> Even though DirecWay finally went to true two-way satellite ops a while
> back it still isn't anywhere as quick as a good cable modem, expensive and
> still there is a quota on your dls under their "Fair Access Policy" You're
> limited to 169 MB after which your connection can get throttled to 47 kpbs.
> http/hns.getdway.com/fap.html Cost is U$600 up front for hardware and
> U$60/month for 15 months or U$99/month. Pretty steep.

What I find odd, is that as the years go by, my cable modem service is getting
faster (not slower due to subscriptions as the ADSL proponents would have it).

In 1999 when I got cable-modem, I was getting long DL's at 300 KBytes/sec tops.
Now it is not unusual to get 500 KBytes/sec sustained for 30 seconds or more
and some movie clips have sustained over 600 Kbytes/sec. Upload has gone from
20 Kbytes/sec to over 100 Kbytes/sec. Monthly DL limit is 20 GB, UL limit is 10
GB. DL'd Mandrake 10.1 a couple weeks ago at a sustained 275 KBytes/sec from
U-Indiana ... eg: 2 hours for a 2 GB iso file. No checksum errors.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:40:09 -0500, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan
Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Ed Ruf wrote:
>
>> Yes, but only as the absolutely last resort for the severely addicted.
>> Even though DirecWay finally went to true two-way satellite ops a while
>> back it still isn't anywhere as quick as a good cable modem, expensive and
>> still there is a quota on your dls under their "Fair Access Policy" You're
>> limited to 169 MB after which your connection can get throttled to 47 kpbs.
>> http/hns.getdway.com/fap.html Cost is U$600 up front for hardware and
>> U$60/month for 15 months or U$99/month. Pretty steep.
>
>What I find odd, is that as the years go by, my cable modem service is getting
>faster (not slower due to subscriptions as the ADSL proponents would have it).

That's only when they pull the old it's a shared connection mantra. Cox has
done a good job by me of subdividing their network pretty good to keep up
with that. But what DSL has done with it's own increasing speeds and
prices is for the cable companies to increase there speeds and/or drop
prices. I've had Cox for years, but without cable TV service, I have
DirecTv instead. In the last several months they dropped their 9.99/month
surcharge for not subscribing to even their most basic TV.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http/edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html