I did some number crunching and decided that I can indeed produce P112
kits with all the parts you'll need. See http://661.org/p112 or
http://p112.feedle.net
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
I'm looking for more information on the Teleray series of terminals
>from Research, Inc. (Note: Teleray is the name of the terminal line,
not the name of the company! Although later they referred to
themselves as the "Teleray Division" of Research, Inc.)
In particular I'm looking for manuals and other documentation. If you
have a Teleray terminal and you're looking to get rid of it, I would
be interested in purchasing it from you.
I know of the following models:
Year Model
1971 Teleray 3300
1975 Teleray 3900
1976 Teleray 3811
<1977? Teleray 3541
<1977? Teleray 3741
1977 Teleray 3841
1977 Teleray 4041
1978 Teleray 1061
1979 Teleray 10
1979 Teleray 11
1979 Teleray 12
1980 Teleray 14
<1981? Teleray 100
1982 Teleray 16
1985 Teleray 20-7305
<1990? Teleray 30
Thanks!
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 version available for download
<http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/the-direct3d-graphics-pipeline/>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
I know Im in for it asking such a question, but are there any realistic benefits to film these days considering the expense? Personally the best film camera Ive ever used was a Polaroid.
Not sure of location yet, trying to obtain that. Will repost when
location is available.
PDP-11/05
paper tape
RL01
2 disk packs
manuals & drawings
RT11 manuals
8 inch floppy drive and floppies
"bunch of cards"
pep-70 upgrade card set for 11/70
box of panel light bulbs
parts for core boards
cpu test card
On 30 October 2012 22:34, Zane H. Healy <healyzh at aracnet.com> wrote:
>
> Wow, after looking a little of the previews Thursday can't get here soon
> enough! Okay, well truth be told that was already the case. :-) The book
> isn't even here and I'm starting to think about digging for Apple II gear!
I haven't even bought it (I spent all my amazon money buying my
daughter a book for University) and it has me thinking about hauling
out all that Apple gear. My wife would then remember that I have it,
and start trying to get me to get rid of it.
--
Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems: "The Future Begins Tomorrow"
Visit us at: http://www.yoyodyne-propulsion.net
--------
"I'd like to hold off judgement on a thing like that, sir, until all
the facts are in. "
General "Buck" Turgidson
mine is longer then any Ive seen on various sites. Probably older. Need docs and s/w, though what Ive downloaded may be appropriate. Anyone ever use their (discrete logic) version with 8 inch drives?
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Zane H. Healy <healyzh at aracnet.com> wrote:
>
> As has been pointed out, MegaPixels is a poor judge, BUT, consider this,
> how many MP is in a sheet of 4"x5" or 8"x10" film, even when only scanned
> at 2400dpi? The best prints I've ever seen have been 8x10 contact prints
> made by Edward Weston. The sharpness of these prints, especially given the
> lenses he was using, is enough to blow ones mind! Digital *CAN NOT* touch
> a large format contact print done by a master of the craft!
>
Not sure if it is applicable in still-format photography, but in the motion
picture world there is a concept of film to resolution equivalence. It's
particularly important as with film you are enlarging the 35mm stock by
several thousand percent when scanning into the digital domain. A "pixel"
in the conversion is considered to be the smallest object that can be
resolved and reproduced by the film or sensor. When using that comparison,
a 35mm print is roughly 20 megapixels, or 8K resolution, assuming the film
was shot and developed under ideal conditions. Scanning at any higher
resolution doesn't buy you more detail, as you start getting into the grain
at that point.
