View Poll Results: Which screen resolution do u use for photos viewing / editing

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • 800 x 600

    4 6.67%
  • 1024 x 768

    25 41.67%
  • 1280 x 720

    2 3.33%
  • 1280 x 960

    7 11.67%
  • Others

    22 36.67%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 40 of 40

Thread: Your monitor resolution for photo veiwing

  1. #21
    Senior Member sammy888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    1,568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wai
    image quality will degrade if u are not running at the optimal resolution. in this case, native resolution for 17" screen is 1280 x 1024.

    wish i can afford the 30" apple display one day....then i can view my 1D pix at 100% and fit to screen's size
    heheh...you might have a point there but I am thinking PLUS looking at it from a DTP artist stand point. When I say I set my monitor to 1024 x 768 it does not mean I convert my graphic or picture or photo to that 1024 x 768 resolution just to view it at that resolution. It is just the setting for my monitor....not my picture which is still at a much higher resolution ( like my D70 for example). My graphic image could be a poster that is like 8000 x 5000pixel for example but I am still using my monitor at 1024 x 768 to edit the graphic. Just that to edit it at image original size, that mean on my 17inche monitor it will be in zoom in mode. Because to get the image to adjust itself to FIT my screen size to see it, it is fine for viewing but not for graphic editing.

    Thus there is no degradation of quality since viewing the picture is just about opening the file and the VGA card works in tandem with what brand/screen size monitor to show the picture but when I am finish viewing it, close the picture, it is still the same file and quality I have shot it.
    Last edited by sammy888; 6th February 2005 at 03:52 AM.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    South Pole with Penguin
    Posts
    5,270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sammy888
    Thus there is no degradation of quality since viewing the picture is just about opening the file and the VGA card works in tandem with what brand/screen size monitor to show the picture but when I am finish viewing it, close the picture, it is still the same file and quality I have shot it.

    Read this
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Hardware/faqs/kb/21,50.html

    If a user was to map 1024x768 to a 1280x1024 screen there is going to be distortion as well as some image errors as there is not a 1->1 mapping with regards to pixels. This results in noticeable quality loss and the image is much less sharp.

  3. #23

    Default

    I'm a weirdo here, using 1152 x 864 on my desktop.
    Anything higher on a 17" CRT will just strain my eyes.

    Last time my Thinkpad (now spoilt) can support 1400 x 1050, but it's so slow (graphically and processing speed) that I just gave up using Photoshop on it.

    I find even 1024 x 768 is too low even for most uses. Open a few IE windows and the taskbar starts consolidating the window buttons...sigh...

  4. #24

    Default

    1024 x 768 is more than enough

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ah Pao
    I'm a weirdo here, using 1152 x 864 on my desktop.
    Anything higher on a 17" CRT will just strain my eyes.

    Last time my Thinkpad (now spoilt) can support 1400 x 1050, but it's so slow (graphically and processing speed) that I just gave up using Photoshop on it.

    I find even 1024 x 768 is too low even for most uses. Open a few IE windows and the taskbar starts consolidating the window buttons...sigh...
    1024 x 768 is barely enough for power users who run a lot of programs and open a lot of windows. Just not enough desktop space.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Big Kahuna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ah Pao
    I'm a weirdo here, using 1152 x 864 on my desktop.
    Anything higher on a 17" CRT will just strain my eyes.

    Last time my Thinkpad (now spoilt) can support 1400 x 1050, but it's so slow (graphically and processing speed) that I just gave up using Photoshop on it.

    I find even 1024 x 768 is too low even for most uses. Open a few IE windows and the taskbar starts consolidating the window buttons...sigh...
    Not true lah.....your PC is too slow for multi tasking.....you need to beef up your ram and slab in a good graphic card Nowaday even an entry P4 can run 1280x1024 with a breeze

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    South Pole with Penguin
    Posts
    5,270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Kahuna
    Not true lah.....your PC is too slow for multi tasking.....you need to beef up your ram and slab in a good graphic card Nowaday even an entry P4 can run 1280x1024 with a breeze
    hmm...since pentium I days I have been using 17" at 1280 x 1024

    can even play flight simulator

    i think the slowness is due to all those windows fancy animations or fade in/out. any graphic card with more than 4MB ram can do 1280 x 1024 already

  8. #28

    Default

    Wai, 2 areas of concern here. This thread is about monitors, not only LCDs. 2ndly, the degradation of the image is only when viewing right? It doesn't really degrade the actual image file right? If so, then Sammy888 is right.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wai

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    South Pole with Penguin
    Posts
    5,270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meng
    Wai, 2 areas of concern here.
    yah..different area of concern

    my concern is the viewing quality, for me i prefer more workspace and can live with smaller text, that's why the viewing quality is important and I will use the resolution that give best viewing quality. I dont use my PC to edit photo only, but also to read text. Reading fuzzy text will give me headache

    kinda waste if you dont set the monitor resolution for best result right?

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wai
    yah..different area of concern

    my concern is the viewing quality, for me i prefer more workspace and can live with smaller text, that's why the viewing quality is important and I will use the resolution that give best viewing quality. I dont use my PC to edit photo only, but also to read text. Reading fuzzy text will give me headache

    kinda waste if you dont set the monitor resolution for best result right?
    Yeah. This is especially true for LCDs. Running at anything lesser than native resolution is very disastrous to (displayed) image quality, the further you are from native resolution, the worse it gets.

    Anyway, it's a big waste if one buy say a 20" monitor (CRT or LCD) then run it at 1024x768 or worse, 800x600.

    Regards
    CK

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    South Pole with Penguin
    Posts
    5,270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ckiang
    Yeah. This is especially true for LCDs. Running at anything lesser than native resolution is very disastrous to (displayed) image quality, the further you are from native resolution, the worse it gets.

    Anyway, it's a big waste if one buy say a 20" monitor (CRT or LCD) then run it at 1024x768 or worse, 800x600.
    actually it is true for CRT too, but the dot pitch for CRT is slightly finer than LCD, so the viewing quality will not degrade as much, but it is still noticable when u run a 20" CRT (with optimal resolution of 1600 x 1200) at 1024 x 768

  12. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong, Pokfulam
    Posts
    1,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by espn
    1280 x 1024, do wish my 19" can display larger resolution... Sigh...
    why is it that 17" max is 1280x1024, so is my 19"?
    Canon 300D, 30D, 5D. 17-40 f4 L, 24-105 f4 L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    South Pole with Penguin
    Posts
    5,270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by djork
    why is it that 17" max is 1280x1024, so is my 19"?
    yes, that's why it is not worth to get 19" LCD because their max resolution is 1280 x 1024, which is the same number of pixels as 17" LCD

    Only differnet is that the pixels for 19" are bigger, but then the amount of work space still the same as 17"

    only 20" LCD can do 1600 x 1200 but they cost 3 times more than 19"

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Last planet from the sun
    Posts
    2,822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wai
    yes, that's why it is not worth to get 19" LCD because their max resolution is 1280 x 1024, which is the same number of pixels as 17" LCD

    Only differnet is that the pixels for 19" are bigger, but then the amount of work space still the same as 17"

    only 20" LCD can do 1600 x 1200 but they cost 3 times more than 19"
    Yo bro,

    Question here. I know not all monitors are 24 bits and some are 18 bits. What about laptops? Any idea what is their bit rate like? Me using a 14 inch iBook G4. Can't seem to find the specs. The only thing I can find thru my specs on my laptop is Depth is 32 bit.

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    3,287

    Default Re: Your monitor resolution for photo veiwing

    1280 x 1024.

  16. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New York*New Jersey*Boston
    Posts
    1,072

    Default Re: Your monitor resolution for photo veiwing

    1280 x 1024

  17. #37
    Senior Member jOhO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,485

    Default Re: Your monitor resolution for photo veiwing

    1600*1200

    er.. wat do u mean for photo viewing?

    anyway, i'm at this resolution for anything viewing..

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    newbie land
    Posts
    1,971

    Default Re: Your monitor resolution for photo veiwing

    Quote Originally Posted by jOhO
    1600*1200

    er.. wat do u mean for photo viewing?

    anyway, i'm at this resolution for anything viewing..
    Preference resolution for viewing the photo on the monitor for the best result.
    寒冰不能斷流水 枯木亦會再逢春

  19. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Outside the Dry Box.
    Posts
    16,268

    Default Re: Your monitor resolution for photo veiwing

    use the highest a LCD can go, use 1 stop slower for what CRT can go... never goes wrong with this combo...
    Logging Off. "You have 2,631 messages stored, of a total 400 allowed." don't PM me.

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore.
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: Your monitor resolution for photo veiwing

    Quote Originally Posted by Wai
    only 20" LCD can do 1600 x 1200 but they cost 3 times more than 19"
    those Dell laptop LCDs can do 16001200 on a 15" screen. having said that you will find the fonts very small. I do not like setting to larger size fonts because windows doesn't scale everything accordingly so while the text is readable, the lines get bunched up (e.g. in Outlook or Explorer) because the inter-line spaces don't get scaled correctly.

    Also because of the fineness of the pixel pitch, the fonts gets very "skinny". I prefer to "step-down" my resolution which produces very acceptable scaling "error". e.g. on a 16001200 native resolution LCD, I will step-down to the next available mode of the same aspect ratio, which is 14001050. because of the extrapolation, the fonts becomes much more "full-bodied" and is very comfortable for reading.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •