| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/04/2004 10:12:59 AM · #1 |
I was wondering what most people use as far as their screen resolution.
I use 1152 X 864, but I am just wondering what the majority of you use.
Vincent
(If this was already discussed, A link to the previous posting would do just fine)
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 10:15:08 AM · #2 |
1680x1050 (Apple Cinema Dislay 20")
Message edited by author 2004-09-04 10:15:23.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 10:18:12 AM · #3 |
One previous thread.
I ran a search using "screen resolution"
Message edited by author 2004-09-04 10:18:20. |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 10:25:10 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 06:12:42 PM · #5 |
1600x1200x32
As high as my monitor will go with a reasonable refresh rate. Any smaller and I run out of room on my screen very quickly.
David
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 06:13:35 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 06:18:20 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by VisiBlanco:
1280x1024 |
Any specific reason for sticking with an off-ratio resolution? Do you have an off-ratio monitor.. I hear they're rare.
ANYway.. I use 1280x960
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 06:25:46 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by VisiBlanco:
1280x1024 |
Any specific reason for sticking with an off-ratio resolution? Do you have an off-ratio monitor.. I hear they're rare.
ANYway.. I use 1280x960 |
Actually, technically I am using 2560x1024... I have 2 ViewSonic VP171b and 1280x1024 is the native resolution so I don't have much of a choice. I really like the monitors and haven't had any problems with that resolution. |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 06:32:50 PM · #9 |
| 1920 x 1200x32 (laptop) or 2880 x 1200x32 (desktop) |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 06:33:22 PM · #10 |
1280x1024
I have two BenQ 19" lcd's and couldn't be happier. |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 06:34:24 PM · #11 |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 06:36:57 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by VisiBlanco:
1280x1024 |
Any specific reason for sticking with an off-ratio resolution? Do you have an off-ratio monitor.. I hear they're rare.
ANYway.. I use 1280x960 |
I have 1280*1024
Whats off ratio about that?
I thought that was a normal setting fits right on my screen :p
:)
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 06:37:54 PM · #13 |
Maxed out at 1024x768 (15" KDS LCD)
If I had a choice, I would run a 1600x1200, but...
:(
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 07:14:03 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by heida:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by VisiBlanco:
1280x1024 |
Any specific reason for sticking with an off-ratio resolution? Do you have an off-ratio monitor.. I hear they're rare.
ANYway.. I use 1280x960 |
I have 1280*1024
Whats off ratio about that?
I thought that was a normal setting fits right on my screen :p
:) |
If you do the math, 1280x1024 isn't the same ratio as 1024x768, 800x600, etc.. where 1280x960 is, depending on your monitor dimensions.
Most monitors have a 4:3 ratio (1.33).. and most settings have this ratio. However, 1280x1024 is 1.25.. which is off the usual 4:3 :)
So you'd get some stretching of your images.. which, if you're *used* to 1280x1024, you won't really notice.. unless you switched a lot.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 07:18:39 PM · #15 |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 07:26:22 PM · #16 |
I use 1024 x 768 or otherwise everything like icons and text gets so small they become hard to read.
Is there some setting I am missing then that will allow me to up the res without everything else becoming toooo small?
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 07:28:47 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Natator:
I use 1024 x 768 or otherwise everything like icons and text gets so small they become hard to read.
Is there some setting I am missing then that will allow me to up the res without everything else becoming toooo small? |
The size of icons and text is a function of resolution and screen dimensions. My 1600x1200 is running on a 20 inch screen and they are big enough to read. If the screen was smaller, it would be difficult to read. |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 07:30:21 PM · #18 |
| there are adjustments but damned if i can remeber what/where they are. |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 07:37:52 PM · #19 |
At home I sadly have to run at 1280x1024 because my monitor doesn't go higher.
I would need to shell out 150$ to fix my girlfriend's old 19" to be able to get my favorite resolution of 1600x1200.
Maybe after I buy myself a battery pack |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 08:37:21 PM · #20 |
I'm running x2 17" monitors, so unfortunately 1024 x 768 seems to suit that best for me
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 08:40:57 PM · #21 |
3200x1200 on twin 20" Sony Trinitrons. I can heat my home office with these things, but they look incredibly cool :)
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 10:19:59 PM · #22 |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 10:36:39 PM · #23 |
1280x1024
looks good to me - there is no distortion as some have spoken of.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 11:01:15 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by soup:
1280x1024
looks good to me - there is no distortion as some have spoken of. |
It's not a "distortion" per se.
Try switching between that res and 1024x768 a few times in a row while having an image of a person's face up on the screen, then you'll see what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 11:07:06 PM · #25 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/31/2025 05:00:18 AM EDT.
