My workstation screen is a Cinema Display 23", native resolution 1920x1200 pixels. My laptop screen is a cinema format 15", native resolution 1290x960 pixels. I run them at the native resolution.
Which is mostly irrelevant. I can see quite a large image on screen, even in a browser window, without scaling or scrolling, and I can always have the display scale as required. However, a lot of people can't do that, and scaling imposes its limitations on image quality. So, unlike some other people who consider themselves and their screen the center of the universe, I build my standard web page displays to look good on a 1024x768 pixel display so that many people can enjoy what I show. That implies, after extensive testing and querying people on all kinds of different systems, that my standard web images now are rendered to a maximum of 594 pixels tall and a maximum of 794 pixels wide. That allows just enough room in typical browser window on that size screen to display the whole image without scrolling and with a little room left over, possibly, for captioning and controls. It's tight on 1024x768. And it still images nicely on my 23" display without scaling. And I provide a larger size optional rendering for my pictures at 1000 pixels vertical dimension, leaving the horizontal to run to whatever size it ought to be without going past 1800 pixels, for those with display capabilities that can view at that resolution. Whenever I have to scroll around to see pictures, it becomes tiresome and I rapidly move on to the next thing on my agenda. The magic of the image is lost that way. Godfrey On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:01 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in > a couple > of other threads discussing computer screen size and resolution, it > may be > time to poll the topic again. > > 1) What size screen do you use > > 2) What resolution do you prefer? > > 3) What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen > without > undue scrolling? This would have to take into consideration real > estate > eaten up by the browser. > > 4) What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at? > > 5) If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less > inclined > to view additional images from that poster? > > > Shel > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
