PDA

View Full Version : Whats your Rez at?


sigma
03-05-2002, 12:45 AM
Ive always wanted to know what screen resolution the majority of Artists/Graphic Designers ect.. are using here. Personally im using 1600 x 1200. Some people probably dont care all that much, but I would like to know how big an image i should post in this Forum. Im just curious :)

Dragonius
03-05-2002, 03:17 AM
i'd say 800x600 is the reasonable limit these days... cos once you add all the extra stuff in the user/poster columns an so on it can get quite wide an i hate having to drag sideways to see a pic, however good it is...

Taoizm
03-05-2002, 08:30 AM
1600x1200 all the way.. whoo-hooo. Everything else looks clunky after you use this rez for awhile

underdog
03-05-2002, 09:27 AM
2560*1024 dual monitor.....

sigma
03-05-2002, 09:37 AM
I totally agree Taoizm. I just recently moved from 1024 to 1600. Big difference. I love it! Im running a Lacie 19inch ElectronBlueIII now :D.

Dragonius, Do you really think 800 is the limit? It could be. I think thats the minimum on most Laptops these days. But whats the maximum on a laptop...i wonder. Personaly I couldnt work under 1024. Im spoiled now lol.

Dragonius
03-05-2002, 01:38 PM
GOD NO! i meant 800x600 for posted images... i can't wotk at less than 1280x1024 these days...

sigma
03-05-2002, 04:17 PM
LOL, sorry, i misunderstood.

:p :D

alx
03-06-2002, 08:40 AM
i work at 1600-1200 on normal days... somedays i have to go higher... 2048-1536.... when some images are too big for GD. work... and sometimes for maya... I just like how it looks... such a big screen working area...
and the second monitor i keep at 1200, but i turn it down to 640- 480.... when in video editing....
ps... i love my workstation.!!!!!

sincrely

alx

oh.. and don't forget!!... the TV is also on output... just to see how cg looks on NTSC.....(big difference sometimes)

k see ya!!!:D

Joebount
03-06-2002, 01:49 PM
I just have a little question guys : don't you see a big performance hit when you work in 1600 with 3D apps like 3DS max ?

I have a 19' and I have to run in 1280 because it's too slow in 1600.

Any tips, suggestions ?

Bionic Antboy
03-15-2002, 11:05 PM
Joebount:

What kind of system are you running on (graphics card/CPU)? Those would be the main culprits, in order.

BTW, I work at 3200x1024 across dual monitors. I don't think I could ever go back to a single monitor setup :)

rendermonkey23
03-15-2002, 11:17 PM
I usually work at 3200 x 1200 (dual 21's) but I'm only using one right now at 1600. I just feel wayyy to cramped with anything smaller. If held at gunpoint, I could deal with 1280 :)

Joebount: I dont notice any hit. and if threre was... it would be worth it just for the real estate (IMO). Unless it was a huge difference.

Bionic Antboy: 3200 x 1024? are you using widescreens or what. those numbers just dont add up :D

Bionic Antboy
03-15-2002, 11:30 PM
Bionic Antboy: 3200 x 1024? are you using widescreens or what. those numbers just dont add up :D [/B]

Actually, I'm using 2 19inch monitors. My GeForce2MX Dual head only allows me to get up to 3200x1024, as opposed to 3200x1200 (I've tried all the drivers, trust me :) )

I'v calibrated the size onscreen to maintain the right aspect ratio, so I've got an extra 1/2inch of black at the top and bottom of the monitors. After the first day or so, I hardly notice it any more.

I'll be upgrading to a GeForce4 Ti sometime soon, so hopefully this minor annoyance will go away :)

BTW, if anyone knows how to force a 3200x1200 mode in the setup I've listed, I'd be more than interested!

rendermonkey23
03-15-2002, 11:38 PM
hehe, 1/2inch on "top and bottom"? your talking 3200 wide right? Like left and right?

Bionic Antboy
03-15-2002, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by rendermonkey23
hehe, 1/2inch on "top and bottom"? your talking 3200 wide right? Like left and right?

Yeah, the resolution of each monitor is 1600x1024, so a total of 3200x1024. If I take up the whole monitor screen with this resolution, it doesn't maintain the correct aspect ratio (squares would be taller than they would be wide). I used the monitor's adjustments to squash the height a little, so I've got narrow black bars at the top and bottom.

It's great with Lightwave, as the main display sits on on monitor, and I can have ALMOST every control (textures, image editor, graph editor etc) on the secondary.

Joebount
03-18-2002, 08:58 PM
Doooooooone ! I switched my sreen resolution to 1600*1200 and it's speedy now (I still don't know why it didn't work before ... ?)

dukestreet
03-26-2002, 09:06 PM
Dual monitors, nothing beats the realestate.:D

Iain McFadzen
03-28-2002, 06:00 AM
I create a perfect circle in PS, then set my monitor to the highest res it will go to and still display the circle correctly (currently 1280*1024).

1600*1200 and 1280*1024 are not the same aspect ratio, and I ran at 1600*1200 for months before I realised that all my work was slightly shorter and fatter than I thought it was.

Bionic Antboy
03-28-2002, 06:47 PM
That's the way I do it as well, though I use a square, since I have about 10 million rulers lying around (don't ask :) ).

bassaminator
04-08-2002, 09:51 AM
I create a perfect circle in PS, then set my monitor to the highest res it will go to and still display the circle correctly (currently 1280*1024).

1600*1200 and 1280*1024 are not the same aspect ratio, and I ran at 1600*1200 for months before I realised that all my work was slightly shorter and fatter than I thought it was.
that's funny, 1280x1024 is not a square pixel resolution on my monitor- 1600x1200 is, but the refresh rate is too low, so I run at 1280x960 for the same reason you run at 1280x1024....
I have a lacie eb19, what's your's?

Modulok
04-13-2002, 07:22 PM
1600x1200 all the way! Lots of real estate, and just big enough that you can read normal sized font :) It really hurts going back to school @ 1024x768

Rabid pitbull
04-18-2002, 05:36 AM
i am about to buy a new monitor, i am going with a 17 inch viewsonic g75f. I would love a bigger monitor, but i cant swing it now. My question is this currently on my Mac i run my 17 inch display at 1024 768.

do you guys run 17 inch monitors higher than this? seems like all of you have 19 inch monitors.

p.s. the new monitor is for a pc.

Modulok
04-18-2002, 05:18 PM
What rez you can run @ mostly depends on your graphics card and what rez it supports....and if you have the right monitor drivers...which is kind of a given.

Rabid pitbull
04-18-2002, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Modulok
What rez you can run @ mostly depends on your graphics card and what rez it supports....and if you have the right monitor drivers...which is kind of a given.

i dont necessarily agree with that, i have the ability on this mac to go up many sizes up to 1600, but everything above 1024 seems to small...

do you guys just get used to the small fonts for the real estate... maybe that is the question i should have asked.

Valkyrien
04-18-2002, 08:44 PM
1600x1200

I have the eyes of a Hawk....

And a 17-inch monitor. Trinitron.

Valkyrien
04-18-2002, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Iain McFadzen
I create a perfect circle in PS, then set my monitor to the highest res it will go to and still display the circle correctly (currently 1280*1024).

1600*1200 and 1280*1024 are not the same aspect ratio, and I ran at 1600*1200 for months before I realised that all my work was slightly shorter and fatter than I thought it was.

The proper resolution to use to keep the aspect ratio is 1280x960. I guess some cards don't have it as an option, but mine does, and it's correct....

Iain McFadzen
04-19-2002, 02:53 AM
My card has that setting too actually, but I can tell you for certain that on my monitor 1280*960 is not "correct" at all. At that res a perfect circle appears as an oval, and a square as a rectangle.

Valkyrien
04-20-2002, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Iain McFadzen
My card has that setting too actually, but I can tell you for certain that on my monitor 1280*960 is not "correct" at all. At that res a perfect circle appears as an oval, and a square as a rectangle.

dunno what to tell you. I tested this in PS, resizing a 1024x768 image with the "maintain aspect ratio" option turned on. i typed in 1280 in the width field, and the height field automatically changed to 960.....

Iain McFadzen
04-20-2002, 12:52 AM
Well no shit Sherlock, I can work out an aspect ratio thanks very much, but just because your monitor has 1.333 aspect doesn't necessarily mean that mine does too (and given that at a 1.333 aspect a circle appears as an oval it quite obviously doesn't).

Thanks for all your concern though.

Valkyrien
04-20-2002, 01:32 AM
no need to get snippy, methinks. Had no idea you were running a nice widescreen (I assume) monitor. :)

Tanketh
04-22-2002, 07:32 AM
1600x1200 on my 22" Mitsubishi :D tastey!

sarcastor
04-24-2002, 04:53 PM
can someone with a dual monitor setup post a screenshot, or a photograph of their setup?

I really want to see what Maya looks like with dual monitors. I have a geforce4 ti 4400, but I'm kinda low on funds right now.

the next thing I'll do is just buy a cheesy 15" monitor so I can watch my divx movies on one screen and work on Maya on my main 21" monitor.

nalhcal
03-18-2003, 09:14 AM
I would love to keep my desktop at 1600x1200, but it slowly gives me headache.:annoyed:

bentllama
03-18-2003, 09:22 AM
1600x1200 single

3200x1200 dual

Goon
03-18-2003, 02:02 PM
1024x768:cry:
My monitor only refreshes at 85hz at 1024. It doesnt even reach 1600x1200

Signal2Noise
03-18-2003, 03:29 PM
1600x1200 on my 15" i8200 laptop.
1280x1024 on my 19" desktop.

GregHess
03-18-2003, 04:50 PM
2560x1024 here. (Dual 19 inch LCD's)

www.3dluvr.com/crossbow/incoming/setup.jpg

1600x1200 is great, but I hate having to jack up all the font sizes and what not to be able to read without getting a headache. Solved the viewport space problem by just adding another screen :).

dvornik
03-18-2003, 06:42 PM
2560x1024 here too.
1024x768 + 1280x1024 on the second computer (my third monitor is just 17 inch)

gmask
03-18-2003, 07:14 PM
Aww... Shucks.. I remember when anything over a 13" monitor at 640x480 was impressive. Personally at 1600x1200 I think menu items start to get a little too hard to read.

ggg
03-18-2003, 09:14 PM
system1-1920x1200+1920+1200 allows for lots of XSI and Houdini menus
system2-1920x1200+1600x1200 or 800x600+1600x1200 for editing

Valkyrien
03-18-2003, 09:51 PM
old screencap from months ago, when i had a working computer:

http://uhavax.hartford.edu/nhowe/images/desk.jpg

cg_fan_2003
03-18-2003, 11:10 PM
i agree greg especially on larger monitors

Schwinnz
03-18-2003, 11:27 PM
1280x1024 in 3ds max or any other graphics software, 1024*768 for internet browsing..

I'd like to go at higher rez but 17" is pretty small for 1600*1200..

Tom N.
03-18-2003, 11:48 PM
althought 640 x 480 DOES look hot on my monitor, I changed it to 3200 x 1200 dual monitors. whoo hoo.

-Tom N.:airguitar :airguitar :airguitar

Valkyrien
03-19-2003, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by Schwinnz
1280x1024 in 3ds max or any other graphics software, 1024*768 for internet browsing..

I'd like to go at higher rez but 17" is pretty small for 1600*1200..

doesn't it bother you to switch between two different aspect ratios on the same monitor?:eek:

bassaminator
03-19-2003, 05:05 AM
1600x1200 on my laptop,
1280x960 on my desktop.
never understood down-rezzing- neither do I like none square pixel ratios.
to each his or her own. And you do what you must do to enjoy your computing experience.

Pablo3d
03-19-2003, 05:35 AM
1152*864 on both my 17" at home and my 19" at work. The 19" at work looks blurry at 1280*960 - I think it's because it's a cheap optiquest. I would only goto 1600*1200 if I had a high quality 21" monitor.

nimajneb
03-19-2003, 01:45 PM
I find that I get all the real estate I need from dual 19" monitors at 1024X768 *2. I've used 1280X1024 *2, but I find it's just below my tolerance for reading menus in MAX. I generally do most of my work in perspective view anyway so I just max out that viewport to the whole of the one monitor and give the other to trackview, command panel, etc. I'm still experimenting though, as that the palettes seem overlly large (material editor specifically).

augustus
03-19-2003, 02:44 PM
1280*1024 and 100Hz on a 19" monitor. Higher resolutions with this size not good for my eyes:shame: I love my eyes, they are pretty :p

unrealwarfare
03-19-2003, 04:52 PM
1280 x 1024

kwshipman
03-19-2003, 05:13 PM
1280x960 on my 19in

Schwinnz
03-20-2003, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Valkyrien
doesn't it bother you to switch between two different aspect ratios on the same monitor?:eek:

Oops I mean 1280*960 :D

Valkyrien
03-20-2003, 01:48 AM
whew, that' s a relief;)

ggg
03-20-2003, 02:02 AM
softimage XSI with its stupid minimum of 1280x1024 shoud take note of the number of people regardless of large high native rez screens that prefer smaller rez such as 1280x960 etc. they should offer a way to split the toolbars or a scrollbar on the side of the toolbar so all the buttons can be accessed.

DrakeX
03-20-2003, 03:47 AM
i have a 19" but it's getting on in years... so 1600x1200 looks a bit fuzzy on fine lines. the red is also a tad out of alignment with green and blue :p 1024x768 is too small, so 1280x1024 strikes a happy medium. besides i can then fit exactly 15 channels onscreen in modplug tracker ;)

Oktavian
03-20-2003, 09:37 AM
1280x1024.
But one thing I don't understand right. Most resolution has a ratio of 1,333 (800x600 / 1024x768 / also 1600x1200) but 1280x1024 not. The screen is compressed, a circle must be more an ellipse. Is that right?

GregHess
03-20-2003, 04:42 PM
On a CRT thats correct...on LCD's 1280x1024 is the normal aspect.

Why? I don't remember offhand.

CgFX
03-20-2003, 06:36 PM
Greg,

I may be forgetting something but square vs. non-square pixels is the only reason I can think of that someone could give for a difference. However, that is only confusing the issue.

You should never have non-square pixels, although many SDTV's do. The problem is that most people adjust their computer CRT so that the image fits on every square inch of the display, regardless of the current resolution. In doing so they f'up the aspect ratio.

I worked in the government imaging circles in the past and if you ever touched the horz and vert stretch buttons on a CRT you were shot. :-)

GregHess
03-20-2003, 07:58 PM
Cgfx,

So your saying that if you run a 1280x1024 resolution on a CRT and then adjust the hor/vert size to fill in the black spaces, it puts it out of the square ratio?

That would explain why the LCD's would retain the aspect ratio at 1280x1024...as their digital, the output is already perfectly optimized to fill the entire screen. No user adjustment necessary.

CgFX
03-20-2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by GregHess
Cgfx,

So your saying that if you run a 1280x1024 resolution on a CRT and then adjust the hor/vert size to fill in the black spaces, it puts it out of the square ratio?

Typically. Certainly if you scaled the hor by the same exact factor that you scale the vert it would retain the aspect ratio but that is usually not accurate enough for the spook shops. The monitor defaults are usually at the proper aspect ratio and fairly precise for the higher end ones. They are also often optimized for the shadowmask/aperature grill which is why they don't like to mess with the monitor defaults.

That would explain why the LCD's would retain the aspect ratio at 1280x1024...as their digital, the output is already perfectly optimized to fill the entire screen. No user adjustment necessary.

Yep, fixed resoltions/pixel size/pixel shape. The spook shops don't like DFP's yet because of the pixel response performance and the relatively low resolutions but displays like the IBM T221 are changing that rapidly.

Valkyrien
03-20-2003, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by GregHess
On a CRT thats correct...on LCD's 1280x1024 is the normal aspect.

Why? I don't remember offhand.

looking at the latest Gateway catalog lying around, it's because it "offers additional workspace." More likely though, it's jsut to annoy the hell out of me...;)

MCronin
03-21-2003, 12:02 AM
1400x1050

It's the perfect res for me. Not crowded like 1280x960, not exapnsive like 1600x1200, runs at high refresh rates and it's 4:3.

amygdalae
03-21-2003, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by GregHess
2560x1024 here. (Dual 19 inch LCD's)

www.3dluvr.com/crossbow/incoming/setup.jpg

1600x1200 is great, but I hate having to jack up all the font sizes and what not to be able to read without getting a headache. Solved the viewport space problem by just adding another screen :).

Are you enjoying your Samsung 191T? I have one at work and have been pretty happy with it. The color accuracy is crap, but it's a pretty crisp display. The only thing that bugs me is when I do alot of viewport panning in maya and things streak :(

That's all LCDs though.

gabe28
03-21-2003, 07:34 AM
My setup

19 inch Sony trinitron 1280x960 at 100Hertz
17 CTX monitor 1152x864 at 85Herts
video card - dual head Geforce 4 Ti 4200 with 64 megs of video RAM

Overall, I'm very happy with this setup. I guess I could use more video RAM but I was on a tight buget when I bought this video card.

CgFX
03-21-2003, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by amygdalae
That's all LCDs though.

Actually, that is becomming not true. There have been a number of panels over the last few years that have had very fast pixel response.

The market is now really mixed with some same-old-crap stuff out there all the way up to some LCDs that have pixel speed that is arguably the same or better than phospher+CRT (although some of those are bigtime $).

Still, even some sub-$1000 LCD DFPs are showing up with 25ms or better pixel speeds.

Ps.
33ms is 30 Hz which is argueably good enough for video and games. 15ms is 60 Hz which is perfect for video and better than a lot of cheap CRTs.

GregHess
03-21-2003, 12:53 PM
Hey Amy,

I love my 191T. Its contrast and color beats the crap outta the Viewsonic VG191B...they look like two completely different monitors. (Well duh greg, they are two different monitors!)

I haven't had any problems with colors, as I'm using some color matching software with my epson 1640 scanner and 1270 printer. Works pretty good, what I see is what I get basically.

I haven't noticed much ghosting either. Are using analog or DVI-I? There is a world of difference between the two. Dvi-i is unbelievably superior and you can notice an INSTANT difference switching over to it.

Especially if your lucky enough to run two 191T's. Run one on analog and one on DVI-I...the analog one looks like crap.

I'm an avid gamer and play tons of fps and a variety of rts's and rpg's on the system, and couldn't be more in love with the CRT to LCD switch.

amygdalae
03-21-2003, 01:12 PM
I still like my CRT at home for games, on my LCD at work- I do like the sharpness in my shells and text type stuff. It's even kind of nice for graphic design - but the color accuracy in terms of film setups when working with log10, lin16, or 12bit lin imagery leaves alot to be desired. I still comp everything on a calibrated CRT.

You can adjust output levels of RGB for the flatscreen with software, but you lose dynamic range and things tend to burn out or disappear. It's not that big a deal for most uses, but it needs some attention. I'm hoping OLEDs will bring some things to the table in terms of color accuracy.

I certainly would not want to use my LCD for my final viewing of something before having it put to film...

CRTs have had a long time to make them very color accurate.
I'm actually wishing there would be more attention paid to higher color depth on the display side. Video cards are starting to incorporate floating point color pipelines, and most film work is done in log10 colorspace, but we still look at an approximation of both in linear 8bit colorspace.

That's my gripe...

They are pretty monitors and nice for day to day, but I still have to use a CRT for alot of things... They arent quite dead yet.

Flyby
03-21-2003, 02:52 PM
dual monitor at 2x1600x1200 here.(3200x1200 desktop)
Once you get used to dualscreens, there is no way turning back !!

kwshipman
03-22-2003, 10:38 PM
just changed mine to 1600x1280, and I love it. and it got rig of these weird annoying wavy lines.

frameless
03-23-2003, 01:24 PM
My rez is 1024*768 on Eizo 17". Wish i had a 19" too...may be chrismas...hmm :rolleyes:

Wintermute
03-25-2003, 02:54 AM
2560x1024 here

Primary:
Apple Multiscan 17" @ 1280x1024 (1600x1200 max-w/ati rage128)
Secondary:
Futura 17" @ 1280x1024 (max)

each monitor on its own card

great for all sorts of things...photoshop, freehand, lightwave...primary workspace on the main monitor and tool panels on the secondary...I'm never going back to single monitor for graphics work!

:beer:

Matt
03-28-2003, 07:15 AM
If I add my two primary displays, then it'll be 3840x2880.

:)

CgFX
03-28-2003, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by Matt
If I add my two primary displays, then it'll be 3840x2880.

:)

Huh? You have two displays that are 1920x2880? You can't add both numbers.

blindsleeper
04-20-2003, 08:50 PM
definately wanna be at 1600 but for now im restricted as my monitor sucks and only runs at 60hz @ 1280x1024... ahh well just my eyes i suppose...

stephen2002
04-20-2003, 10:11 PM
1024x768 on my Inspiron 8100 15" LCD. The native resolution is 1400x1050 but that is just a wee bit too small to work comfortably at for a long period of time. I'll occasionaly put it up at the max when I need the screen space. With the resolution less than the native I get free full-screen AA in all of my apps :)

I have noticed no noticable streaking even when scrolling text/viewports on either this display or my five-year-old 10.5" Sony VAIO notebook.

CgFX
04-21-2003, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by stephen2002
1024x768 on my Inspiron 8100 15" LCD. The native resolution is 1400x1050 but that is just a wee bit too small to work comfortably at for a long period of time.

SP1 for XP finally has a custom DPI framework to help with this. It does, however, require the app in question uses MFC for all its font, buttons, and menu work.

Longhorn (next Windows) is going to fix all this as the desktop becomes a directX surface and all the windows, icons, and desktop components are composited together by the graphics card. At this point you will be able to scale anything and everything that you want while leaving your 3D window at the native resolution of the display.

stephen2002
04-21-2003, 07:54 PM
Longhorn (next Windows) is going to fix all this as the desktop becomes a directX surface and all the windows, icons, and desktop components are composited together by the graphics card. At this point you will be able to scale anything and everything that you want while leaving your 3D window at the native resolution of the display.
That will be nice, assuming that the text, icons, graphics, etc. retain the sharpness of unscaled text. Overall having the 3D window at the native resolution of the display dosn't help me much because then all of the lines in a wireframe become 1 pixle wide. While it looks nice for some reason it causes eyestrain for me. Plus, as I said the lower-than-native resolution gives free AA.

What is important to me would be displaying the rendered images at the native resolution. I notice whenever I switch over to the native resolution all of the graphics become much more crisp with more vibrant colors. This is to be expected because of the AA that takes place with the scaleing. So if certain elements, such as the graphics, were displayed at native resolution for quality and everything else was left at 1024x768 I would be one happy person.

WU2
04-22-2003, 04:20 AM
I have 1280x1024 on my 19 inch and 1024x768 on my 17 inch... although I wish I could have so much more....drool...

CGTalk Moderation
01-13-2006, 02:00 AM
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.