----------------
On 10/21/2004 1:38:47 AM strmrdr wrote:
vtigger86,
Sounds real good to me but is it too tight a standard for general usage on PS?----------------
----------------
On 10/21/2004 3:12:03 PM Greentree wrote:
Aw man, you guys are asking for it if you are buying a super ideal cut based on numbers alone. Only a close visual inspection with a FireScope or, at least, a IdealScope can tell you for sure what you've got. In the final analysis, it's visual, purely visual.----------------
----------------
On 10/21/2004 3:12:03 PM Greentree wrote:
Aw man, you guys are asking for it if you are buying a super ideal cut based on numbers alone. Only a close visual inspection with a FireScope or, at least, a IdealScope can tell you for sure what you've got. In the final analysis, it's visual, purely visual.----------------
----------------
On 10/22/2004 1:37:41 AM valeria101 wrote:
Would you take the post of David Atlas (LINK) as refference on this ?
After all, there are so many narrow definitions of 'ideal'. Why make yet another one ? The more precies such a receipe is, the easier to contest it. I do have a bit of trouble accepting a standard that is bound to go out of fashion next week.
Numbers are so easy to nudge back and forth. So... no numbers please
Val your link didnt work.
Part of what Im doing is taking it beyond the numbers by
using the other common tools available from the PS vendors.
----------------