monitor resolution poll- OT

[Mike Fitzgerald]

Same here, but... err... isn't that really 2304 x 864 according to convention ??

Mike

Dual 17's running 1152 x 864....

 

[Mike Fitzgerald]

...same again on a secondary 15" for ancillaries, palettes, source documents, etc. A 17" screen at that res is a pretty reasonable bit of real estate when it's uncluttered.

Another "size is everything" myth has arisen with the small dot pitch being touted increasingly by the marketeers. I even had an argument with an experienced business software tutor who was convinced that the basketload of new 17" MAGView screens in his computer lab "had to be better" than a couple of Philips ring-ins in the same installation because the Philips are .27 mm while the new ones are all .22 mm. Obviously he's never looked really closely at them. The Philips units actually blow the MAGViews out of the water in terms of sharpness, detail, convergence and stable geometry. So does my 5 year old .26 mm LG Studioworks.

As for Web requirements, it depends very much on your audience. In this company you're probably right, overall; but I think you'll find a lot more of the general public than you might expect still running 15" screens at 800 x 600. For general public consumption you're safest keeping your images down well below that. The various photo critique sites still seem to use 640 x 480 for pics.

Mike

Hi all, I would like to know what resolution everyone has their
monitor set at. I am working on a webpage and realized that I was
making it look good for 1152X864 (my setting). But I am betting
that most people use 1024 x 768. In that case I should shrink all
my graphics a bit. I figure noone who practices photography would
be any lower than 1024 though..
--
Scott A.

 

[Mike Fitzgerald]

1600x1200 @ 120 Hz on 19"

Hmmm... that's a very hard working monitor. 120 Hz strikes me as a strange choice, as an even multiple (is it exactly, in reality?) of mains frequency (I gather you're in the US). If you drop it to 85 Hz or so you'll still get perfectly flicker free performance and it may well last a lot longer through lower electrical stress. And I agree about recent build quality.

Mike

 

[Rick Pali]

Same here, but... err... isn't that really 2304 x 864 according to
convention ??

It's 2304 x 864 according to arithmetic! For 2304 x 1728 you'd need four monitors in a 2 x 2 configuration, each running 1152 x 864.

Rick.

 

[Larry Myers]

Larry Myers