you specify the resolution 250 carat capacity x 0.01 carat , But on other sites it show the resolution 250 carat capacity x 0.001 carat. please correct the same.
467046
Hello Pardeep, The resolution on this scale is 0.01 carats or 0.001 grams. You can also change the resolution to 0.005 carats. Thank you. Have a wonderful day.
1163204
Thanks for the extra information, interesting about the rectangular pixels. This seems like a much bigger project than I thought it was going to be. I tried a lot of resolutions and found one that appears to leave only one column of pixels on the right side unused. It's 430x222. Funny how a single digit can make a significant difference.
694015
From my testing on 2 units these are really 8GB faked to read as 256GB. Formating does not matter, these are FRAUDS!
1709374
They will take a 128 gig chip formatted with exfat. Higher than that, I do not know
564952
MB can hold 32 if you need it. I run with 2x8 and have no problems. This gives me the option to expand to 32 or 24 if needed.
1315328
It actually is 1600x900 which is right in between the two resolutions......... its technically "900p"
1066423
Hi, I'm Jewel with Kingston Technical Support and would like to offer our assistance. The exact dimensions are available on our datasheet: http://www.kingston.com/dataSheets/KHX16C9B1BK2_8.pdfHeight 30mm length 133.35mm per standard dimensions. For any further assistance, please call us at 1-800-435-0640 (USA and Canada only) M - F 6am - 6pm PT and I or another available Technician will assist you.Thank you for selecting Kingston as your upgrade partner
1369039
Please Check the Menu for this card. Which can be found next to time on desktop task bar and you can choose the resolution there.
847461
The MB-100 says the capacity/readability is 500ct x 0.05ct and the MB-650 says its is 3250ct x 0.5ct. So if that means anything to you Hubert, I guess it does. I hope this helped you.
2029835
It is a typo. The Hard drive, or more specifically the Solid State Drive, is 256 Gb total as the other two answers state.
2116424
Available resolutions:-1400x1050-1280x1024-1280x960-1280x768-1280x720-1280x600-1152x864-1024x768-800x600
1209067
Generally, most hardware things do a lousy job of downscaling image size - you will usually get a much better result if you scale them down using decent software to the "native size" of the display before loading them. (I just bought one of these and haven't got it yet, but it might even make sense to see if it looks better with pix at 640x480 or at 688x488 (which Poldim says is the res of the samples they provide).
573660
854x480 AKA 480p. A bit frustrating that this isn't made clear, in fact my GF thought it was HD when she got it for me. I do everything 720p or better, so I wouldn't have purchased a 480p device for any reason. That being said it's a solid and useful device so I didn't return it.
365363
It is concerning resolutionhttp://www.cctvcamerapros.com/CCTV-Resolution-s/356.htm
685102
The size issue isn't a "formatting issue" like most people believe. It's actually due to the discrepancy between what storage manufacturers define as a byte VS what actually *IS* a byte. Storage manufacturers consider a kilobyte as "1000 bytes" when it is actually 1024 bytes (due to the binary system working in exponents of 2). So if you extrapolate out 32*1000*1000*1000 (32 Gigabytes, as defined by Sandisk) then divide that by 1024*1024*1024 it puts you at 29.8 GB. The .09 GB remainder could certainly be filesystem information, I suppose.So, yeah, basically all data storage manufacturers are lying to you, and as you increase your storage size the discrepancy percentage increases. The size issue isn't a "formatting issue" like most people believe. It's actually due to the discrepancy between what storage manufacturers define as a byte VS what actually *IS* a byte. Storage manufacturers consider a kilobyte as "1000 bytes" when it is actually 1024 bytes (due to the binary system working in exponents of 2). So if you extrapolate out 32*1000*1000*1000 (32 Gigabytes, as defined by Sandisk) then divide that by 1024*1024*1024 it puts you at 29.8 GB. The .09 GB remainder could certainly be filesystem information, I suppose.So, yeah, basically... » Read More The size issue isn't a "formatting issue" like most people believe. It's actually due to the discrepancy between what storage manufacturers define as a byte VS what actually *IS* a byte. Storage manufacturers consider a kilobyte as "1000 bytes" when it is actually 1024 bytes (due to the binary system working in exponents of 2). So if you extrapolate out 32*1000*1000*1000 (32 Gigabytes, as defined by Sandisk) then divide that by 1024*1024*1024 it puts you at 29.8 GB. The .09 GB remainder could certainly be filesystem information, I suppose.So, yeah, basically all data storage manufacturers are lying to you, and as you increase your storage size the discrepancy percentage increases. « Show Less
1015270
Max size is 640x480. Minimum is 320x240. Its the best 640x480 I have ever seen though. It rivals some of my HD units that I sell. -Nick
396379
I have (6) 1920 x 1080 {27"} running and once set up they have been running continuously since install. I've blown (7) adapters till I got a complete set for both of my machines i have two systems running the same setup at two different locations. Card seem to be working good for over four months now. Buy the adapters locally if possible if they blow your not down very long I have extras just in case. If I had gotten the I-Inc 28" I could tell you about 1920 x 1200 but they never put them on sale again when I was ready to purchase.