From: LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.BITNET (Public-Access Computer Systems Forum)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Subject: Library Automation--Comments & Questions
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:11:31 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

5 Messages, 160 Lines
1) Networking CD-ROMs on a VAX Network
2) Display Resolution Question-Reply
3) INMAGIC
4) Display Resolution Question- Reply
5) Intermecs and M300s
Please respond directly to the authors, not PACS-L.  Thanks, Dana
*-----

From: Jill Ann Hurst 607-974-8358 <HURST_JA@corning.com>
Subject: Networking CD-ROMs on a VAX network

    Please respond to Internet address HURST_JA@CORNING.COM   Thanks!
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Our company is looking into networking CD-ROM products on our
    worldwide VAX network.  Today we (two librarians and two computer
    people) saw a demo of a system put out by Virtual Microsystems
    Inc.  We also know that there are systems done by Todd and
    Logicraft.  Has anyone used any of these systems?  Have you had
    problems with them or great successes?  What have your users
    thought of being able to use CD-ROMs on their VAX terminals?

    I'll compile the information you send me and put them out to the
    listserv.

    Thanks!

    Jill Ann Hurst
    Corning Incorporated
    Phone 607-974-8358
    Internet Address:  HURST_JA@CORNING.COM
*-----

From: jan3@po.cwru.edu (James A. Nauer)
Subject: Re: Library Automation--Comments & Questions

> From:      "Walt Crawford" <BR.WCC@RLG>
> Subject:   Display resolution question
>
> Is there some way in which a color CRT can display
> more picture elements (pixels) than would be indicated
> by dividing its live display-area width or height by
> its dot pitch? That is: if the dot pitch of a monitor
> is 0.31mm, and its useful display area is (say) 8" wide
> by 6" high (thus, 203.2mm by 152.4mm), is there any way
> that the monitor can display more than 655x491 pixels?

Yep.  Ignoring the technicaly gobbledegook (and perhaps oversimplifying a
bit...), dot pitch is just a measure of how small things can get before you
start seeing blurry images--there's nothing stopping you (or rather, your
computer) from trying to display too many pixels.

> If there isn't, isn't it misleading (at best) to suggest
> that such a monitor could display SVGA (800x600), even if
> it can accept the signal?

Given that SVGA monitors ignore the dot pitch problem and display the
high-resolution images anyway, it *technically* is perfectly OK to claim
high resolutions for these monitors.

IMNSHO*,  the claims of 800x600 & higher resolutions on 13-14" monitors is
still bogus.  Why? Consider the three monitors on my desk; I don't know the
dot-pitches for any of them off the top of my head, but here are my
observations.  I'm typing this on an Apple 13" High Res RGB monitor, with a
resolution of 640x480; it's rock-solid, flicker-free, and the letters &
single-pixel lines are perfectly sharp, clear, and black.  PC #1 has a Sony
CPD 1304S (basically an SVGA version of the Apple monitor--same Sony tube &
guts); I've run it in all 3 SVGA modes--640x480 (excellent, just like the
Apple monitor), 800x600 (still pretty good, though there is noticable
blurring of thin lines & small letters), and 1024x768 (noticably blurry.
the only thing that saves it are the Windows "large" fonts.  Single-pixel
lines look OK from a distance, but if you look closely all single-pixel
detail is gone--it's just a graying/blurring. Usable, but I'm not sure the
quality-tradeoff is worth it to get a larger program manager window).  PC
#2 has a 14" WEN (?? cheap SVGA thing the University put on my desk)
monitor, and it's a piece of junk.  It flickers at all resolutions (subtle
@ 640x480, really bad at 800x600), and text is almost unreadable at any
resolution above 640x480.  From observation, I get the feeling that the
SVGA monitors have been pushed (much too far, in the case of #2) past the
maximum number of pixels that their dot-pitches would indicate.

> This has been troubling me because so many 14" monitors
> seem to say "1024x768"--and I don't think most of them
> are physically capable of *displaying* that many pixels.
> Am I missing something here?

You're on the right track. Personally, I think the only *good* way to work
with SVGA-level resolutions is to get a larger monitor. I've worked with
Apple's 16" monitor at 832x624, and it's much much better than any 800x600
SVGA 14" monitor I've seen.  For 1024x768 or more, a 17" monitor is the
minimum; 19-21" is better.

I think it's neat that the PC industry given users the option of
sacrificing some quality get more pixels, but I think it's a
short-term/temporary solution at best.  Either we need to buy bigger
monitors, or CRT technology needs to improve so that tiny pixels can be
displayed clearly. This is particularly important if we want to display
scanned images of texts/illustrations at a quality level anywhere near the
paper originals.

*In My Not-So-Humble Opinion

James A. Nauer                    |
L.I.T. Facilities Manger          |  "I hate waiting."
Library Information Technologies  |            -- Inigo Montoya
Case Western Reserve University   |
(216) 368-MACS                    |
     (368-6227)                   |  -=| Save a tree. Send e-mail. |=-
*-----

From:         David Paul Bunnell <DPBUNN00@UKCC.uky.edu>
Subject:      INMAGIC

    Does anyone use the INMAGIC database product as a PAC?  If you do
I would like to know what kind of library you have, how big the catalog is,
how much use it gets, and your feelings about the product.  Thank you in
advance for the information.

Please respond to the author and not PACS-L.

David Paul Bunnell
M.I. King Library Reference
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
internet: DPBUNN00@UKCC.UKY.EDU

"Observe the plans within plans within plans."-- Frank Herbert
*-----

From: Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr>
subject: Display resolution question

I am not sure what motivated the question, or whether this is a useful
answer, but there are ways to improve an image beyond what would be
normally given by the number of pixels. This is called "antialiasing".
I am not a specialist, but for example, using grey tones in a black
and white picture, you can make the picture seem to have greater
resolution than it actually has, using properties of the human eye.
Same must be true for color pictures, but I do not know what the
limitations are. See picture processing specialists.

Bernard Lang
INRIA
*-----

From: Karen Reilly <LIB_REILLY@HLYCROSS.BITNET>
Subject: intermecs and M310's
Hi, I'm having trouble connecting an Intermec 9510 barcode reader to
an OCLC M310 for use with the ILL Microenhancer. If someone has successfully
done this would you please respond to me, not to the list, and I
will get in touch.

Thank you, Karen Reilly
Karen Reilly                      Bitnet:  LIB_REILLY@HLYCROSS
Associate Director                Internet:LIB_REILLY@HCACAD.HOLYCROSS.EDU
Dinand Library                    Phone:   508-793-2520
College of the Holy Cross         Fax:     508-793-2372
1 College St.                     DRA:     HCL@DRANET.DRA.COM
Worcester, MA  01610
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU