Screen Resolution

[Karim]

I'd agree with most of what Egg said.

For hours of precision work (tho' I'm not an artist http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/smile.gif ), an LCD - use one at work and it's so much less strain than a CRT + it's totally flat + it's such a crisp display.

Modern LCDs have just one drawback IMO - they don't handle animation well - so for play, definitely a CRT, and at least at 1024x768, the higher the res & bigger the screen, the better.

Karim

[pduggan]

Beware of 1280x1024 on a standard 4:3 ratio monitor (it squashes things top to bottom, which can be disconcerting with graphics!). I prefer 1280x960, which I've always felt *should* have been the standard ratio at that sort of resolution, but I'm currently running 1152x864 on both my 19" Iiyama at home and 17" Samsung at work.

Peter

Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?

[RAMWolff44]

Is 1280x960 resolution more "perfect" than the more popular 1024x768?? Is there any information on this set of values and is there a way to test the monitor to see if it can handle that or would that mess things up??

Thanks! http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Richard http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

---Wolff On The Prowl---

[pduggan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAMWolff:
Is 1280x960 resolution more "perfect" than the more popular 1024x768??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course not! They're both 4:3...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Is there any information on this set of values and is there a way to test the monitor to see if it can handle that or would that mess things up??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I reluctantly abandoned 1280x960 for 1152x864 when I changed to Windows 2000 and it somehow stopped appearing in the list of supported (or even possible) modes for my monitor. But I can run 1152x864 at up to 120Hz (it's running at 100Hz right now), so it's rock steady and IMHO that's just as important as resolution. Some folk run 1280x1024 (or even 1600x1200) at 17", others (see above) prefer 1024x768 at 19". So it's all down to personal preference and there's absolutely no right or wrong here, unless you're playing with unsupported modes (in which case your monitor properties will probably carry some warning about leading to 'an unusable display and/or damaged hardware').

Peter

Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?

[rheaton]

I run at 1152x864 on a flat 19" ViewSonic (PT795) here at work, and the exact same monitor running at 1024x768 on my home machine.

[Mike Bailey]

1152 X 864 pixels 32 bit color, 20 inch trinitron.

I am comfortable at this setting.

[RAMWolff44]

I see that you Mike and Daniel prefer 1152 X 864 so I am going to use that for a couple of days and see how I like it.

So far I do, so thanks very much!! http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Richard http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

---Wolff On The Prowl---

[dalel]

I use 1024 X 768 because a higher resolution makes the text of most apps and websites too small to read comfortably.

I have a 19" monitor.

http://talkgraphics.infopop.net/1/Op...&ul=1101906325
Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll