PDA

View Full Version : Anybody use 1920x1200 with Maya/XSI?


Dias
10-26-2004, 05:48 PM
Are there somebody who can use Maya at 1920x1200? Can you make me some screenshot of your Maya/XSI workspace? Plz. :)

(I'm going to buy Dell laptor, M60, and I can't decide what is better, 1680x1050 o 1920x1200)

log0n
10-26-2004, 06:00 PM
http://patrick.sunscapeweb.com/3D/1900x1200.jpg

log0n
10-26-2004, 06:02 PM
Both are good for Maya... the widescreen really makes working with the channel box nice. If you've got the cash, get the 1920.. but you won't suffer with the 1680.

Oh, with a PC, you'll even get a few more pixels than over a Mac simply because of the differences in UI screen elements.

:buttrock:

swordsspells
10-26-2004, 06:04 PM
Is there such a screen size? my computer screen if one of the best resolutions and that is only 1280 x 1024.

Dias
10-26-2004, 06:12 PM
Ooooh, beautiful!

After I've seen your screen there is no way I can't get 1920x1200 monitor. :)

Thank you very much.


Btw, is there somebody who use 1920x1200 on 15'4 Dell's notebook? How is it? :)

Tarrbot
10-27-2004, 04:23 AM
Damn. Now I'm missing my 24" 16:10 monitor. :cry:

ntmonkey
10-27-2004, 06:42 AM
I just got my Dell laptop with the 15.4 WUXGA screen. (1920X1200)

It is sweet for the most part. Some of the text can be small to see, but they are crystal clear. The display is absolutely beautiful. I've been told it gets even better with a product that protects your screen much like the XBrite stuff you see on the new Sony viao's.

Maya looks really good on it since it keeps your quad display the same, and the extra real estate fits the channel box perfectly.

And for bragging rights, the resolution is higher than HDTV native. A co-worker is going to bring his special ed. Terminator 2 DVD which has this resolution and play it on my computer. Even if you don't go for the WUXGA, you'll still wind up with a really clear and crisp screen.

Enjoy,

Lu

Cf!
10-27-2004, 02:31 PM
The just released dell 9200 has a 17" wuxga monitor as well as the sony vaio A series. More companies will be releasing new 17" notebooks in the next month or two. Hopefully some will have the wuxga res and an Nvidia card.

j9k_80
10-27-2004, 10:48 PM
The just released dell 9200 has a 17" wuxga monitor as well as the sony vaio A series. More companies will be releasing new 17" notebooks in the next month or two. Hopefully some will have the wuxga res and an Nvidia card.

Unfortunately, the dell only has an ati 9700. Nvidia is always the better option for 3Dapps. The only laptop available right now with a 17" screen and a good nvidia is the hp zd7000. Its got the geforce go5700. However it tops out at wsxga+ (1680*1050)

I'm about to buy a laptop but i'm waiting a few weeks until Sager releases their new 9860. It's 17" and its going to have a geforce6800 go in the new upgradeable mxm module(!!!). It's also going to top out at wsxga+ when it first comes out, but after a month they'll offer the wuxga version.

As to 17" vs. 15.4", The pixel densities are just too high for me on those 15.4s.
I've been running a 21"crt at 1600*!200 for years now, and it has a pixel density of 105 ppi.
At 17" wsxga is still higher at 117ppi and wuxga is 133 ppi.
At 15.4" those jump to 129 ppi at wsxga and 147 ppi at wuxga.

granted lcd's are sharper and generally less eyestrain, but I think jumping from 105 to 147 ppi means I might as well go down to lenscrafters and start picking out frames.

Right now i'm debating between the 17" wsxga and wuxga. Its an extra month wait on the wuxga but I would like that extra real estate, and 133 is a little less squint inducing than 147.


Also, on the p4 versus p-m(centrino) processors: I'll be plugged in 95% of the time, so I don't care about the battery life, and even though the P-Ms are pretty comparable in games, the p4 still crushes it in maya rendertimes.

Link to screen size chart:
http://www.hut.fi/~tgustafs/screensize.html#ScreenSize

Link to p4 vs. p-m:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=gmso&page=7

Link to Sager 9860 details:
http://notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=41605

Also, its got the new 915 chipset with the lga775 socket, so it will be upgradeable to the p4 with 64-bit when it comes out. It's nice to finally have a laptop coming out with upgradeable cpu and gpu.

stephen2002
10-29-2004, 12:24 AM
log0n - Kinda OT but what kind of settings are you using to get your wireframe lines so nice and smooth? Looks like you have AA turned on in your graphics card, but the shaded view of the scene has no AA.

ambient-whisper
10-29-2004, 12:29 AM
i wouldnt really bother with 1900x 1200 because opengl slows down as you bump up resolutions. between 1280 and 1900 theres a HUGE difference. this doesnt really go for everyone, but when modelling speed is something thats really nice to have.

but that said. i would get the newest screen they have. its probably got a better process in which it was made so its probably more reliable. which gives you less chance to catch dead pixels.

log0n
10-29-2004, 02:53 PM
log0n - Kinda OT but what kind of settings are you using to get your wireframe lines so nice and smooth? Looks like you have AA turned on in your graphics card, but the shaded view of the scene has no AA.

Woo0t UMBC!

Yeah, OSX doesn't have much by way of AA like you get in a PC environment. You do get hardware AA lines (like you would have on a Quadro), but you don't get 2x, 4x, Quinox(?) AA unless you're doing full screen and the software you're using (mostly games) has been written to turn the AA on. You don't get AA on textured/lit windowed screens (only the AA lines).

Cinema 4D does this as well. Turn on AA lines, everything has it except the traditional persp. viewport.

log0n
10-29-2004, 03:00 PM
i wouldnt really bother with 1900x 1200 because opengl slows down as you bump up resolutions. between 1280 and 1900 theres a HUGE difference. this doesnt really go for everyone, but when modelling speed is something thats really nice to have.

but that said. i would get the newest screen they have. its probably got a better process in which it was made so its probably more reliable. which gives you less chance to catch dead pixels.

Not really.. in a game, yes. There's a huge fillrate difference between 1920 and 1280. But for 3d modelling, fillrate doesn't really matter too much. The number of vertices you're moving around in your scene doesn't change between resolutions, so speed shouldn't decrease (much - more data is moving over the bus, but AGP/PCI-E makes that moot as well).

If you're getting a huge slowdown between the two, the problem is most likely not enough video ram to run that high a resolution and have 3d data on the card at the same time. The 3d kicks back to software OpenGL (resolution independent) and will be butt slow.

:buttrock:

Critterslayer
10-29-2004, 03:04 PM
wow so many people with good monitors. suddenly my 1024 x 768 isn't cool anymore =(

ambient-whisper
10-29-2004, 08:29 PM
Not really.. in a game, yes. There's a huge fillrate difference between 1920 and 1280. But for 3d modelling, fillrate doesn't really matter too much. The number of vertices you're moving around in your scene doesn't change between resolutions, so speed shouldn't decrease (much - more data is moving over the bus, but AGP/PCI-E makes that moot as well).

If you're getting a huge slowdown between the two, the problem is most likely not enough video ram to run that high a resolution and have 3d data on the card at the same time. The 3d kicks back to software OpenGL (resolution independent) and will be butt slow.

:buttrock:
so you mean the quadrofx 3000 im using at work is just being lazy? i get that on all my cards too, even if i run 1600x1200. going down to 1280 speeds shit up by a ton ( usually 5-10fps, which might not seem like much, but when you have a lot of geometry displaying, it makes all the difference in the world ).
going lower makes things even faster, but anything below 1280 is ugly. ( well, at home i use 1440x900, runs fairly decent. )

stephen2002
10-29-2004, 09:38 PM
Woo0t UMBC!

Yeah, OSX doesn't have much by way of AA like you get in a PC environment. You do get hardware AA lines (like you would have on a Quadro), but you don't get 2x, 4x, Quinox(?) AA unless you're doing full screen and the software you're using (mostly games) has been written to turn the AA on. You don't get AA on textured/lit windowed screens (only the AA lines).

Cinema 4D does this as well. Turn on AA lines, everything has it except the traditional persp. viewport.
Humm, that kinda stinks. With the PC you can force AA & AF in any 3D accelerated application, and that includes VMR applications. Multisample AF can improve image quality on the scale operations somewhat. After I got my GeForce 6800 GT I now leave AA on for most of my modeling apps because it does such a good job at just 4x AA, all of my lines are nice and smooth :)

CGTalk Moderation
01-19-2006, 05:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.