On Jul 13, 1995 at 20:46, Keith Richardson of 3:711/934.6 wrote:

 db>> Alternatively, you could have just halved the resolution without
 db>> screwing up the images too much!  ('cept perhaps The Tie..)
 KR>
 KR> the res was set at 75dpi which is just about right for the screen.

I meant the horizontal/vertical size of the image, not the scanning
resolution - it could have been halved and the images would still have made
sense ('cept maybe the tie), and certainly wouldn't have occupied as much
disk space.

 KR> i didn't think that anybody would really want 2400dpi, i'm saving that
 KR> for the next time that rod says something more stupid than usual (:

:-)


    - dave
    d.begley{at}ieee.org

---