Article View: sci.image.processing
Article #1310Re: I think 320*200 pixels are enough !
From: Thomas L
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:19
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:19
8 lines
1333 bytes
1333 bytes
netspider4@lycos.com (Karl-Hugo Weesberg) wrote in message news:<7666ed5f.0410241827.77c1f9d5@posting.google.com>... > We don't need higher resolutions for images ... depends on what you want to do with the image. If you want to print an image of Jennifer Lopez to put it on the wall beside your bed, 320x200 would probably not fullfill your requirements. It would not even be enough if you wanted to detect edges or circular patterns inside JLos image ;-)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<b9070bed.0410280819.7f9a5e57@posting.google.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<7666ed5f.0410241827.77c1f9d5@posting.google.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Thread: 10aee9,1720efc3638e1a6c X-Google-Thread: f4f6f,1720efc3638e1a6c X-Google-Attributes: gid10aee9,gidf4f6f,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: krahvogl@gmx.net (Thomas L) Newsgroups: sci.image.processing,can.uucp Subject: Re: I think 320*200 pixels are enough ! Date: 28 Oct 2004 09:19:58 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 8 Message-ID: <b9070bed.0410280819.7f9a5e57@posting.google.com> References: <7666ed5f.0410241827.77c1f9d5@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.183.18.62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1098980399 26478 127.0.0.1 (28 Oct 2004 16:19:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:19:59 +0000 (UTC)