Better monitor with 2 megapixel or greater resolution camera?

[Rick28628]

Why is it that when I view 2 megapixel or larger digital photos, that they appear to look like colored chalk or oil paintings? My NEC MultiSync monitors were made in 1993 and 1994. From what I gather, the problem must be with the monitors, but I was curious what the technical reason that this was doing this. For now, I'm content with my 1.0 and 1.3 megapixel cameras, because they look great with the setup that I have with my computers and monitors. Eventually, although, I will want to trade up to some of these better cameras as the prices continue to drop. These NEC monitors were top-of-the-line in their day. Thanks.--Rick

 

[misha]

Why is it that when I view 2 megapixel or larger digital photos,
that they appear to look like colored chalk or oil paintings? My
NEC MultiSync monitors were made in 1993 and 1994. From what I
gather, the problem must be with the monitors, but I was curious
what the technical reason that this was doing this. For now, I'm
content with my 1.0 and 1.3 megapixel cameras, because they look
great with the setup that I have with my computers and monitors.
Eventually, although, I will want to trade up to some of these
better cameras as the prices continue to drop. These NEC monitors
were top-of-the-line in their day. Thanks.
--

Could it be the display settings? Make sure you set the display to True Color (24 bit).

Misha

 

[Rick28628]

I discovered today, that another monitor that I have, the 2.1 and 3.3 megapixels pictures show up just great. (I tested it by downloading photos from the internet.) That monitor is not as good as my NEC monitors, but since it was made in September of 1997, there must be some reason. Anyway, today I found out that I don't have to buy another monitor for a better digital camera (at least right now).

Thanks Misha for replying last time. All appears to be well with the monitor situation. Now, I have some time to look at some other nicer cameras. The Canon A20 looks like a good choice for someone like me to trade up, and stay under $400. I can reuse my CF cards, USB card reader, it has 3x optical zoom, uses NiMH rechargeable batteries, and has had great reviews.

 

[Jack40001]

Rick,

you downloaded a picture from internet, it can be 256 color gif which can look better than 24 bit jpeg if your display adapter is set to 256 colors. If your video card is from 1993, like your NEC monitor, it may be a little restricted. Use the same pictures to compare both monitors. When you right click on your desktop (if using windhose, like I do) choose "properties". Select the "Settings" tab. look in the "Color Palette" box. It should display something like "16777216 Colors" or "True Color". To me, it really sound like you don't display al available colors from your pics.
Jake.

I discovered today, that another monitor that I have, the 2.1 and
3.3 megapixels pictures show up just great. (I tested it by
downloading photos from the internet.) That monitor is not as good
as my NEC monitors, but since it was made in September of 1997,
there must be some reason. Anyway, today I found out that I don't
have to buy another monitor for a better digital camera (at least
right now).

Thanks Misha for replying last time. All appears to be well with
the monitor situation. Now, I have some time to look at some other
nicer cameras. The Canon A20 looks like a good choice for someone
like me to trade up, and stay under $400. I can reuse my CF cards,
USB card reader, it has 3x optical zoom, uses NiMH rechargeable
batteries, and has had great reviews.

 

[Leo Pietkiewicz]

I discovered today, that another monitor that I have, the 2.1 and
3.3 megapixels pictures show up just great. (I tested it by
downloading photos from the internet.) That monitor is not as good
as my NEC monitors, but since it was made in September of 1997,
there must be some reason. Anyway, today I found out that I don't
have to buy another monitor for a better digital camera (at least
right now).

Thanks Misha for replying last time. All appears to be well with
the monitor situation. Now, I have some time to look at some other
nicer cameras. The Canon A20 looks like a good choice for someone
like me to trade up, and stay under $400. I can reuse my CF cards,
USB card reader, it has 3x optical zoom, uses NiMH rechargeable
batteries, and has had great reviews.

I had the same monitor in 1994. The Dot Pitch of that monitor was .31 l believe.You also have to consider the Video card you have in your box.
If still using a 2 meg video card you'll only get 56,000 colors.

The monitors of today are DPI on average .25 and the video cards in most
new computers have at least 16 megs of SDRAM.

If in widows, go to control panel, then click on Display. Then advanced and
see if you can change the colors from 256 to the highest number allowed
then reboot.

Leo

 

[Rick28628]

Thanks for the replies. I'm still experimenting with the monitors. I changed the display setting to 32 bits and it's still no better. I think that just the old NEC monitors are out-of-date, although they are good for most anything else. One of my video cards has 32 megs.

My latest computer that I upgraded for my digital photos has 524KB of RAM (since PC133 Dimms are so inexpensive now) with a Pentium III CPU. It really makes a difference with your photos by having a better computer (using the photo software for viewing and editing etc.). What a difference!!! Eventually I'll just get a better monitor too, and then a better digital camera, and then a better.... Well, as we know, it never ends as long as the technology keeps improving.

Again, thanks.