Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-df04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 3462F3800023F; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:36:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1R9Gkf-0003ZW-MZ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:34:13 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1R9Gkf-0003ZN-0m for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:34:13 +0100 Received: from imr-ma05.mx.aol.com ([64.12.100.31]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1R9Gkc-0005Yd-EM for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:34:12 +0100 Received: from mtaomg-db06.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-db06.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.204]) by imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p8TDY56T014756 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:34:05 -0400 Received: from core-msc004a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-msc004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.233.205]) by mtaomg-db06.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 7D1B9E00008A for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:34:05 -0400 (EDT) References: <4E8391A2.4000300@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: <4E8391A2.4000300@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Markus Vester X-MB-Message-Type: User X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 34166-STANDARD Received: from 194.138.39.52 by webmail-d047.sysops.aol.com (205.188.167.94) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:34:05 -0400 Message-Id: <8CE4CC3978F24EE-DBC-2A30@webmail-d047.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [194.138.39.52] Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:34:05 -0400 (EDT) X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:370014944:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,FORGED_AOL_TAGS=0.281,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: 17 or 19 or 21 inch? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CE4CC3979B0BD3_DBC_6377_webmail-d047.sysops.aol.com" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_AOL_TAGS,HTML_20_30, HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:420917632:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40d84e8474465a74 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CE4CC3979B0BD3_DBC_6377_webmail-d047.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Stefan, small is beautiful - I'd say please leave it as it is! Especially when I'm = outdoors with the little netbook, I just hate having to scroll around later= ally to see the latest pixels appear on the right side... =20 With regard to the scaling, I generally favour one pixel per FFT, and relat= ively slow scrolling (ie around 70% FFT overlap). Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) -----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----=20 Von: Stefan Sch=C3=A4fer An: rsgb_lf_group Verschickt: Mi, 28 Sept 2011 11:30 pm Betreff: LF: 17 or 19 or 21 inch? LF, VLF, Would like to hear some opinions about the best width of a grabber=20 indow. Currently all my windows are optimised for a xxx*1024 pixel=20 onitor. This is suitable for the most monitors. But since many years=20 he standard seems to be 19 inch or even more. Furthermore the 16:9=20 ormat becomes normality. think about extending the window sizes of the grabber captures to a 19=20 nch format, like G4WGT runs them. This may be a bit nerving if a=20 maller monitor is used but allows a better overview on the wide screens. What do you think is the best width of the windows? 73, Stefan/DK7FC ----------MB_8CE4CC3979B0BD3_DBC_6377_webmail-d047.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Hi Stefan,
 
small is beautiful - I'd say please leave it as it is! Especially when= I'm outdoors with the little netbook, I just hate having to= scroll around laterally to see the latest pixels appear on the right = side...  
With regard to the scaling, I generally favour one pixel per= FFT, and relatively slow scrolling (ie around 70% FFT overlap).

Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)
= -----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: Stefan Sch=C3=A4fer <Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
An: rsgb_lf_group <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Verschickt: Mi, 28 Sept 2011 11:30 pm
Betreff: LF: 17 or 19 or 21 inch?

LF, VL=
F,

Would like to hear some opinions about the best width of a grabber=20
window. Currently all my windows are optimised for a =
xxx*1024 pixel=20
monitor. This is suitable for the most monitors. But =
since many years=20
the standard seems to be 19 inch or even more. Furthermore the 16:9=20
format becomes normality.
I think about extending the window sizes of the grabber captures to a 19=20
inch format, like G4WGT runs them. This may be a bit nerving if a=20
smaller monitor is used but allows a better overview =
on the wide screens.

What do you think is the best width of the windows?

73, Stefan/DK7FC
----------MB_8CE4CC3979B0BD3_DBC_6377_webmail-d047.sysops.aol.com--