Digital BW, The Print

Austin, my extreme closeup vision without glasses is 20/20. That's at 
about 5 inches away from the monitor.

Using Netscape SEVEN, I was able to change the size of the type in web 
pages, but not in the old version
I was using. So I can see once again from normal distances.  The type on 
the page was about half as big
as the sample post I sent to Truman a few minutes ago. No larger than 3 
points. It couldn't be made out
at all, even at 5 inches.

   I
> think your vision might simply be degraded.

Austin, I honestly do have 20/20 vision at 5 inches. At six inches I 
couldn't read the print if it were 2 inches
high. At 4 inches, I have the same problem. I only have 20/20 vision at 
5 inches.  WITH glasses, its not
a lot better. My eyes have a problem most people have never encountered. 
Whatever I focus my glasses on is
sharp, but nothing else is. From about 10 inches to 25 inches or so I 
require reading glasses, and they must be
pulled out or pushed closer to my face at every single distance in 
between. For about 4 feet to infinity, I have
to have another set of glasses. I have a terrible time focusing and 
seeing things sharp, but when the glasses
are pulled out just right, then whatever I focus on at that one distance 
only, is sharp. It's sort of like
living your life looking through an F1 lens at F1. What you focus on is 
sharp, nothing else is. And No, I have never
noticed the quality of my bokeh. :).  By the way, in Netscape, the smily 
faces are really yellow smily faces. Do
they come through that way on my posts?

> If your monitor is set to 800x600, and it's 22", you really should have your
> eyes checked...or perhaps your monitor...I know you believe it's sharp, but
> if you can't read that at 800x600, it's either your eyes or your monitor
> that is causing the problem.

Like I said, the original website came in with the smallest text I have 
ever
seen on a monitor. I sent samples, which were set at 8 point type, 
because that is
the smallest I could choose. But the Canon Webpage text was MUCH tinier 
than that. I can read what I sent
Truman as a sample, I could NOT read the canon site. But with Netscape 
7, I can now.

Jerry

>

Hi Jerry,

> My eyes have a problem most people have never encountered.

I think we've encountered it here ;-)

> By the way, in Netscape, the smily
> faces are really yellow smily faces. Do
> they come through that way on my posts?

No, the posts all come through as text only, as they should.

> > If your monitor is set to 800x600, and it's 22", you really
> should have your
> > eyes checked...or perhaps your monitor...I know you believe
> it's sharp, but
> > if you can't read that at 800x600, it's either your eyes or your monitor
> > that is causing the problem.
>
> Like I said, the original website came in with the smallest text I have
> ever
> seen on a monitor. I sent samples, which were set at 8 point type,
> because that is
> the smallest I could choose. But the Canon Webpage text was MUCH tinier
> than that. I can read what I sent
> Truman as a sample, I could NOT read the canon site. But with Netscape
> 7, I can now.

If you are using a 22" monitor at 800x600, you have very bad eyesight!

Regards,

Austin

Jerry writes:

> My eyes have a problem most people have never
> encountered.  Whatever I focus my glasses on is
> sharp, but nothing else is. From about 10 inches
> to 25 inches or so I require reading glasses,
> and they must be pulled out or pushed closer to
> my face at every single distance in between.

What you need is some sort of glasses with adjustable focus.  Technically
quite feasible, but I've never heard of it being done.  Better still would
be glasses with autofocus--and yes, that is quite feasible, too, but I've
never heard of that being done, either, and it would be expensive.  But you
might be an excellent test case.

In any case, if you are having this much trouble focusing on images, it
might explain in part why digital looks as good as film to you.

> But the Canon Webpage text was MUCH tinier
> than that. I can read what I sent Truman as
> a sample, I could NOT read the canon site.

Some Web sites are poorly designed.  Among such sites, it's not uncommon to
see, for example, a site designed to fit in 640x480 pixels (even though
virtually no one is still using 640x480-pixel screens), but with so much
text crammed into it that it is almost impossible tiny--letters may only be
a few pixels high, and thus a blur on many monitors.  But it could be worse:
The site might require Flash just to get past the first page, which is a
hallmark of the schoolgirl style of web design.

>>My eyes have a problem most people have never encountered.

> I think we've encountered it here ;-)

> No, the posts all come through as text only, as they should.

No, in netscape 7 they come through as yellow round smiley faces. They 
are supposed to on Macs, anyhoo.

>>Like I said, the original website came in with the smallest text I have
>>ever
>>seen on a monitor. I sent samples, which were set at 8 point type,
>>because that is
>>the smallest I could choose. But the Canon Webpage text was MUCH tinier
>>than that. I can read what I sent
>>Truman as a sample, I could NOT read the canon site. But with Netscape
>>7, I can now.

> If you are using a 22" monitor at 800x600, you have very bad eyesight!

No, I said EVEN at that resolution, I couldn't see the canon type, so it 
was in fact much bigger  than
my normal resolution, which is 1024 x 768. What I'm trying to say, and 
you aren't getting it, is
NORMALLY I Can see 5 point type on my 1024x 768 monitor. But even when I 
took it down to 600x800,
the canon webpage was STILL way too small to read.


I thought I explained all that. I have excellent eyesight WHEN my 
glasses are focused on what I want to see.
Obviously the webpage was coming through much DIFFERENTLY on my monitor 
than on your monitor.  I CAN
see small type, down to 5 points.

Jerry

> > No, the posts all come through as text only, as they should.
>
> No, in netscape 7 they come through as yellow round smiley faces. They
> are supposed to on Macs, anyhoo.

Jerry, your browser converts them then...these are TEXT ONLY emails...

> I CAN
> see small type, down to 5 points.

Is that with your 22" monitor set to 1024 x 768?  That's a VERY low
resolution for a 22" monitor...typically, people use a 17" or 19" or 21"
monitor at 1280x1024 or 1600x1200.  My 12" monitors are set for 1024x768, as
are my 12.1" and 14.1" notebooks.  I'm curious if the 5 point you are seeing
on the screen is really 5 point.  Have you measured it as it appears on the
screen?

You probably use a Mac, and I'm going to guess they probably do the fonts
right, so 5 points is 5 points, no matter what screen "resolution" you have
chosen.  I'm curious what a PC does, I'll have to experiment tonight in my
spare time ;-)

Regards,

Austin

You are SO right about adjustable focus eyeglasses,

I've asked many an optometrist about this, and they all said
what you do, that it would be possible, but would have to be done
just for me, and would be VERY expensive.

Although it takes much work, when I get the glasses set right,
everything focused on IS sharp. It's just such a hassle.

> In any case, if you are having this much trouble focusing on images, it
> might explain in part why digital looks as good as film to you.

I don't think so. After all, I'm not making very large images. My 6.5
megapixel Canon does very well indeed.

And of course, since I just bought it, Canon has announced their 11.1
Megapixel camera.  But this time, I fear the price would be too great.

Maybe the EOS 3 Digital camera will also have that Chip! and be affordable.

Jerry

Austin,


>>I CAN
>>see small type, down to 5 points.
> 
> 
> Is that with your 22" monitor set to 1024 x 768?  That's a VERY low
> resolution for a 22" monitor...

Yes, that's my normal resolution. The higher ones are just to small to 
be comfortable.

Jerry

  Have you measured it as it appears on the
> screen?

No.