| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/21/2004 01:45:32 PM · #1 |
I just thought of something. Is there many people still using 800x600?
I think it would be good for all of us to know this because I would then think twice before using the full 640px size allowed by dpc especially for portraits.
Edit because I forgot to be the first to answer: 1024x768
Message edited by author 2004-02-21 13:47:21.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2004 01:48:32 PM · #2 |
i think most that work on images use a resolution above 800x600
the default on most new monitors, for desktops is 1024x768 - to back up my logic.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2004 01:54:41 PM · #3 |
| Wow, I use 1280X960 with 32bit color, which is what I use to edit films with in 6X9 highres. Perhaps thats why some people seem parts of my photos differently than I do, like blown out or too white. I'm new to the digital photo world so these are things I've never thought of. I hope more info appears on this thread because now I'm interested. |
|
|
|
02/21/2004 01:59:28 PM · #4 |
i think if you are looking to see photos on the web, close to how they will appear on paper - higher res is better.
i use 1280x1024 32bit - and printed images look fine ( not different than on the monitor i mean ) - so if others are losing detail because of their monitor settings its their loss...
Message edited by author 2004-02-21 14:00:29.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2004 02:01:58 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by soup:
so if others are losing detail because of their monitor settings its their loss... |
...and yours if they vote
|
|
|
|
02/21/2004 02:02:13 PM · #6 |
| Yea, I agree. I just lowered my settings and crused around my profile and the images were really ragged in low res. I guess I understand more about why some people say and see what they do. Hardware is everything. |
|
|
|
02/21/2004 02:13:09 PM · #7 |
1200 x 1600 on 21" Sony Trinitron Monitor
|
|
|
|
02/21/2004 02:14:53 PM · #8 |
so be it - not going to optimize photos for low res viewing...
Originally posted by :
Originally posted by soup:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so if others are losing detail because of their monitor settings its their loss...
...and yours if they vote
|
if what i see on the screen == what comes out of the printer as far as quality goes - what more would you want?
Message edited by author 2004-02-21 14:16:09.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2004 02:29:48 PM · #9 |
800x600 on my main 17" monitor
1280x1024 on my 15" laptop
I don't have any trouble with anyone's photo's on both of them.
If anyone is having trouble because of their monitor it is because:
* no calibration
* profile sucks
* 16-bits colors
* monitor as a device sucks
|
|
|
|
02/21/2004 02:35:22 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by soup:
if what i see on the screen == what comes out of the printer as far as quality goes - what more would you want? |
Look, what I mean, is not really about the quality but if alot of people still use 800X600 I would probably submit stuff like this  smaller than the maximum 640 allowed. It's important for pictures like this to be seen all at once :)
|
|
|
|
02/21/2004 02:35:46 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by wackybill:
1200 x 1600 on 21" Sony Trinitron Monitor |
Same settings same model and 128mb nvidia 5200
Flat screen CRT
|
|
|
|
02/21/2004 04:50:46 PM · #12 |
I know I'm way out in left field. I also use a Sony Trinitron monitor, a 21" E500, and I run 2048x1536, 32-bit color.
Absolutely fantastic display, but other family members hate it because text is so small; doesn't bother me tho.
Virtually all display hardware these days is capable of at least 1024x768. My laptoop runs at this resolution (and I find it very restrictive, LOL). I find that at 1024x768, with the vertical space taken up by the browser menu and toolbars, there is not quite enough space left to fully display an image that is 640px vertically. Still, I certainly hope folks will not stop submitting 640x640 images because they think some will not be able to see the whole image. The 640px limit is already very restrictive, it does not do justice to images that get their "wow" factor from high detail.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2004 05:01:13 PM · #13 |
Screen resolutions of visitors to my site this year. 800x600 is the second most popular resolution...
Resolution Unique Visitors % of Unique Visitors
1024 x 768 2476 49.21%
800 x 600 1804 35.85%
1280 x 1024 269 5.34%
1152 x 864 217 4.31%
640 x 480 49 0.97%
Unknown 48 0.95%
1600 x 1200 46 0.91%
1280 x 960 35 0.69%
1400 x 1050 21 0.41%
1152 x 870 12 0.23%
1280 x 768 7 0.13%
960 x 720 7 0.13%
2560 x 1024 6 0.11%
560 x 420 4 0.07%
1280 x 854 4 0.07%
1440 x 900 4 0.07%
1280 x 720 3 0.05%
1280 x 800 3 0.05%
1680 x 1050 2 0.03%
998 x 701 2 0.03%
2048 x 768 2 0.03%
1600 x 1024 1 0.01%
2304 x 864 1 0.01%
800 x 581 1 0.01%
2048 x 1536 1 0.01%
1152 x 768 1 0.01%
800 x 552 1 0.01%
832 x 624 1 0.01%
1016 x 740 1 0.01%
720 x 576 1 0.01%
1016 x 712 1 0.01%
|
|
|
|
02/21/2004 05:11:02 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Screen resolutions of visitors to my site this year. 800x600 is the second most popular resolution...
Resolution Unique Visitors % of Unique Visitors
1024 x 768 2476 49.21% ...
800 x 581 1 0.01%
2048 x 1536 1 0.01%
1152 x 768 1 0.01% ...
720 x 576 1 0.01%
1016 x 712 1 0.01% |
Hah, you caught me!
|
|
|
|
02/21/2004 05:25:30 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by wackybill:
1200 x 1600 on 21" Sony Trinitron Monitor |
Same here. On a PC. And when I check on my flatscreen (MAC) and my laptop (PC) I get wildly different results.
I use a 1024X768 window to test photos and process them for that resolution on a middling quality screen with out of the box settings.
C.
Edited to add: I assume the results of the BLACK challenge were seriously affected by the monitor and resolution issue. If the gamma is slightly discordant with your processing levels the blacks will lose their tonal integrity and can completely alter the photo view.
Message edited by author 2004-02-21 17:28:49.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2004 05:32:54 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Hah, you caught me! |
he he, you and a few other 'strange' setups, I must try some :)
|
|
|
|
02/21/2004 07:03:30 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I find that at 1024x768, with the vertical space taken up by the browser menu and toolbars, there is not quite enough space left to fully display an image that is 640px vertically. |
I had that problem until I maxed out the viewing space by doing away with the parts of the top and bottom bars that I really don't need. In IE 6 you can get rid of the address bar and "drag" upwards on the bottom line of the top bar by using the options under the View menu. With these settings I can see a full 640x640 all at once. You can also dump the status bar if you like but I usually keep it. |
|
|
|
02/21/2004 07:38:43 PM · #18 |
wow 800 x 600 1804 35.85%
those are alot who only seen half of my submission.
That was my point when I started this.
Message edited by author 2004-02-21 19:43:18.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2004 08:03:09 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by kirbic:
I find that at 1024x768, with the vertical space taken up by the browser menu and toolbars, there is not quite enough space left to fully display an image that is 640px vertically. |
I had that problem until I maxed out the viewing space by doing away with the parts of the top and bottom bars that I really don't need. In IE 6 you can get rid of the address bar and "drag" upwards on the bottom line of the top bar by using the options under the View menu. With these settings I can see a full 640x640 all at once. You can also dump the status bar if you like but I usually keep it. |
On my laptop which also runs at 1024x768 I just use the full screen option in the IE browser which allows you to keep a smaller IE toolbar at the top and no status bar at the bottom and covers the Windows status bar. This also allows you to view images of 640x640 in their entirety without clipping. This is what I prefer anyway.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
02/21/2004 09:54:10 PM · #20 |
This site (aimed at web builders): //www.netmechanic.com/news/vol4/accessibility_no24.htm indicates that the most popular screen resolution is 800 x 600 at 53%, followed by 1027 x 768 & higher at about 38%.
I'm at 1280 x 1024 on an LCD because it delivers the sharpest images at this (its optimal) resolution.
Catherine posted: ... I assume the results of the BLACK challenge were seriously affected by the monitor and resolution issue. If the gamma is slightly discordant with your processing levels the blacks will lose their tonal integrity and can completely alter the photo view.
I did get comments on my "Black" entry that were opposed, some said they could see my backdrop, and others could not. I tried to process my image so that the backdrop was black and not viewable, and one commenter thought they could identify the material.
Ahh, so much to learn. I'm glad I'm here!
Steve |
|
|
|
02/22/2004 07:44:39 AM · #21 |
I just found an interesting solution to this on a russian pfotography forum (www.photophorum.ru) They have 3 buttons below the pictures 100%, 75%, and 50% that changes the size of the picture in the same way thumbs are made here. Now I'm good with php and I know it is a verry easy thing to do. Maybe owners of dpchallenge can make something like that? Would be cool if 38% that still use 800X600 can see the pics all at once.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2004 07:49:26 AM · #22 |
1280x1024 on a 19" Viewsonic Pro for my Desktop
1280x768 on my laptop (widescreen)
Often I hit F11 on my browser and toggle full screen mode. You can see a whole lot more when you lose the menus, buttons, tab bars, status bars etc. |
|
|
|
02/22/2004 01:10:10 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
I just found an interesting solution to this on a russian pfotography forum (www.photophorum.ru) They have 3 buttons below the pictures 100%, 75%, and 50% that changes the size of the picture in the same way thumbs are made here. Now I'm good with php and I know it is a verry easy thing to do. Maybe owners of dpchallenge can make something like that? Would be cool if 38% that still use 800X600 can see the pics all at once. |
I'd rather scroll then look at zoomed photos.
|
|
