Originally posted by dwterry:
I have the 4x6" version.
I gotta point something out... when I was in the market, I thought to myself that "bigger is better", right? That to really get in and touch-up the details of an image, I need a bigger tablet in order to get closer to the image. Well that's just dead wrong. The thing is ... as you zoom in on the image (on screen), the resolution of the tablet is effectively zoomed in as well because there is a direct mapping of what's on screen to the physical layout of the tablet. So when you zoom in to "see" the details, you effectively zoom in to "touch-up" the details at the same time.
Another thing to point out... the larger the table, the more you have to pick up your hand and "move it across the tablet" to get from one side of the image to the other. Now 4x6 versus 6x8 or anything larger doesn't really sound like a lot But try the 4x6 out... you'll soon find that even at the 4x6" size, your hand/arm gets tired of moving around the tablet. I can only imagine that larger = more tiring.
So... get a larger one if you must. But do it for reasons other than needing higher resolution. (unless you get the Cintiq with the built-in display, in that case, larger would seem to be better) |
I should point out that while I really enjoyed my first Wacom, which was 6x9, I now use a Wacom Intuos 2 in the 9x12 version. If you want to do any tracing, etc. the larger format comes in handy.
However, like David, I find the smaller real estate much easier to navigate for almost everything I do. There is a simple and very effective solution to that: you can "map" an area of the tablet (any size you want) to be active which in effect gives you the best of both worlds - aside from the fact that the smaller tablets are less expensive and take up less desk space.
Message edited by author 2008-08-08 17:27:20. |
