>>3725728They looked like shit on CRT monitors too, scrublet. It wasn't like we were editing on a 320x240 television. My CRT that I used back in 1998 ran at a minimum of 1600x1200.
As you noted, however, it was very convenient. We also knew that the technology was going to get better. No one was fooling themselves into thinking that the image quality was amazing. It was more like, "neat, I can have these ready for email or publishing on the company/school/church website in only a few minutes!", which is a hell of a lot more convenient than
1. shoot film
2. finish the roll (understated importance right here, being able to pull out a single photo rather than have to wait for all 36 is a game changer)
3. drop the roll off at a developer and come back either 1 hour or 1 day later
4. pay for scanning (extra ten bucks a roll)
or
5. scan them yourself (extra hardware needed, very time consuming)
6. Find some safe way to store the film for later use
