filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Well if you think you're puzzled, I'm really puzzled. Why would anyone use anything but the highest resolution available for scanning and viewing images created with high resolution devices such as filmscanners. Unless your scanning at 72 dpi from a flatbed for use on the web, you really ought to try a higher resolution, as high as your video card/monitor combination will let you go. Sure, sure the fonts are hard to read. So go into control panel and select "large fonts". But look at your images in the highest resolution you can. I use 1024x768 for word-processing and e-mail on my 17" monitor, but for images I always use 1600x1200 whether on my 17" or 19" monitor. Once you try it it will be hard to go back. Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Henry Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:17 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > >From: "Frank Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >I'm sure we're all using at least 1280X1024 and so there is enough > >real-estate so that the tabs won't overflow. > > I use 1024x768. > > This is the second message I have read in 3 minutes where the author, who > has probably never met any of the other Vuescan users, has made a definitive > statement about how those people use Vuescan and how they have their > computer set-up. I guess if these two messages had of been correct then I > would have been impressed by the omniscience of the authors but since they > were both wrong then I am just puzzled. > _ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com >
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at least 1280x1024 is not untypical for most people who do image editing. In fact, I'd bet most on this list have 1600 x 1200. You can buy a decent monitor for around $400 (the one I am using now for most of my image editing I paid $375 for...it's a Hitachi 802U SuperScan...and is damn good). Video cards are around $100 that support this kind of resolution... Unless you are using a notebook, which is a horrible image editing environment anyway...you really might want to consider upgrading your monitor/video card. This is like saying programmers should limit their program size so they can fit on floppies...or something like that... Do you at least have a CD ROM drive? > Well if you think you're puzzled, I'm really puzzled. Why would > anyone use > anything but the highest resolution available for scanning and viewing > images created with high resolution devices such as filmscanners. > > >I'm sure we're all using at least 1280X1024 and so there is enough > > >real-estate so that the tabs won't overflow. > > > > I use 1024x768. > > > > This is the second message I have read in 3 minutes where the > author, who > > has probably never met any of the other Vuescan users, has made a > definitive > > statement about how those people use Vuescan and how they have their > > computer set-up. I guess if these two messages had of been > correct then I > > would have been impressed by the omniscience of the authors but > since they > > were both wrong then I am just puzzled.
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Robert writes ... > ... Why would anyone use > anything but the highest resolution available for scanning > and viewing images created with high resolution > devices such as filmscanners. > > ... > > I use 1024x768 for word-processing and e-mail on my 17" > monitor, but for images I always use 1600x1200 whether > on my 17" or 19" monitor. The higher resolutions are generally refreshed at slower rates, and sometimes the "flicker" is uncomfortable ... not always true, but depends on the display card. Monitor manufacturers usually list suggested resolutions as well, and it doesn't make much sense to go beyond the dot pitch. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Austin wrote: > The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at > least 1280x1024 is not untypical for most people who do > image editing. In fact, I'd bet most on this list have > 1600 x 1200. Geeze, Austin. Several people have already responded saying they are editing files at resolutions as low as 640x480. I've yet to hear a response from anyone else who uses 1280x1024 let alone 1600x1200. I'd be very suprised if "most" people regularly use 1280x1024 let alone anything higher. > You can buy a decent monitor for around $400 (the one I am > using now for most of my image editing I paid $375 for. In the USA maybe. Remember also that a lot of the people on this list are not in the USA and don't have access to the cheap prices you do. I live in Australia and I'm reasonably certain that I couldn't buy a monitor that would workably do 1600x1200 or even 1280x1024 for everyday editing at a price of AUD$800. My existing 17" monitor and video card can do 1280x1024x24bit, but the interface would be unreadable, or at least cause me far too much eyestrain. Please don't force out those of us who don't do image editing for a living, or don't have the money to spend on high end hardware. There's a lot of folks with film scanners who aren't professional photographers or graphic artists. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Rob Geraghty wrote: > they are editing files at resolutions as low as 640x480. I've > yet to hear a response from anyone else who uses 1280x1024 let > alone 1600x1200. I'd be very suprised if "most" people > regularly use 1280x1024 let alone anything higher. I'm not in favor of exclusion, but I do use 1600x1200 on a 21" monitor and am not am imaging professional. When on a 15" monitor, I used 1024x768. -Collin
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
You can set your refresh rate also in the Control Panel Display icon. It should be at least 75. Sometimes at high resolutions and greater than 75, you are pushing the bandwidth of your video card/monitor and things will start to fuzz up. So you have to be aware of the tradeoffs between high refresh rate and the capabilities of your hardware. The advertised maximums invariably push the system into less than optimal sharpness. Remember, screen resolution and sharpness are not at all the same thing, even though literally speaking, the word resolution seems to imply that they are. This is what I think Austin Franklin's beef is in using the word resolution to name the pixel dimensions of the display. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 4:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > > Robert writes ... > > > ... Why would anyone use > > anything but the highest resolution available for scanning > > and viewing images created with high resolution > > devices such as filmscanners. > > > > ... > > > > I use 1024x768 for word-processing and e-mail on my 17" > > monitor, but for images I always use 1600x1200 whether > > on my 17" or 19" monitor. > > The higher resolutions are generally refreshed at slower rates, and > sometimes the "flicker" is uncomfortable ... not always true, but > depends on the display card. Monitor manufacturers usually list > suggested resolutions as well, and it doesn't make much sense to go > beyond the dot pitch. > > shAf :o) >
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
I set my monitor to 1856x1392 and adjust the font size to the point where I can read them comfortably. My video card/monitor combination is capable of 2048x1536 but when I go that high I am pushing the bandwidth of the system and things start fuzzing up. I'd use 5000x3000 if I could get away with it, and then set my font size to 400% (or whatever it would work out to be). I haven't been as "low" as 1600x1200 on my 21" monitors for two years. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 4:52 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > Austin wrote: > > The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at > > least 1280x1024 is not untypical for most people who do > > image editing. In fact, I'd bet most on this list have > > 1600 x 1200. > > Geeze, Austin. Several people have already responded saying > they are editing files at resolutions as low as 640x480. I've > yet to hear a response from anyone else who uses 1280x1024 let > alone 1600x1200. I'd be very suprised if "most" people > regularly use 1280x1024 let alone anything higher. >
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> Austin wrote: > > The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at > > least 1280x1024 is not untypical for most people who do > > image editing. In fact, I'd bet most on this list have > > 1600 x 1200. > > Geeze, Austin. Several people have already responded saying > they are editing files at resolutions as low as 640x480. I've > yet to hear a response from anyone else who uses 1280x1024 let > alone 1600x1200. I'd be very suprised if "most" people > regularly use 1280x1024 let alone anything higher. Certainly there are people who use 640x480 to do image editing. If that is the tool set you have, then that is what you use. But, I will guarantee you, those tools are an exception to the rule. The direction things are moving in is higher resolution, and you build your product for the future...not to live in the past. It's the same issue with memory, processor speed and storage capacity. > > You can buy a decent monitor for around $400 (the one I am > > using now for most of my image editing I paid $375 for. > > In the USA maybe. Buy used. I am sure you can buy Hitachi 802 monitors used in AU. Video cards are cheap too. > Please don't force out those of us who don't do image editing > for a living, or don't have the money to spend on high end > hardware. There's a lot of folks with film scanners who > aren't professional photographers or graphic artists. Understood, but you can do well buying used, if you know what you are looking for.
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Do you guys want to alienate all amateurs on this list? ;) My visitor stats say that 80% of my visitors are using less than or equal to 1024x768. This is for a photography site, even if it is by no means aimed at the high end of town. Plus: 1. Monitor flicker can be a major problem with high-resolutions 2. Many older cards/monitors simply don't support true or even high color at high resolutions 3. Some monitor/card combinations just don't work well at some resolutions 4. We are not all made of money, and some of us do this as a hobby. (Try even 1024x768 on a 14"!!) Yes, all of these issues are able to be solved with money, but it all adds up. If I'm alone here as an amateur/hobbyist, just say so, and I'll shut up! But I thought the list was just about film-scanners, and that having a professional or even semi-professional setup was not a pre-requisite.. I mean, just take a look at Tony's home page - looks like his monitor isn't even color! ;-) MT == Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
I use twin 21" monitors at work under Win2K. Once you have tried twin monitors you will be spoiled forever. It is not necessary to have two identical video cards, but some cards are not compatible with others. Try before you buy, or get a return guarantee. Matrox cards have had more than average compatibility problems in my experience. One way to do the twin monitor setup that need not be horribly expensive is to get one good quality 17" monitor and a video card that will allow you to go up to your desired resolution (I think 1280x1024 is about the max you would want to run on most 17" monitors) and color depth (usually 24 bit) at a refresh rate above 60Hz (in my experience, any refresh rate higher than 75Hz is just overkill and gives no additional image quality -- usually the opposite). Then get any old cheapo video card and monitor for the second screen. You can run this one at a much lower color depth (16 bit, 8 bit or even 4 bit), so it doesn't need as much video card power. Be sure you can get the refresh rate over 60 Hz, or it will be hard to look at for long, due to the flicker. You can put your image on the good monitor and put all the other stuff (taskbar, toolboxes, desktop icons, etc) on the cheapo screen. This gives you a nice large image and plenty of extra real estate for everything outside the image area. -Original Message- From: Edwin Eleazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 6:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution Heck, some of us are still using a 15" LCD display at 1024X768 32 bit, but saving for a 21" trinitron and another video card. The dual display is really the way to go, after trying it on a friends system. The LCD on a moveable arm, and the desk real estate occupied by the 21" is a very usable setup, great for photo editing. Does anyone use this type of setup, and what type of video cards? I have seen where the same make of card was a good idea, and my friends setup uses a NVIDIA Twinview card feeding both monitors. Edwin
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> Do you guys want to alienate all amateurs on this list? ;) Of course not. > My visitor stats say that 80% of my visitors are using less than or equal > to 1024x768. How do you know that is their display resolution, and not what their browser is set to? I don't know how you do what you claim, so I have no idea how you get that info. If my display information is being sent to someone, that would tick me off, because it's none of their business what my display settings are. What else gets sent?
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Austin Franklin wrote: > The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at least 1280x1024 is > not untypical for most people who do image editing. In fact, I'd bet most > on this list have 1600 x 1200. > I'd bet you are wrong. Most people are using 17" monitors these days, which is the sweet spot in the pricing structure right now, and although people doing scanning "might" push that number a bit, I still would be surprised whether this list would skew results much from the norm. Further, there are many non-americans on this list and monitors are a heck of a lot more expensive outside of "consumerland". Lastly, even if my video card and monitor can produce 1600 x 1200 pixel screen, I'd be unlikely to use it that way, due to the way it would shrink icons, cursor and tool sizes on a 17" screen. Art Art > You can buy a decent monitor for around $400 (the one I am using now for > most of my image editing I paid $375 for...it's a Hitachi 802U > SuperScan...and is damn good). Video cards are around $100 that support > this kind of resolution... > > Unless you are using a notebook, which is a horrible image editing > environment anyway...you really might want to consider upgrading your > monitor/video card. > > This is like saying programmers should limit their program size so they can > fit on floppies...or something like that... Do you at least have a CD ROM > drive? >
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Robert Kehl wrote: > Well if you think you're puzzled, I'm really puzzled. Why would anyone use > anything but the highest resolution available for scanning and viewing > images created with high resolution devices such as filmscanners. > > Unless your scanning at 72 dpi from a flatbed for use on the web, you really > ought to try a higher resolution, as high as your video card/monitor > combination will let you go. Sure, sure the fonts are hard to read. So go > into control panel and select "large fonts". But look at your images in the > highest resolution you can. > > I use 1024x768 for word-processing and e-mail on my 17" monitor, but for > images I always use 1600x1200 whether on my 17" or 19" monitor. Once you > try it it will be hard to go back. > > Bob Kehl > You are making a number of assumptions which may not hold true for many monitors and video cards. You are assuming that most monitors and cards are sharper when placed in a higher pixel mode, and that more than likely is actually not true. Further still, since you likely still cannot see a high res film scan at a one to one ratio at 1600 x 1200 pixels, the graphics card is still having to downsample the result by some factor to see the full image, and you again assume the downsampling is done more accurately at that resolution than another, which again may not ne true. Certainly, screen updates at 1600 x 1200 are going to be slower than lower resolutions. In fact, the only advantage I can see by using the resolution you suggest is that more of the image will be visible when zooming 1:1. When I work on an image in photoshop, and I need that kind of accuracy, I just zoom in to get a 1:1 ration or beyond. In general, running your monitor at a higher frequency, necessary for the 1200 x 1600, means unless it is a very good monitor and video card, more smearing, a lower refresh rate, that some find annoying, possible a lower bit depth screen image (depending upon the video card memory) and more RF and electro-magnetic splatter. It also means ridiculously small icons, tools and cursors, unless you have a large screen size to begin with. Oh, did I mention your monitor will probably burn out sooner at that screen mode? Art
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Try Matrox's latest, the 450, for $150. It has two video outputs build in. One you can run one at 1600x1200, the other up to 2048x1536. Takes only one slot. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eli Bowen > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:33 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > I use twin 21" monitors at work under Win2K. Once you have tried > twin monitors you will be spoiled forever. > It is not necessary to have two identical video cards, but some > cards are not compatible with others. Try before you buy, or get a return > guarantee. Matrox cards have had more than average compatibility > problems in > my experience.
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Mark, I'm NOT intending to alienate anyone or imply that if your not operating a highend system your not up to speed. Photography and Image Editing is about artistic skills not technology. Technology is just a tool. I AM saying this. If you haven't so much as tried using a higher resolution for image editing and scanning, you may be pleasantly surprised to see that your existing hardware can offer a more pleasing image rendition than you thought possible. I switch back and forth on my Viewsonics (relatively cheepo) monitor. Images look better at 1280x1024 or 1600x1200, but when I'm working on email, spreadsheets or word processing 1024x768 looks better. When I'm surfing I sometimes switch to 800x600. Yes, there can be flicker problems due to slow refresh rates at higher resolutions, but high res, high refresh rate video cards aren't expensive anymore. They can be had for less than you might think. I am using an ATI Expert98 video card. It provides 85Hz refresh rate (flicker free) at 1600x1200. I bought mine for about US $125. Aberdeen now sells this video card for US $ 35.99. http://www.aberdeeninc.com/ My Viewsonic 17" monitor is not high-end at all (anymore), but it does 1600x1200 at 76Hz and looks pretty good. I paid a lot of money for it some years ago, but now Aberdeen sells it for less than US $400. I'll be selling this monitor and video card some day soon on e-bay and be lucky to get US $200 for the lot. I'll bet there's lots more out there (but maybe not in Australia - sorry, Rob). Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Mark T. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:34 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > Do you guys want to alienate all amateurs on this list? ;) > > My visitor stats say that 80% of my visitors are using less than or equal > to 1024x768. This is for a photography site, even if it is by no means > aimed at the high end of town. Plus: > > 1. Monitor flicker can be a major problem with high-resolutions > 2. Many older cards/monitors simply don't support true or even high color > at high resolutions > 3. Some monitor/card combinations just don't work well at some resolutions > 4. We are not all made of money, and some of us do this as a hobby. (Try > even 1024x768 on a 14"!!) > > Yes, all of these issues are able to be solved with money, but it all adds > up. If I'm alone here as an amateur/hobbyist, just say so, and I'll shut > up! But I thought the list was just about film-scanners, and that having a > professional or even semi-professional setup was not a pre-requisite.. > > > I mean, just take a look at Tony's home page - looks like his monitor isn't > even color! ;-) > > MT > > > > == > Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> > > The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at least > 1280x1024 is > > not untypical for most people who do image editing. In fact, > I'd bet most > > on this list have 1600 x 1200. > > > I'd bet you are wrong. Most people are using 17" monitors these days, > which is the sweet spot in the pricing structure right now, and although > people doing scanning "might" push that number a bit, How much would you be willing to bet? "Most people" is distinctly different than "most people who have filmscanners", which is what this mailing list is about. How many people on this list do you think use PhotoShop? I believe PS has a higher user interface requirements than the scanner driver, which was the origin of this discussion (scanner driver screen space requirements).
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Austin wrote: >Certainly there are people who use 640x480 to do image editing. Your claim was that most people on the list would use 1600x1200. I think there's been enough posts to the contrary to show that this is unlikely. Frank is the other only person I've seen mentioning that resolution or higher. In any case, the only way to be sure would be to take a survey and I don't think anyone has. I wonder if Tony has considered having a web survey on his site? > you, those tools are an exception to the rule. 640x480 *may* be the exception to the rule, but that depends on where you draw the boundaries of your sample set. Again, I don't think it's possible to say anything concrete without figures. In the general PC user population today I'd expect *most* people would use 800x600, but it may be that *most* scanner users have their computers set to higher resolutions. Number are needed in order to make definite statements. > The direction things are moving in is higher resolution, > and you build your product for the future...not to live > in the past. It's the same issue with memory, processor > speed and storage capacity. You can do this if you're Microsoft, not if you're a shareware vendor. Microsoft can afford to say "You have to have a PC133 Pentium III 800MHz CPU with 128MB of RAM and 2GB of hard drive space to run Win2K" but lesser mortals have to account for the lowest common denominator if they want to make money. > Buy used. I am sure you can buy Hitachi 802 monitors > used in AU. Video cards are cheap too. My video card can easily do 1600x1200. I doubt that there is a significant market for refurbished high resolution monitors capable of 1600x1200+ outside of Sydney or Melbourne, and I live a LONG way from either. Few companies that may be selling such would be on the internet. All that aside, I wouldn't buy a second hand monitor after the amount of trouble we've had with older monitors at work. Anything 3 years or older is likely to be suspect unless it has been properly refurbished and supplied with a warranty. I'm quite happy working in 1024x768 which is more the point for me personally. I'd love to have a 19" or 21" monitor but I simply can't justify the cost - new or 2nd hand. > Understood, but you can do well buying used, if > you know what you are looking for. Again, this assumes a lot. It's a big world, and the way it looks from where you're sitting isn't how it is for a lot of other people. This discussion is a little irrelevent anyway - Ed Hamrick is the author of the software and it's his choice who he wants to support and how. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
- Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:18 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > You are making a number of assumptions which may not hold true for many > monitors and video cards. You are assuming that most monitors and cards > are sharper when placed in a higher pixel mode, and that more than > likely is actually not true. > No assumptions Arthur. Most monitors/video cards look better at higher resolutions. Only the best monitors/video cards look good at their highest resolutions. You may have to back off a step, but 640x480 or 800x600 is antique. I've been designing and specifying graphics display systems (both monitors and large screen) for about 15 years. I've followed the evolution of the PC and it's graphics modes starting with CGA. I'm familiar with all that you've mentioned and in some cases your concerns are true. All I'm saying is for those who haven't tried a higher resolution, give it a try. It may look better. But if you don't try it out, you'll never know. I never switched my monitor/video card into 1600x1200 until I started running Photoshop. On my particular equipment (not highend graphics equipment) it looked better. If it doesn't look better on yours don't use it. But if it does, you'll be happy you tried it. What do think Arthur. Can you agree with that? Bob Kehl
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Unfortunately, the Matrox "dual-head" cards require that the two monitors run at the same resolution, which can be a problem if your monitors are not the same size. We had one in my workgroup (the 400, not the newer 450) and it got passed around from person to person because no one liked it. Exactly why, I don't know, but no one seemed to be happy with it. Here is a very in-depth analysis of the 450: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1315 -Original Message- From: Frank Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution Try Matrox's latest, the 450, for $150. It has two video outputs build in. One you can run one at 1600x1200, the other up to 2048x1536. Takes only one slot. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eli Bowen > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:33 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > I use twin 21" monitors at work under Win2K. Once you have tried > twin monitors you will be spoiled forever. > It is not necessary to have two identical video cards, but some > cards are not compatible with others. Try before you buy, or get a return > guarantee. Matrox cards have had more than average compatibility > problems in > my experience.
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
All of that can be handled, since you can specify large icons, etc. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > Lastly, even if > my video card and monitor can produce 1600 x 1200 pixel screen, I'd be > unlikely to use it that way, due to the way it would shrink icons, > cursor and tool sizes on a 17" screen. > > Art
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Speaking of which, Dell shipped my new computer yesterday: 1.5 GHz, Win2K, 512 megs ram and a 60 gig 7200 RPM hard drive. Anyone want to buy a 32MB NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 4X AGPGraphics Card??? They wouldn't sell me the Matrox G450 unless I got a workstation so I ordered it direct from Matrox for $135. Great competitive price from the manufacturer. Now I need a second monitor, preferably a 21" or 19" to go with the 21" Trinitron that comes with the system. Any suggestions for around $600? That's about my budget. My other system has a Matrox G400 and a 21" and 13" Trinitron. I now want to go bigger on the second monitor. I find myself running a second program most of the time and am tired of looking at Word at 75%, or only seeing six thumbnails in ACDSee. BTW, I run my 21" monitor at 1152x864 (I think those are the numbers, I'm not at home right now and can't check) That's what looks the best to my eyes, without having to wear bifocals. Larry At 08:08 PM 3/7/01 -0800, Frank Paris wrote: >Try Matrox's latest, the 450, for $150. It has two video outputs build in. >One you can run one at 1600x1200, the other up to.. <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:> Larry Berman Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com Compare Image Compression from the top Graphics Programs: http://ImageCompress.com Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site: http://ArtShowJury.com <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:>
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:18 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > Certainly, screen updates at 1600 x 1200 are going to be slower than > lower resolutions. With modern cards, there's no way the human eye could notice the difference. > It also means ridiculously small icons, > tools and cursors, unless you have a large screen size to begin with. As I mentioned previously, this is easily overcome. The point of large resolutions is smoother textures in images and more well-formed text. All this assumes you do have the bandwidth to handle the higher resolutions without sacrificing refresh rate, easily handled by current offerings, and you don't have to pay an arm and a leg anymore to get this performance. > Oh, did I mention your monitor will probably burn out sooner at that > screen mode? Why? Because it's running at a higher frequencies? That's like saying a 33 Mhz Pentium will last longer than a 900 MHz Pentium III. What I've found is that modern monitors running at much higher frequencies last a lot longer than monitors built five and ten years ago that run at much lower frequencies. They've figured this stuff out, Art. There's no percentage in being a Luddite these days when it comes to video technology. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> > The direction things are moving in is higher resolution, > > and you build your product for the future...not to live > > in the past. It's the same issue with memory, processor > > speed and storage capacity. > > You can do this if you're Microsoft, not if you're a shareware vendor. You follow the direction, not make the direction. The software runs on Windows...so the minimum requirement IS Windows. > This discussion is a little irrelevent anyway - Ed Hamrick is the author > of the software and it's his choice who he wants to support and how. Exactly. And I believe most anyone writing software will write it for the future, not for the past. Most companies that come out with new products don't support Windows 3.1...
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Frank, What's a Luddite? : ) BK - Original Message - From: Frank Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 10:57 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution There's no percentage in > being a Luddite these days when it comes to video technology. > > > Frank Paris > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 >
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Most web hosting companies can get stats from users of their websites. You can find out what browsers are most popular, resolution settings, among other things. For me, as a web designer, such stats help me to create websites that are more accessible to everyone. If I see everyone is using 1024x768 or higher, I can design for that. If I see that 80% of my viewers are at 800x600, then I must design to that size. Nobody likes to scroll horizontally, and the resolution stat from my web host is a huge help in keeping my site looking good at all resolutions and on all platforms and in all browsers. Rick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 10:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > Do you guys want to alienate all amateurs on this list? ;) Of course not. > My visitor stats say that 80% of my visitors are using less than or equal > to 1024x768. How do you know that is their display resolution, and not what their browser is set to? I don't know how you do what you claim, so I have no idea how you get that info. If my display information is being sent to someone, that would tick me off, because it's none of their business what my display settings are. What else gets sent?
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Funny that the user interface doesn't require the monitors run at the same resolution. I have a 450 and I just looked. Actually haven't tried it, tho. I had a 400 for about a year and replaced it with a 450 essentially so I could give my son a nice Christmas present (the 400). The 400 produced beautifully sharp images at 1856x1392, 32 bit color, and 75 Hz refresh rate on my Cornerstone p1700. Can't say I notice any improvement on my 450, but how can you improve on perfection? Funny how that "in depth" review never actually did say how it actually *looked*. Just a lot of technical analysis that doesn't amount to a hill of beans without actually checking it out. There was no indication in the review that they even tried it. Personally, I can vouch for it. The 450 AND the 400. For 2D stuff. Who cares about 3D? Not filmscanners qua filmscanners. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eli Bowen > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:36 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > Unfortunately, the Matrox "dual-head" cards require that the two > monitors run at the same resolution, which can be a problem if > your monitors > are not the same size. > We had one in my workgroup (the 400, not the newer 450) and it got > passed around from person to person because no one liked it. > Exactly why, I > don't know, but no one seemed to be happy with it. > Here is a very in-depth analysis of the 450: > > http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1315 >
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Larry Berman > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:45 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > Now I need a second monitor, preferably a 21" or 19" to go with the 21" > Trinitron that comes with the system. Any suggestions for around $600? > That's about my budget. Check out the 19" Cornerstone monitors on www.BigMonitors.com and run them at at least 1280X1024. Get the p1450 for $469 and run it at 1600x1200. Increase the side of your fonts and icons until you can read everything comfortably. You will be amazed at the improvement in legibility. If you can find a 21" monitor for $600 that would deliver an image anywhere close to what the p1450 can deliver, that would be big news to me. > BTW, I run my 21" monitor at 1152x864 (I think those are the numbers, I'm > not at home right now and can't check) That's what looks the best to my > eyes, without having to wear bifocals. Again, the solution to this isn't keeping the monitor at this low resolution. It is increasing the size of your fonts. When you do this, dialog boxes, everything, scales automatically. Everything will take on a sheen that you won't believe. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
>Most people are using 17" monitors these days, >which is the sweet spot in the pricing structure right now Not in my neck of the woods. Actually, at least where I live, 19" monitors are the current popular models and tend to be the sweet spot in terms of pricing. I would venture to say that this has been the case for the last year or more. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution Austin Franklin wrote: > The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at least 1280x1024 is > not untypical for most people who do image editing. In fact, I'd bet most > on this list have 1600 x 1200. > I'd bet you are wrong. Most people are using 17" monitors these days, which is the sweet spot in the pricing structure right now, and although people doing scanning "might" push that number a bit, I still would be surprised whether this list would skew results much from the norm. Further, there are many non-americans on this list and monitors are a heck of a lot more expensive outside of "consumerland". Lastly, even if my video card and monitor can produce 1600 x 1200 pixel screen, I'd be unlikely to use it that way, due to the way it would shrink icons, cursor and tool sizes on a 17" screen. Art Art > You can buy a decent monitor for around $400 (the one I am using now for > most of my image editing I paid $375 for...it's a Hitachi 802U > SuperScan...and is damn good). Video cards are around $100 that support > this kind of resolution... > > Unless you are using a notebook, which is a horrible image editing > environment anyway...you really might want to consider upgrading your > monitor/video card. > > This is like saying programmers should limit their program size so they can > fit on floppies...or something like that... Do you at least have a CD ROM > drive? >
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Kehl > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:36 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > Frank, > > What's a Luddite? : ) > > BK Someone who opposes technical or technological change. It's actually a term of derision, although I wasn't actually deriding Art, just trying to prod him a little. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
At 10:32 PM 7/03/01 -0500, you wrote: >> Do you guys want to alienate all amateurs on this list? ;) > >Of course not. There *was* a smile there! >> My visitor stats say that 80% of my visitors are using less than or equal >> to 1024x768. > >How do you know that is their display resolution, and not what their browser >is set to? I don't know how you do what you claim, so I have no idea how >you get that info. > >If my display information is being sent to someone, that would tick me off, >because it's none of their business what my display settings are. What else >gets sent? Sorry to give you the bad news, but if you surf around with java/javascript on, site counters will gather the following information and report it back to the site owner: - Your browser and version no. - Your operating system - Your resolution and color depth - Your domain (ie your country of origin, and even the server from which your connection emanates) - The referring site, ie the site or search engine from which you came By the way, the site doesn't have to display a site counter for this to happen, so you can't know when it occurs. Naughtier sites can even use trickery to collect your email name and some other personal info, but it depends on how your PC is configured. And also whether you have the latest Microsoft security hole-fixes! I agree with your concerns, I think a lot of it sucks too. Which is why I use a firewall, and I don't use Java on my sites, so at least visitors aren't *forced* to throw their info around! I am only interested in collecting the browser/resolution/color depth info because I work with many web pages and I always test the pages on the most common platforms/setups. Regards, Mark T. == Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
- Original Message - From: "Mark T." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 11:20 PM Subject: [OT] javascript/java (was RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution) > At 10:32 PM 7/03/01 -0500, you wrote: > >> My visitor stats say that 80% of my visitors are using less than or equal > >> to 1024x768. > > > >How do you know that is their display resolution, and not what their browser > >is set to? I don't know how you do what you claim, so I have no idea how > >you get that info. > > > >If my display information is being sent to someone, that would tick me off, > >because it's none of their business what my display settings are. What else > >gets sent? > > Sorry to give you the bad news, but if you surf around with java/javascript > on, site counters will gather the following information and report it back > to the site owner: > - Your browser and version no. > - Your operating system > - Your resolution and color depth > - Your domain (ie your country of origin, and even the server from which > your connection emanates) > - The referring site, ie the site or search engine from which you came just for the record, turning off javascript and/or java only prevents the capturing of resolution and color depth in the above list. the others are all gathered from your IP, your User Agent string (your browser sets this, although some browsers, not the major ones, let you play with it), and the referral field which is an HTTP environment variable extension (and some browsers, but not the major ones, will let you block). ~j
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
At 23:36 07-03-01 -0600, you wrote: >Frank, >What's a Luddite? : ) >BK From the dictionary- "Luddite:--One of the secret organisation of rioters in England (1811-1816) formed to smash the new textile machines.- From Ned Ludd who smashed two stocking frames in a house in Nottingham " In other words one who denies progress Stuart (Scotland)
AW: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
So what I have read in this thread is, that most of you try to get the highest possible resolution with a monitor and an acceptable refresh rate (by the way I think 75 Hz is NOT acceptable, as most screens are optimized to 85 Hz). But what do you win out of having a 17' with 1600*1200 or a 21' with 2xxx*?. In my opinion you "win" a worse image quality and far more problems with your eyes after hours of work. Most manufacturers suggest 1280*24 even with their 21'. And that are not the cheap ones but Eizo or Sony or Iiyama. You will give away a lot of the (expensively paid) image quality of your 21' with resolutions as high as possible. I would never go with 1600*1200. I prefer 1472*1104 with a Matrox G450 and Iiyama Vision Mater Pro510 22'. I have a crisp, sharp view, comfortably readable letters and enough space to work with (and this by sure is an excllent monitor), for the second display (Iiyama Vision Master Pro 450 19') I have 1280*960 with a GeForce2MX PCI. With these settings, the letters and icons are quite the same size on both screens, so I don't have to accomodate my eyes every time I switch. IMHO the most important thing is not having he highest resolution but the best quality, and that certainly not 1600*1200 even not with ANY 21 or 22' monitor. Elmar Elmar Pinkhardt Auf-dem-Kreuz 24 89073 Ulm Germany E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von Mark T. Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Marz 2001 08:20 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Frank Keep in mind that a lot of software will not run, or will not run correctly with Large or Scaled screen fonts. One of the first things Adobe recommends when you are having stability problems with their software ( Pagemaker, Photoshop, etc. ) is set the machine for small fonts. Some of the Kodak software will not run at all with scaled fonts. I'm running 1152 X 864 on a 19" Samsung 955DF monitor, small fonts, and it's comfortable to my 45yo eyes. If I go to any higher resolution, too many things on the screen are just too small... -- Jim Frank Paris wrote: > > All of that can be handled, since you can specify large icons, etc. > > Frank Paris > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > > > Lastly, even if > > my video card and monitor can produce 1600 x 1200 pixel screen, I'd be > > unlikely to use it that way, due to the way it would shrink icons, > > cursor and tool sizes on a 17" screen. > > > > Art >
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Elmar Pinkhardt > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 2:11 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: AW: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > So what I have read in this thread is, that most of you try to get the > highest possible resolution with a monitor and an acceptable refresh rate > (by the way I think 75 Hz is NOT acceptable, as most screens are optimized > to 85 Hz). What does it mean to optimize a screen to a refresh rate? What is acceptable is whether you can't notice flicker and can sit in the front of the monitor for hours without getting a headache. It's the bottom line that counts, not specs. What is bothersome varies from person to person. For me, 75 Hz is enough. But it's a combination of refresh rate and sharpness that prevents fatigue. If I ran my monitor at 85 Hz with the same resolution, I would wear out over the course of the day, because the monitor isn't as sharp AT MY CHOSEN RESOLUTION at 85 Hz. > But what do you win out of having a 17' with 1600*1200 or a 21' > with 2xxx*?. > In my opinion you "win" a worse image quality and far more problems with > your eyes after hours of work. > Most manufacturers suggest 1280*24 even with their 21'. And that > are not the > cheap ones but Eizo or Sony or Iiyama. Hitachi and Cornerstone recommend 1856x1392 for their top end 21" monitors. Those monitors are *designed* for those resolutions. > You will give away a lot of the (expensively paid) image quality > of your 21' > with resolutions as high as possible. That's usually true. But for example the highest possible resolutions of the Hitachi and Cornerstone top end monitors is 2048x1536. In order to get a top quality image at 1856x1392 these monitors have to be designed to display an even higher resolution image. It *works* at those higher resolutions, but by then lines begin to get fuzzy and viewer fatique is going to be the price. But at 1856x1392, everything is razor sharp and contrast is high. And since those monitors will run at 75 Hz at those resolutions without sacrificing sharpness, you can work with them 12 hours a day without getting fatigued at those resolutions. > I would never go with 1600*1200. Never say never. Don't be a Luddite. Here is a quote from an email I sent out to someone privately yesterday that I mean to be public for this list discussing these issues: It is always best to run your monitor at the highest resolution you can before the letters start getting blurry due to limited bandwidth of the video card or monitor itself (not due to failure of your eyesight!). Then set your fonts in the Control Panel/Display/Advanced/General to 125%. If that's still too small, use the Other... selection in the dropdown to customize the font size. The reason you want to do this is so that the pixels are as small as possible. This makes more pixels available for creating the fonts of the point size you need (as measured on the screen) to read comfortably, and then the characters are better rounded and easier on the eyes. It also makes bitmaps appear smoother since the pixel size will be smaller. Finally, there is less scrolling around to examine full-sized images. These are fundamental issues that for some reason are not widely appreciated, but should be easily understood by members of the filmscanner list since we're all up on resolution, etc. But remember my caveat: don't push your monitor to the point where lines start looking fuzzy, because then you're exceeding the capability of your hardware. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Yes, I forgot to mention that. It was in the back of my mind when I was writing one of my posts, but it never got out. I actually had to fix a program one that had this bug. Eventually, however, resolutions will be so high that we'll all have to set our fonts to >> 100% and programs that don't handle the problem will be weeded out by the masses. Virtually everything on the screen that gets too small with higher resolutions can be "fixed." Title bars for example can be made larger under Control Panel/Display Properties/Appearance/Scheme. Choose one that says "large". Believe me, it's worth digging around to solve all these problems to run at the resolution your monitor is optimized for, which apparently (from all the email being generated by this subject) is considerably higher than what most people are using. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Sharp > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 5:59 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > Frank > > Keep in mind that a lot of software will not run, or will not run > correctly with Large or Scaled screen fonts. One of the first things > Adobe recommends when you are having stability problems with their > software ( Pagemaker, Photoshop, etc. ) is set the machine for small > fonts. Some of the Kodak software will not run at all with scaled fonts. > > I'm running 1152 X 864 on a 19" Samsung 955DF monitor, small fonts, and > it's comfortable to my 45yo eyes. If I go to any higher resolution, too > many things on the screen are just too small... > > -- > Jim > > > Frank Paris wrote: > > > > All of that can be handled, since you can specify large icons, etc. > > > > Frank Paris > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > > > > > Lastly, even if > > > my video card and monitor can produce 1600 x 1200 pixel screen, I'd be > > > unlikely to use it that way, due to the way it would shrink icons, > > > cursor and tool sizes on a 17" screen. > > > > > > Art > >
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty > > Austin wrote: > > The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at > > least 1280x1024 is not untypical for most people who do > > image editing. In fact, I'd bet most on this list have > > 1600 x 1200. > > Geeze, Austin. Several people have already responded saying > they are editing files at resolutions as low as 640x480. I've > yet to hear a response from anyone else who uses 1280x1024 let > alone 1600x1200. I'd be very suprised if "most" people > regularly use 1280x1024 let alone anything higher. Well, here's your response. I bought a ViewSonic 19-inch monitor for $275USD (including $50 rebate) two months ago and run it at 1280x1024 @85 Hz. I set the desktop to large fonts and 48px icons and everything looks beautiful. Video card: nVidia Geforce2 GTS 32MB-DDR. Even with the 17" monitor I had before this I ran at 1280x1024 with a Matrox G400. For a couple of years actually. More pixels makes editing much easier. I run the same high screen resolution in RedHat Linux in a dual-boot setup. Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia http://www.enochsvision.com; http://www.bahaivision.com -- "Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object." ~Joseph Campbell
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
I'm reading the review now - it says that different monitor resolutions cannot be set only in the Windows NT/2000: "Under Windows NT/2000 you lose some flexibility in that your two displays cannot have resolutions independent of one another" Apparently resolution can be independent under Win98SE. Maris - Original Message - From: "Frank Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 12:22 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution | Funny that the user interface doesn't require the monitors run at the same | resolution. I have a 450 and I just looked. Actually haven't tried it, tho. | I had a 400 for about a year and replaced it with a 450 essentially so I | could give my son a nice Christmas present (the 400). The 400 produced | beautifully sharp images at 1856x1392, 32 bit color, and 75 Hz refresh rate | on my Cornerstone p1700. Can't say I notice any improvement on my 450, but | how can you improve on perfection? Funny how that "in depth" review never | actually did say how it actually *looked*. Just a lot of technical analysis | that doesn't amount to a hill of beans without actually checking it out. | There was no indication in the review that they even tried it. Personally, I | can vouch for it. The 450 AND the 400. For 2D stuff. Who cares about 3D? Not | filmscanners qua filmscanners. | | Frank Paris | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 | | > -Original Message- | > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eli Bowen | > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:36 PM | > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' | > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution | > | > | > Unfortunately, the Matrox "dual-head" cards require that the two | > monitors run at the same resolution, which can be a problem if | > your monitors | > are not the same size. | > We had one in my workgroup (the 400, not the newer 450) and it got | > passed around from person to person because no one liked it. | > Exactly why, I | > don't know, but no one seemed to be happy with it. | > Here is a very in-depth analysis of the 450: | > | > http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1315 | > | |
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
That kind of makes no sense. It is dependent on what size window one allows the browser to have. If one runs full screen on an 800x600 monitor, it's larger than a little window on a 1280x1024 display. How do you tell that? > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rick Berk > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 12:33 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > Most web hosting companies can get stats from users of their websites. You > can find out what browsers are most popular, resolution settings, among > other things. For me, as a web designer, such stats help me to create > websites that are more accessible to everyone. If I see everyone is using > 1024x768 or higher, I can design for that. If I see that 80% of my viewers > are at 800x600, then I must design to that size. Nobody likes to scroll > horizontally, and the resolution stat from my web host is a huge help in > keeping my site looking good at all resolutions and on all > platforms and in > all browsers. > Rick > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 10:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > > > Do you guys want to alienate all amateurs on this list? ;) > > Of course not. > > > My visitor stats say that 80% of my visitors are using less > than or equal > > to 1024x768. > > How do you know that is their display resolution, and not what > their browser > is set to? I don't know how you do what you claim, so I have no idea how > you get that info. > > If my display information is being sent to someone, that would > tick me off, > because it's none of their business what my display settings are. > What else > gets sent? > >
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Yes it can. I have two dual monitor systems. One has two separate ATI cards and the other has a single dual head Matrox 400 Millennium card. Both allow under Win 98 for the monitors to be independent of each other and to be set at different resolutions. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of IronWorks Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution I'm reading the review now - it says that different monitor resolutions cannot be set only in the Windows NT/2000: "Under Windows NT/2000 you lose some flexibility in that your two displays cannot have resolutions independent of one another" Apparently resolution can be independent under Win98SE. Maris - Original Message - From: "Frank Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 12:22 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution | Funny that the user interface doesn't require the monitors run at the same | resolution. I have a 450 and I just looked. Actually haven't tried it, tho. | I had a 400 for about a year and replaced it with a 450 essentially so I | could give my son a nice Christmas present (the 400). The 400 produced | beautifully sharp images at 1856x1392, 32 bit color, and 75 Hz refresh rate | on my Cornerstone p1700. Can't say I notice any improvement on my 450, but | how can you improve on perfection? Funny how that "in depth" review never | actually did say how it actually *looked*. Just a lot of technical analysis | that doesn't amount to a hill of beans without actually checking it out. | There was no indication in the review that they even tried it. Personally, I | can vouch for it. The 450 AND the 400. For 2D stuff. Who cares about 3D? Not | filmscanners qua filmscanners. | | Frank Paris | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 | | > -Original Message- | > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eli Bowen | > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:36 PM | > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' | > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution | > | > | > Unfortunately, the Matrox "dual-head" cards require that the two | > monitors run at the same resolution, which can be a problem if | > your monitors | > are not the same size. | > We had one in my workgroup (the 400, not the newer 450) and it got | > passed around from person to person because no one liked it. | > Exactly why, I | > don't know, but no one seemed to be happy with it. | > Here is a very in-depth analysis of the 450: | > | > http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1315 | > | |
AW: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Elmar Pinkhardt Auf-dem-Kreuz 24 89073 Ulm Germany Tel: (0731)21905 0170 474 3369 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von Frank Paris Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Marz 2001 15:55 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution Wht does it mean to optimize a screen to a refresh rate? What is acceptable is whether you can't notice flicker and can sit in the front of the monitor for hours without getting a headache. It's the bottom line that counts, not specs. What is bothersome varies from person to person. For me, 75 Hz is enough. But it's a combination of refresh rate and sharpness that prevents fatigue. If I ran my monitor at 85 Hz with the same resolution, I would wear out over the course of the day, because the monitor isn't as sharp AT MY CHOSEN RESOLUTION at 85 Hz. Well,what I wanted to say is, that the geometry settings are set with 85 Hz (thats why most monitor tests are made using 85 Hz) by the manufacturer. Try (just for fun) to adjust e.g. 1600X1200 with 100 Hz, you will have to enlarge or minimize the square size. Then draw a square, is it really a square what you see? Hitachi and Cornerstone recommend 1856x1392 for their top end 21" monitors. Those monitors are *designed* for those resolutions. The one thing is what monitors are able display the other thing is what they are physically able to display, that is dependent of the dot pitch. To be able to view real 1600x1200 you need a 21' with something about 0.25 dotpitch. The "high-end" Hitachy has a maximum dotpitch of 0.24. So you will get something more than 1600x1200 physically but I think you won't get 1856X1392. (Somewhere I have the formula to caclculate it correctly, but I can't find it at the moment). IMHO all the specs by the manufacturer like 2048*1536 (like Hitachy or Iiyama) just says that out of the highest possible refresh rates it is POSSIBLE to run these resolutions, if it is usefull is a very different question. Running more than the physically possibe is like having a midrange flatbed scanner that "is able" to scan with 2400 ppi, you will loose detail sharpness. That's usually true. But for example the highest possible resolutions of the Hitachi and Cornerstone top end monitors is 2048x1536. In order to get a top quality image at 1856x1392 these monitors have to be designed to display an even higher resolution image. It *works* at those higher resolutions, but by then lines begin to get fuzzy and viewer fatique is going to be the price. But at 1856x1392, everything is razor sharp and contrast is high. And since those monitors will run at 75 Hz at those resolutions without sacrificing sharpness, you can work with them 12 hours a day without getting fatigued at those resolutions. Never say never. Don't be a Luddite. Here is a quote from an email I sent out to someone privately yesterday that I mean to be public for this list discussing these issues: Of course you are right, I should never say never. It is always best to run your monitor at the highest resolution you can before the letters start getting blurry due to limited bandwidth of the video card or monitor itself (not due to failure of your eyesight!). Then set your fonts in the Control Panel/Display/Advanced/General to 125%. If that's still too small, use the Other... selection in the dropdown to customize the font size. The reason you want to do this is so that the pixels are as small as possible. This makes more pixels available for creating the fonts of the point size you need (as measured on the screen) to read comfortably, and then the characters are better rounded and easier on the eyes. It also makes bitmaps appear smoother since the pixel size will be smaller. Finally, there is less scrolling around to examine full-sized images. These are fundamental issues that for some reason are not widely appreciated, but should be easily understood by members of the filmscanner list since we're all up on resolution, etc. But remember my caveat: don't push your monitor to the point where lines start looking fuzzy, because then you're exceeding the capability of your hardware. Well, no comment. With up to date monitors the bandwith should never be the problem... BUT the pixels can't get smaller than the dotpitch Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Frank Paris wrote: > Virtually everything on the screen that gets too small with higher > resolutions can be "fixed." Title bars for example can be made larger under > Control Panel/Display Properties/Appearance/Scheme. Choose one that says > "large". Believe me, it's worth digging around to solve all these problems > to run at the resolution your monitor is optimized for, which apparently > (from all the email being generated by this subject) is considerably higher > than what most people are using. > Thanks for the nudge, Frank. I just bumped my resolution up, and I feel better already. --Alan
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty > > Austin wrote: > > The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at > > least 1280x1024 is not untypical for most people who do > > image editing. In fact, I'd bet most on this list have > > 1600 x 1200. > > Geeze, Austin. Several people have already responded saying > they are editing files at resolutions as low as 640x480. I've > yet to hear a response from anyone else who uses 1280x1024 let > alone 1600x1200. I'd be very suprised if "most" people > regularly use 1280x1024 let alone anything higher. I use my Sony 17" multiscan monitor at 1280x1024 @ 75Hz. I recently brought this for 250USD. It had 50USD mail-in-rebate. Sony did not pay the mail-in-rebate; gave a lame reason for it. If Sony had paid mail-in-rebate, I would have paid only 200USD. Bye Ramesh
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Maris wrote: > I'm reading the review now - it says that different monitor resolutions cannot be set only in the Windows NT/2000: >"Under Windows NT/2000 you lose some flexibility in that your >two displays >cannot have resolutions independent of one another" "Uncle Bill" strikes again! ;-) --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Maris wrote: > I'm reading the review now - it says that different monitor resolutions cannot be set only in the Windows NT/2000: >"Under Windows NT/2000 you lose some flexibility in that your >two displays >cannot have resolutions independent of one another" "Uncle Bill" strikes again! ;-) --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
OK, now I've gone all the way to 1600x1200, but I find my Photoshop palettes, and the font used in them, have gotten rather tiny. I don't see an obvious way to fix this. Can you help? Thanks, Alan
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Get a bigger monitor ;-) > OK, now I've gone all the way to 1600x1200, but I find my > Photoshop palettes, and the font used in them, have gotten > rather tiny. I don't see an obvious way to fix this. > Can you help?
AW: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Hello Alan, the size of the PS palettes and fonts can't be changed. I am afraid we have to live with it as it is. Elmar Pinkhardt Auf-dem-Kreuz 24 89073 Ulm Germany Tel: (0731)21905 0170 474 3369 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von Alan Shaw Gesendet: Freitag, 9. Marz 2001 00:08 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution OK, now I've gone all the way to 1600x1200, but I find my Photoshop palettes, and the font used in them, have gotten rather tiny. I don't see an obvious way to fix this. Can you help? Thanks, Alan
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Austin Franklin wrote: > > Get a bigger monitor ;-) > > > OK, now I've gone all the way to 1600x1200, but I find my > > Photoshop palettes, and the font used in them, have gotten > > rather tiny. I don't see an obvious way to fix this. > > Can you help? Actually, if there's no software solution to this, I think I'll do just the opposite: get a smaller monitor! I've already got my new Matrox G450 card, and once it's installed, I'll be able to move the palettes over from the 21" monitor (now running at 1600x1200) to the 17" which I'll keep at 1024x768!
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
What a nice and powerful Operating System ! And it is expensive too ! Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 8:42 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > Maris wrote: > > > I'm reading the review now - it says that different monitor resolutions > cannot be set only in the Windows NT/2000: > > >"Under Windows NT/2000 you lose some flexibility in that your > >two displays > >cannot have resolutions independent of one another" > > "Uncle Bill" strikes again! ;-) > > > --- > FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com > Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com > >
AW: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
To be more acurate about physical resolution: It is quite simple to calculate and I won't tell you anything new: If you have a monitor with a maximum dot pitch of 0.24mm and a viewable image area of 406*305 mm (these are the specs of the Hitachi CM823F) your maximum physical resolution is horizontal 406/(1/0.24)= 1691 So 1691*x is what you get. Even if you say that its average dot pitch is somewhere about 0.23 mm you don't get 1856*1392. You can't get anything more without loss of image quality, even if the fairytales of most manufacturers try to tell you something different. By the way, what do you really win out of a higher resolution? The palettes, the fonts, the icons are smaller but the viewable area remains the same. To look at an image in full screen mode in PS you just have the monitors viewable area as the limit either with 1280*960 or 1600*1200. Elmar Elmar Pinkhardt Auf-dem-Kreuz 24 89073 Ulm Germany E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von Elmar Pinkhardt Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Marz 2001 18:38 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: AW: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution Wichtigkeit: Hoch Elmar Pinkhardt Auf-dem-Kreuz 24 89073 Ulm Germany Tel: (0731)21905 0170 474 3369 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von Frank Paris Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Marz 2001 15:55 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution The one thing is what monitors are able display the other thing is what they are physically able to display, that is dependent of the dot pitch. To be able to view real 1600x1200 you need a 21' with something about 0.25 dotpitch. The "high-end" Hitachy has a maximum dotpitch of 0.24. So you will get something more than 1600x1200 physically but I think you won't get 1856X1392. (Somewhere I have the formula to caclculate it correctly, but I can't find it at the moment). IMHO all the specs by the manufacturer like 2048*1536 (like Hitachy or Iiyama) just says that out of the highest possible refresh rates it is POSSIBLE to run these resolutions, if it is usefull is a very different question. Running more than the physically possibe is like having a midrange flatbed scanner that "is able" to scan with 2400 ppi, you will loose detail sharpness.
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
They don't increase in size when you set the font larger? Normal dialogs do. These are tool dialogs and if they don't resize with the font increase, I'd complain to Bill Gates. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alan Shaw > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 3:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > OK, now I've gone all the way to 1600x1200, but I find my > Photoshop palettes, and the font used in them, have gotten > rather tiny. I don't see an obvious way to fix this. > Can you help? > > Thanks, > > Alan
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Perfect! I should do that. I even have a 17" Hitachi monitor that is going to waste in the garage. Too lazy to clean off the desk and make room for it! Actually, I'd probably have to buy another house to find the room to put the stuff on my desk to make room for the second monitor! Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alan Shaw > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 4:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > Austin Franklin wrote: > > > > Get a bigger monitor ;-) > > > > > OK, now I've gone all the way to 1600x1200, but I find my > > > Photoshop palettes, and the font used in them, have gotten > > > rather tiny. I don't see an obvious way to fix this. > > > Can you help? > > Actually, if there's no software solution to this, > I think I'll do just the opposite: get a smaller monitor! > I've already got my new Matrox G450 card, and once > it's installed, I'll be able to move the palettes > over from the 21" monitor (now running at 1600x1200) > to the 17" which I'll keep at 1024x768!
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
You spoke too soon. It wasn't Uncle Bill. It was a bug in the Matrox drivers. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 11:43 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > Maris wrote: > > > I'm reading the review now - it says that different monitor resolutions > cannot be set only in the Windows NT/2000: > > >"Under Windows NT/2000 you lose some flexibility in that your > >two displays > >cannot have resolutions independent of one another" > > "Uncle Bill" strikes again! ;-) > > > --- > FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com > Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com > >
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Elmar Pinkhardt > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:38 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: AW: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > The "high-end" Hitachy has a maximum dotpitch of 0.24. So you will get > something more than 1600x1200 physically but I think you won't get > 1856X1392. Your information is incorrect. The horizontal dot pitch of the Hitachi and Cornerstone monitors is .22mm. This works out to almost exactly 1856. The vertical is .14. > > With up to date monitors the bandwith should > never be the > problem... That's not true, even with the Hitachi and Cornerstone monitors. They have several models, and the lower ends can't even physically do 1856x1392. They won't synch. The tubes are up to it, the electronics aren't. > BUT the pixels can't get smaller than the dotpitch And running the Hitachi and Cornerstone monitors they don't. At 1856x1392 the pixels line up almost exactly with the dot pitch which is what, among other things such as razor sharp convergence, makes these monitors so sharp. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Funny guy... Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 4:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > Get a bigger monitor ;-) > > > OK, now I've gone all the way to 1600x1200, but I find my > > Photoshop palettes, and the font used in them, have gotten > > rather tiny. I don't see an obvious way to fix this. > > Can you help? >
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Elmar Pinkhardt > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 6:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: AW: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > If you have a monitor with a maximum dot pitch of 0.24mm and a viewable > image area of 406*305 mm (these are the specs of the Hitachi CM823F) your > maximum physical resolution is horizontal 406/(1/0.24)= 1691 > So 1691*x is what you get. > Even if you say that its average dot pitch is somewhere about 0.23 mm you > don't get 1856*1392. > You can't get anything more without loss of image quality, even if the > fairytales of most manufacturers try to tell you something different. Again, your spec is wrong on the Hitachi 81x and Cornerstone p1x00 (5, 6, 7) monitors. It is .22. > > By the way, what do you really win out of a higher resolution? I've explained it already, several times. You get finer dot pitch, and so images and fonts of the same physical size look smoother. What would you rather look at all day, a 12 point font that is constructed with 8 vertical dots or one constructed with 20 vertical dots? That's about the difference between 800x600 and 1856x1392. I don't understand why this isn't a no-brainer. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Frank, I believe that fonts and dialog boxes that belong to Windows are adjusted when one make the font size and dialog box size changes in the control panel; but the Photoshop fonts and dialog boxes, pallets, etc are application specific to Photoshop and are unaffected by changes made in the OS settings. They are all fixed by Adobe. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Paris Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 8:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution They don't increase in size when you set the font larger? Normal dialogs do. These are tool dialogs and if they don't resize with the font increase, I'd complain to Bill Gates. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alan Shaw > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 3:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > OK, now I've gone all the way to 1600x1200, but I find my > Photoshop palettes, and the font used in them, have gotten > rather tiny. I don't see an obvious way to fix this. > Can you help? > > Thanks, > > Alan
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
No, actually they are a special kind of dialog that are embedded in Windows that any app can program to. All you do is specify that the title bar be for a tool and you get those kind of dialogs, which evidently don't scale, so it is Bill Gates' fault, not Adobe's. Adobe is just using a standard Windows facility. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 8:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > Frank, > I believe that fonts and dialog boxes that belong to Windows are adjusted > when one make the font size and dialog box size changes in the control > panel; but the Photoshop fonts and dialog boxes, pallets, etc are > application specific to Photoshop and are unaffected by changes > made in the > OS settings. They are all fixed by Adobe. >
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
on 3/8/01 8:17 PM, Frank Paris at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Elmar Pinkhardt >> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 6:26 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: AW: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution >> >> >> If you have a monitor with a maximum dot pitch of 0.24mm and a viewable >> image area of 406*305 mm (these are the specs of the Hitachi CM823F) your >> maximum physical resolution is horizontal 406/(1/0.24)= 1691 >> So 1691*x is what you get. >> Even if you say that its average dot pitch is somewhere about 0.23 mm you >> don't get 1856*1392. >> You can't get anything more without loss of image quality, even if the >> fairytales of most manufacturers try to tell you something different. > > Again, your spec is wrong on the Hitachi 81x and Cornerstone p1x00 (5, 6, 7) > monitors. It is .22. >> >> By the way, what do you really win out of a higher resolution? > > I've explained it already, several times. You get finer dot pitch, and so > images and fonts of the same physical size look smoother. What would you > rather look at all day, a 12 point font that is constructed with 8 vertical > dots or one constructed with 20 vertical dots? That's about the difference > between 800x600 and 1856x1392. I don't understand why this isn't a > no-brainer. > > Frank Paris > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > > I suppose this has all been gone over before, but I guess I missed it. Seems to me that it is a no brainer IF one wants to see the entire image area at the higher resolution. Otherwise, one can always pan across with the sliders, right? So you can see the detail fine without the large monitor. OTOH, who could complain about full image at high resolution? And the monitor dot pitch does limit the quality of the image on the screen, and so isn't it true that manufacturer's claims fail to acknowledge that limitation when they make resolution claims like 1200 x 1600 for a 17" monitor with 16" vis? Of course, they often do state a recommended resolution. I do know that my home monitor, a 15" NEC (13.8" vis) at 768 x 1024 certainly does not match my 19" Dell Trinitron at the same resolution, that I have at work. Other than that, I am not speaking from experience, but just exploring the issues. But isn't it true that the number of pixels on the screen is more constraining than the "resolution"? I also read about the triadic structure of each screen pixel, so that you can actually get an effective resolution greater than the 0.25 or whatever, with a capable video card, but--as I understand it--not greater color resolution. Do I sort of have this right? It seems that 19" or larger monitors are preferred by many on this list who have expressed an opinion about this matter. I am still working with a 15" but am looking forward to working with adding another monitor, either 17" Apple or 19" something else. It would be nice to get the menus and tools out of the way. -Berry
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Berry Ives > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:41 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > I also read about the triadic structure of each screen pixel, so that you > can actually get an effective resolution greater than the 0.25 or > whatever, > with a capable video card, but--as I understand it--not greater color > resolution. Do I sort of have this right? Not sure what you mean by color resolution. The color gamut of a monitor would be limited by the color purity of the phosphors as well as by the achievable contrast that's for sure, and they seem to have been improving over the years. I can only say that from experience, not from anything I've heard about being measured. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
I don't think that's true with the latest drivers, although I haven't got my new G450 working out of VGA mode at all yet :-( [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eli Bowen) wrote: > Unfortunately, the Matrox "dual-head" cards require that the two > monitors run at the same resolution, which can be a problem if your > monitors > are not the same size. > We had one in my workgroup (the 400, not the newer 450) and it got > passed around from person to person because no one liked it. Exactly > why, I > don't know, but no one seemed to be happy with it. > Here is a very in-depth analysis of the 450: > > http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1315 > > -Original Message- > From: Frank Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > Try Matrox's latest, the 450, for $150. It has two video outputs build > in. > One you can run one at 1600x1200, the other up to 2048x1536. Takes only > one > slot. > > Frank Paris > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eli Bowen > > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:33 PM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > > > > I use twin 21" monitors at work under Win2K. Once you have tried > > twin monitors you will be spoiled forever. > > It is not necessary to have two identical video cards, but some > > cards are not compatible with others. Try before you buy, or get a > > return > > guarantee. Matrox cards have had more than average compatibility > > problems in > > my experience. > >
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Poor old Bill seems to be getting a lot of undeserved flak here! If Photoshop isn't using large fonts properly it's obviously Adobe to blame. There are still too many Mac-like features in Photoshop on the PC. I especially dislike that nonsense about having to set how much memory it uses, and those Adobe-only tabbed dialogues instead of using the standard controls which would adapt automatically to things like small/large fonts. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Paris) wrote: > They don't increase in size when you set the font larger? Normal > dialogs do. > These are tool dialogs and if they don't resize with the font increase, > I'd > complain to Bill Gates. > > Frank Paris > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alan Shaw > > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 3:08 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > > > > OK, now I've gone all the way to 1600x1200, but I find my > > Photoshop palettes, and the font used in them, have gotten > > rather tiny. I don't see an obvious way to fix this. > > Can you help? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alan > >
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Mark T. wrote: > > Sorry to give you the bad news, but if you surf around with java/javascript > on, site counters will gather the following information and report it back > to the site owner: > - Your browser and version no. > - Your operating system > - Your resolution and color depth > - Your domain (ie your country of origin, and even the server from which > your connection emanates) > - The referring site, ie the site or search engine from which you came > > By the way, the site doesn't have to display a site counter for this to > happen, so you can't know when it occurs. > > > I am only interested in collecting the browser/resolution/color depth info > because I work with many web pages and I always test the pages on the most > common platforms/setups. > > Regards, Mark T. I'm waiting for the monitor salesmen to start calling, or at least leaving e-mail messages... "Being that you are still browsing the web with an antiquated 17" monitor, and missing the visual splendor of 1600 x 1200 pixel screen size, we have an offer you can't refuse..." "Act now, before you're the last one on your block who isn't watching internet porn on a wide 21" screen!" "Imagine the colors, the detail and definition you are missing... No more squinting! No more wondering it that's a freckle or a pimple on his/her butt! A 21" monitor is like looking through your neighbor's window with high priced binoculars!" "Don't wait another minute, don't become an overnight Luddite, click this link, and just say "yes" to our special offer... you won't regret it! http://www.size.does.matter.com Scanners... oh, I thought you said scammers! (sorry, never mind!) Art
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Frank Paris wrote: > All of that can be handled, since you can specify large icons, etc. > > Frank Paris > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > Does using "large icons" also increase menu and tool sizes within a program, like Photoshop? Inquiring minds want to know! ;-) Art > >> Lastly, even if >> my video card and monitor can produce 1600 x 1200 pixel screen, I'd be >> unlikely to use it that way, due to the way it would shrink icons, >> cursor and tool sizes on a 17" screen. >> >> Art > >
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Hi! I would prefer that vuescan be optimized for the higher resolutions, or better yet, there be a way to switch between optimizations (something in vuescan.ini, for example). I run 1600x1200 on my work computer and on my home Internet and general purpose computer, but since my wife prefers the 19"monitor on that computer (for her eyesight), I am still using my old 15" monitor on my Scanning/Photoshop computer (the faster one with the most memory). Due to the age of the monitor, I can't run it at greater than 60Hz at over 1024x768 resolution, which is ok, but not optimal. I will be purchasing a new monitor someday (after I buy some new lighting equipment for taking the pictures in the first place!;-)), so I WILL be wanting the high res capability. Is it possible to write the software to detect the resolution being used and size things accordingly??? Back when I used an electronics CAD package called P-CAD, I could set the text sizes to a size that made (in effect) small tabs and thus maximized the drawing area. I could optimize it for whichever monitor I was using at the time ( I went through quite a few between ~1987 and 1997!). I found this to be a very satisfactory solution at the time. My two cents Guy Clark
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Laurie Solomon wrote: >> Most people are using 17" monitors these days, >> which is the sweet spot in the pricing structure right now > > > Not in my neck of the woods. Actually, at least where I live, 19" monitors > are the current popular models and tend to be the sweet spot in terms of > pricing. I would venture to say that this has been the case for the last > year or more. > I'm trying to recall where your neck is located ;-) I'm sure in the US of Consumption, 19" monitors are "sweet", but I doubt that's the case in the rest of the world, certainly still isn't in Western Canada, in fact, most computers are offered with 14"-15" monitors with 17" being an "upgrade". Art
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Please do run a survey, and post the results. I'll happily admit I'm wrong if I am. Until 12 months ago, I ran my system on a 13-14" monitor (we use different measurements in Canada, they are based upon the visible display rather than the size of the CRT) originally running 640 x 480, then moving to 800 x 600, when I upgraded the video card. I then upgraded to new system with a 17" monitor and upped the resolution to 1024 x 768, which I use today. I have used Photoshop since version 2.5, which was at least 7-8 years ago and I use it most days, so don't tell me people don't use 640 x 480 or 800 x 600 with Photoshop, because they do, on this very list. Art Austin Franklin wrote: >>> The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at least >> >> 1280x1024 is >> >>> not untypical for most people who do image editing. In fact, >> >> I'd bet most >> >>> on this list have 1600 x 1200. >>> >> >> I'd bet you are wrong. Most people are using 17" monitors these days, >> which is the sweet spot in the pricing structure right now, and although >> people doing scanning "might" push that number a bit, > > > How much would you be willing to bet? "Most people" is distinctly different > than "most people who have filmscanners", which is what this mailing list is > about. > > How many people on this list do you think use PhotoShop? I believe PS has a > higher user interface requirements than the scanner driver, which was the > origin of this discussion (scanner driver screen space requirements).
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Derek Clarke > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 3:57 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > Poor old Bill seems to be getting a lot of undeserved flak here! > > If Photoshop isn't using large fonts properly it's obviously Adobe to > blame. What you say is true. It's your conditional I question. I don't think that Photoshop is not using large fonts properly. It's just that it has chosen tool dialogs (a specific Windows property of dialogs) for some of its dialogs, and it looks like they don't size with the font size. I need to investigate this further, programmatically, but I'm almost sure that this is a Microsoft problem, not an Adobe problem. Maybe this weekend, I'll find time to write a little program and find out for sure. When a program has a bug in it because it's not handling large fonts properly, sections of the screen get truncated, for example, words overrun the size of buttons. This happens when controls are programmatically fixed in pixel width, instead of being allowed to size dynamically by the system. A program has to go out of its way to fail when the font size changes. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Robert Kehl wrote: > - Original Message - > From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:18 PM > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > >> >> You are making a number of assumptions which may not hold true for many >> monitors and video cards. You are assuming that most monitors and cards >> are sharper when placed in a higher pixel mode, and that more than >> likely is actually not true. >> > > > No assumptions Arthur. Most monitors/video cards look better at higher > resolutions. Only the best monitors/video cards look good at their highest > resolutions. You may have to back off a step, but 640x480 or 800x600 is > antique. > > I've been designing and specifying graphics display systems (both monitors > and large screen) for about 15 years. I've followed the evolution of the PC > and it's graphics modes starting with CGA. I'm familiar with all that > you've mentioned and in some cases your concerns are true. > > All I'm saying is for those who haven't tried a higher resolution, give it a > try. It may look better. But if you don't try it out, you'll never know. > I never switched my monitor/video card into 1600x1200 until I started > running Photoshop. On my particular equipment (not highend graphics > equipment) it looked better. If it doesn't look better on yours don't use > it. But if it does, you'll be happy you tried it. What do think Arthur. > Can you agree with that? > > No! It's against my religious belief system ;-) My comments were only so people weren't disappointed if their results weren't as positive as yours have been, and I did want people to be aware of issues and pitfalls with higher resolution and higher frequencies with monitors, especially lower priced ones. Of course, people can try higher resolutions on their monitor screens. With Windows 95, and especially older monitors, they should be aware of two things. One, some monitors will literally fail if overdriven in terms of frequency (newer ones are built to withstand a short period of over driving) and secondly, that sometimes the monitors will temporarily go out of synch if you do beyond the their range, and it's a real pain in Windows 95 (at least) because you can't see the screen to put it back to the correct resolution, and I've had a few cases where even trying to use safe mode didn't correct the problem. Otherwise, with those caveats in mind, people should play to their heart's desires. Art
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Clark Guy > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 6:16 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > Hi! > > Is it possible to write the software to detect the resolution > being used and > size things accordingly??? Absolutely. This is why I suggested to Ed to fill the display with the scanned image. Here I am running his app at 1856x1392 and there are large blank areas when the scan is complete. The program doesn't have to act this way. This is how Photoshop knows how much to reduce an incoming image when it displays it for the first time. It makes it as large as it can without requiring scroll bars (while still using an integral divisor when it decimates). Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Frank Paris wrote: >> Oh, did I mention your monitor will probably burn out sooner at that >> screen mode? > > > Why? Because it's running at a higher frequencies? That's like saying a 33 > Mhz Pentium will last longer than a 900 MHz Pentium III. Well, it just might, actually ;-) What I've found is > that modern monitors running at much higher frequencies last a lot longer > than monitors built five and ten years ago that run at much lower > frequencies. I'll agree that this is true, in fact, I stated this some months back about monitors of the recent past. Some people are still using those monitors, in which case they need to be particularly careful about not overdriving them. But my point is that on the same monitor, even a newer one, running at higher frequencies wears the electronics harder than at lower frequencies. They've figured this stuff out, Art. There's no percentage in > being a Luddite these days when it comes to video technology. > > Is that a slur on my religion? ;-) Wasn't there a guy who sent out parcels with stuff that went boom as a result of such talk? Seems these days, if you haven't bought the "hot stuff" for a month or two, you've fallen into the "Luddite Zone"... My backup computer is a Timex/Sinclaire! Luddites Unite! Art
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Not in my experience; it only increases menu and tool sizes in the OS interface and maybe Microsoft applications. A number of independent applications have fixed menu and tool sizes built into their programs which adjust with the changes in resolution but not with changes in the OS settings for menu and font sizes. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 5:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution Frank Paris wrote: > All of that can be handled, since you can specify large icons, etc. > > Frank Paris > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > Does using "large icons" also increase menu and tool sizes within a program, like Photoshop? Inquiring minds want to know! ;-) Art > >> Lastly, even if >> my video card and monitor can produce 1600 x 1200 pixel screen, I'd be >> unlikely to use it that way, due to the way it would shrink icons, >> cursor and tool sizes on a 17" screen. >> >> Art > >
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
My neck is located in East Central Illinois. If you look at all the pre-packaged systems advertised in the newspapers and in catalogs, they are offered with 17" monitors with 19" being the upgrade; but they have been changing to making 19" monitors the standard monitor offering rather the 17." However, stand alone monitor purchases and pricing for the past year plus have been 19" monitors - especially in places like Best Buy and Circuit City, Staples and Office Depot, and many of the larger mail order places. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 6:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution Laurie Solomon wrote: >> Most people are using 17" monitors these days, >> which is the sweet spot in the pricing structure right now > > > Not in my neck of the woods. Actually, at least where I live, 19" monitors > are the current popular models and tend to be the sweet spot in terms of > pricing. I would venture to say that this has been the case for the last > year or more. > I'm trying to recall where your neck is located ;-) I'm sure in the US of Consumption, 19" monitors are "sweet", but I doubt that's the case in the rest of the world, certainly still isn't in Western Canada, in fact, most computers are offered with 14"-15" monitors with 17" being an "upgrade". Art
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Arthur Entlich wrote: > Lastly, even if > my video card and monitor can produce 1600 x 1200 pixel screen, I'd be > unlikely to use it that way, due to the way it would shrink icons, > cursor and tool sizes on a 17" screen. I think the sweetspot is now at 19". My wife, who uses her PC mostly for email, has a 19", and it wasn't expensive (albeit not a top brand). I've got a 21" one (and am running the 1600x1200 mentioned). I think 17" ones are about the smallest one can buy nowdays (other than for LCD flatpanels). "Shrinking icons", etc, can be a problem sometimes (in Adobe Golive in particular), but it's also the reason to run the higher resolution. Doing so "fits" more things on the screen at once. Mike K.
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Hey, a PCAD user! That's the software I use to make a living. -- Jim - Just another hardware designer... Clark Guy wrote: > > Hi! > > Is it possible to write the software to detect the resolution being used and > size things accordingly??? Back when I used an electronics CAD package > called P-CAD, I could set the text sizes to a size that made (in effect) > small tabs and thus maximized the drawing area. I could optimize it for > whichever monitor I was using at the time ( I went through quite a few > between ~1987 and 1997!). I found this to be a very satisfactory solution > at the time. > > My two cents > > Guy Clark
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Laurie Solomon wrote: > My neck is located in East Central Illinois. If you look at all the > pre-packaged systems advertised in the newspapers and in catalogs, they are > offered with 17" monitors with 19" being the upgrade; but they have been > changing to making 19" monitors the standard monitor offering rather the > 17." However, stand alone monitor purchases and pricing for the past year > plus have been 19" monitors - especially in places like Best Buy and Circuit > City, Staples and Office Depot, and many of the larger mail order places. > I guess we had a choice between cheap monitors or Nationalized Health Care, and decided on the latter. ;-) Although prices on 19" monitors have dropped here as well, the 17" are still the sweet point, and prices are still a bit "dear" on the 19" and above. Oh, well, another year or so... Art
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Once again, everything you say is likely true in the United States of Waste and Consumption, but it sure isn't true here in Western Canada, and I bet it also isn't true in Europe, Australia, and most other places. Art Mike Kersenbrock wrote: > Arthur Entlich wrote: > > >> Lastly, even if >> my video card and monitor can produce 1600 x 1200 pixel screen, I'd be >> unlikely to use it that way, due to the way it would shrink icons, >> cursor and tool sizes on a 17" screen. > > > I think the sweetspot is now at 19". My wife, who uses her PC mostly > for email, has a 19", and it wasn't expensive (albeit not a top brand). > I've got a 21" one (and am running the 1600x1200 mentioned). I think > 17" ones are about the smallest one can buy nowdays (other than for LCD > flatpanels). > > "Shrinking icons", etc, can be a problem sometimes (in Adobe Golive > in particular), but it's also the reason to run the higher resolution. > Doing so "fits" more things on the screen at once. > > Mike K.
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
At 03:26 10-03-01 -0800, you wrote: >Once again, everything you say is likely true in the United States of >Waste and Consumption, but it sure isn't true here in Western Canada, and >I bet it also isn't true in Europe, Australia, and most other places. > >Art What !!- u mean there are other countries in the world apart from America -well blow me down . Stuart (Scotland )
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Stuart wrote: > >Once again, everything you say is likely true in the United States of > >Waste and Consumption, but it sure isn't true here in Western Canada, and > >I bet it also isn't true in Europe, Australia, and most other places. > > > >Art > > What !!- u mean there are other countries in the world apart from > America -well blow me down . > Stuart (Scotland ) One of the newer PC vendors in town (here in Oregon, U.S.A.) is a Tiny one from the U.K., and they advertise they have the best deals. so I'd then assume that the U.K. would perhaps have even lower prices than here in the U.S. (and this area has generally low prices with heavy competition from small chains like Fry's and klone-stores on most every corner). Mike K.
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Paris) wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Derek Clarke > > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 3:57 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > > > > Poor old Bill seems to be getting a lot of undeserved flak here! > > > > If Photoshop isn't using large fonts properly it's obviously Adobe to > > blame. > > What you say is true. It's your conditional I question. I don't think > that > Photoshop is not using large fonts properly. It's just that it has > chosen > tool dialogs (a specific Windows property of dialogs) for some of its > dialogs, and it looks like they don't size with the font size. I need to > investigate this further, programmatically, but I'm almost sure that > this is > a Microsoft problem, not an Adobe problem. Maybe this weekend, I'll find > time to write a little program and find out for sure. > > When a program has a bug in it because it's not handling large fonts > properly, sections of the screen get truncated, for example, words > overrun > the size of buttons. This happens when controls are programmatically > fixed > in pixel width, instead of being allowed to size dynamically by the > system. > A program has to go out of its way to fail when the font size changes. > > > Frank Paris > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 An inappropriate choice of control is just as much a bug as writing it incorrectly yourself! You can't really argue that Adobe didn't have the opportunity to test their work, considering the length of time that elapses between versions.
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 3:26 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > Once again, everything you say is likely true in the United States of > Waste and Consumption, but it sure isn't true here in Western Canada, > and I bet it also isn't true in Europe, Australia, and most other places. > > Art I believe the United States should take over western Canada and bring you guys up to speed. And don't tell me about waste and consumption. I know what your government has done to some of the canyons in B.C.: logged out all the timber, then scraped the bottom down to bare granite for all the minerals. Those valleys won't recover for thousands of years. Of course we do the same thing. Maybe we even taught you how. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Derek Clarke > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 8:51 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > An inappropriate choice of control is just as much a bug as writing it > incorrectly yourself! The choice of tool windows is not an inappropriate choice. They are using them for the exact purpose Microsoft intended them. > You can't really argue that Adobe didn't have the opportunity to test > their work, considering the length of time that elapses between versions. I am far from arguing that. Just the opposite. Obviously, Adobe would consider the fixed pixel dimensions of their tool windows a design decision and they had to carefully program it to make it work. It's just that it is a design decision that will become increasingly less effective as the resolution of monitors continues to increase. I suspect that the base class for their tool windows will become even more complex as they try to adjust for different classes of users, judging from their screen resolution and selected font size. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
I concur with you that fixed fonts, menus, dialog boxes, and tool boxes are a design decision by Adobe. My understanding from posts over the years in a number of forums and mailing lists was that the decision was made that it was too much of a pain in the programming ass to program for dynamic dialog boxes and fonts in their interface because any change in font size toward the larger would overrun the space allocated for buttons, dialog boxes, and menus while allowing for dynamic dialog boxes, buttons, palettes, etc. makes laying out the interface very complex and costly. Back when this argument was made in earnest, it may have been the case; but with the introduction of floating dialog boxes, toolboxes, and palettes, I am not sure that the arguments against dynamic fonts and dialog boxes is valid anymore. I suppose they selected an average size font for the monitors in popular use by their clients at the time the decision was made to stick with fixed fonts and dialog boxes; this leads me to believe that as monitor sizes increase and display resolutions rise, Adobe will not move away from fixed font sizes but will just move up to a larger fixed font size that represents the new average of the monitors being used by its customers. However, only time will tell. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Paris Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 11:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Derek Clarke > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 8:51 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > An inappropriate choice of control is just as much a bug as writing it > incorrectly yourself! The choice of tool windows is not an inappropriate choice. They are using them for the exact purpose Microsoft intended them. > You can't really argue that Adobe didn't have the opportunity to test > their work, considering the length of time that elapses between versions. I am far from arguing that. Just the opposite. Obviously, Adobe would consider the fixed pixel dimensions of their tool windows a design decision and they had to carefully program it to make it work. It's just that it is a design decision that will become increasingly less effective as the resolution of monitors continues to increase. I suspect that the base class for their tool windows will become even more complex as they try to adjust for different classes of users, judging from their screen resolution and selected font size. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Low prices; but probably a very heavy VAT tax in country and a mighty shipping charge out of country. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Kersenbrock Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 10:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution Stuart wrote: > >Once again, everything you say is likely true in the United States of > >Waste and Consumption, but it sure isn't true here in Western Canada, and > >I bet it also isn't true in Europe, Australia, and most other places. > > > >Art > > What !!- u mean there are other countries in the world apart from > America -well blow me down . > Stuart (Scotland ) One of the newer PC vendors in town (here in Oregon, U.S.A.) is a Tiny one from the U.K., and they advertise they have the best deals. so I'd then assume that the U.K. would perhaps have even lower prices than here in the U.S. (and this area has generally low prices with heavy competition from small chains like Fry's and klone-stores on most every corner). Mike K.
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
>I guess we had a choice between cheap monitors or Nationalized Health >Care, and decided on the latter If it were up to me, that would have been my choice also. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 5:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution Laurie Solomon wrote: > My neck is located in East Central Illinois. If you look at all the > pre-packaged systems advertised in the newspapers and in catalogs, they are > offered with 17" monitors with 19" being the upgrade; but they have been > changing to making 19" monitors the standard monitor offering rather the > 17." However, stand alone monitor purchases and pricing for the past year > plus have been 19" monitors - especially in places like Best Buy and Circuit > City, Staples and Office Depot, and many of the larger mail order places. > I guess we had a choice between cheap monitors or Nationalized Health Care, and decided on the latter. ;-) Although prices on 19" monitors have dropped here as well, the 17" are still the sweet point, and prices are still a bit "dear" on the 19" and above. Oh, well, another year or so... Art
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
>>Once again, everything you say is likely true in the United States of >>Waste and Consumption, but it sure isn't true here in Western Canada, and >>I bet it also isn't true in Europe, Australia, and most other places. >> >>Art >What !!- u mean there are other countries in the world >apart from America -well blow me down . > >Stuart (Scotland ) You guys are just lucky you can joke about it in your native tongues! ;-) LRA-USofA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
At 08:23 10-03-01 -0800, you wrote: >Stuart wrote: > > > >Once again, everything you say is likely true in the United States of > > >Waste and Consumption, but it sure isn't true here in Western Canada, and > > >I bet it also isn't true in Europe, Australia, and most other places. > > > > > >Art > > > > What !!- u mean there are other countries in the world apart from > > America -well blow me down . > > Stuart (Scotland ) > >One of the newer PC vendors in town (here in Oregon, U.S.A.) is a Tiny one >from the U.K., and they advertise they have the best deals. so I'd then >assume that the U.K. would perhaps have even lower prices than here >in the U.S. (and this area has generally low prices with heavy >competition from small chains like Fry's and klone-stores on most >every corner). > >Mike K. I don,t think that the UK has low prices for anything -except maybe wages Stuart
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 11:05 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > I concur with you that fixed fonts, menus, dialog boxes, and tool > boxes are > a design decision by Adobe. My understanding from posts over the > years in a > number of forums and mailing lists was that the decision was made that it > was too much of a pain in the programming ass to program for > dynamic dialog > boxes and fonts in their interface because any change in font size toward > the larger would overrun the space allocated for buttons, dialog > boxes, and > menus while allowing for dynamic dialog boxes, buttons, palettes, > etc. makes > laying out the interface very complex and costly. I can't speak for the Macintosh, but under Windows this all happens automatically. You have to go out of your way to stop it. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Well, Frank, I cannot speak about the Mac since I have never owned or operated one. I am not in any way attempting to refute what you say, since I am not knowledgeable in engineering or programming issues; all I have attempted to do is pass on the information I have been given over the years as to why fonts and dialog boxes, menus and toolboxes, and pallets are fixed and designed to be so. A similar situation exists apparently with respect to the number of item that can be listed in the Photoshop filters menu. It is finitely defined by Adobe in such a manner that third parties cannot design applications to get around that limitation even though there is nothing in the Windows OS that restricts the number of items that can be put in any single dialog box or menu. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Paris Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 5:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 11:05 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > I concur with you that fixed fonts, menus, dialog boxes, and tool > boxes are > a design decision by Adobe. My understanding from posts over the > years in a > number of forums and mailing lists was that the decision was made that it > was too much of a pain in the programming ass to program for > dynamic dialog > boxes and fonts in their interface because any change in font size toward > the larger would overrun the space allocated for buttons, dialog > boxes, and > menus while allowing for dynamic dialog boxes, buttons, palettes, > etc. makes > laying out the interface very complex and costly. I can't speak for the Macintosh, but under Windows this all happens automatically. You have to go out of your way to stop it. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Lynn Allen wrote: > > You guys are just lucky you can joke about it in your native tongues! ;-) > > LRA-USofA > That would be "Oh, Canada, our home and native tongues"... ;-) Unfortunately, I don't speak Inuit, or any other aboriginal dialect. Art
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Frank Paris wrote: > > I believe the United States should take over western Canada and bring you > guys up to speed. And don't tell me about waste and consumption. I know what > your government has done to some of the canyons in B.C.: logged out all the > timber, then scraped the bottom down to bare granite for all the minerals. > Those valleys won't recover for thousands of years. Of course we do the same > thing. Maybe we even taught you how. > Not only did you teach us how, you forced us to do it and then to sell the resulting "harvest" to you at cost under the "free trade" deal. Most of us in Canada are convinced our then premier, Brian Mul-looney, who signed the deal, was actually a paid CIA operative. Art
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
There's a very easy test. There's a firm called Insight that sells mail order PCs and components in both the US and the UK. The US site is www.insight com, the UK site is www.insight.com/uk Since this is the same firm with more or less the same product lines you can do direct US/UK price comparisons. The UK prices don't include VAT, so you have to add 17.5% on top to get the price that consumers (as opposed to businesses) have to pay. This will very quickly show you that the UK isn't cheap at all... [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kersenbrock) wrote: > Stuart wrote: > > > >Once again, everything you say is likely true in the United States of > > >Waste and Consumption, but it sure isn't true here in Western > > Canada, and > > >I bet it also isn't true in Europe, Australia, and most other places. > > > > > >Art > > > > What !!- u mean there are other countries in the world apart from > > America -well blow me down . > > Stuart (Scotland ) > > One of the newer PC vendors in town (here in Oregon, U.S.A.) is a Tiny > one > from the U.K., and they advertise they have the best deals. so I'd > then assume that the U.K. would perhaps have even lower prices than here > in the U.S. (and this area has generally low prices with heavy > competition from small chains like Fry's and klone-stores on most > every corner). > > Mike K. > >
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Does the Matrox G450 have a setting for changing the monitor's gamma? And if so, is there is taskbar 'quick select' type of option such that one could switch back and forth between 1.8 gamma and 2.2 default with ease? Maris Lidaka - Original Message - From: "Elmar Pinkhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 6:32 PM Subject: AW: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution | Hello Alan, | | the size of the PS palettes and fonts can't be changed. | I am afraid we have to live with it as it is. | | Elmar Pinkhardt | Auf-dem-Kreuz 24 | 89073 Ulm | Germany | | Tel: (0731)21905 | 0170 474 3369 | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | -Ursprungliche Nachricht- | Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von Alan Shaw | Gesendet: Freitag, 9. Marz 2001 00:08 | An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Betreff: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution | | | OK, now I've gone all the way to 1600x1200, but I find my | Photoshop palettes, and the font used in them, have gotten | rather tiny. I don't see an obvious way to fix this. | Can you help? | | Thanks, | | Alan |
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka, > Sr. > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 5:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > > Does the Matrox G450 have a setting for changing the monitor's gamma? Yes, but not numerically. It is a WYSISYG control. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
And is it really a gamma control, or just a contrast or brightness control? I'm in the market for a dual-monitor card but I like my NVIDIA TNT with the new Detonator 3 driver which has the numerical gamma - that is the feature that has allowed me to match my monitor to my print without software other than Corel's "Color Wizard" which is essentially a screen-matching exercise. I just tried out the ATI Radeon VE but no gamma control so it's going back. Since I don't have an extra slot available it's either the Matrox G450 which is better rated, or the NVIDIA GeForce2 MX which uses the Detonator 3 driver but doesn't allow independent screen resolutions for my new 19" Trinitron and my old Dell SVGA 14 or 15" (unless anyone knows of any others on the market for a PC?) Maris - Original Message - From: "Frank Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 8:32 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution | > -Original Message- | > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka, | > Sr. | > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 5:14 PM | > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution | > | > | > | > Does the Matrox G450 have a setting for changing the monitor's gamma? | | Yes, but not numerically. It is a WYSISYG control. | | Frank Paris | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 |
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
When I was trying to get my monitors to match visually, I scanned the Macbeth Color Checker and made it the wallpaper on both my systems. It made it easy to see at a glance how far off they were to each other. It also made for an interesting visual effect when someone first walked into the room and was confronted with four monitors containing the same blocks of color. Any thoughts on the concept of using it for a visual comparison??? I posted this twice, as did Frank. The Matrox G450, with the latest drivers, now supports dual monitors at independent resolution on Win2k. It has always supported dual monitor independent resolution on Win98. Larry >I'm in the market for a dual-monitor card but I like my NVIDIA TNT with the >new Detonator 3 driver which has the numerical gamma - that is the feature >that has allowed me to match my monitor to my print without software other >than Corel's "Color Wizard" which is essentially a screen-matching exercise. >I just tried out the ATI Radeon VE but no gamma control so it's going back. >Since I don't have an extra slot available it's either the Matrox G450 which >is better rated, or the NVIDIA GeForce2 MX which uses the Detonator 3 driver >but doesn't allow independent screen resolutions for my new 19" Trinitron >and my old Dell SVGA 14 or 15" (unless anyone knows of any others on the >market for a PC?) <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:> Larry Berman Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com Compare Image Compression from the top Graphics Programs: http://ImageCompress.com Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site: http://ArtShowJury.com <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:>
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Maris writes ... > And is it really a gamma control, or just a contrast or > brightness control? > ... Easily tested ... if it brightens blackpoint, it is a brightness control ... if blackpoint doesn't change but whitepoint does, it is contrast ... if neither Bp or Wp change, it controls gamma (... altho you can wonder if it is a true gamma power function ...) shAf :o) > > | > > | > Does the Matrox G450 have a setting for changing the > monitor's gamma? > | > | Yes, but not numerically. It is a WYSISYG control. > | > | Frank Paris
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
I follow what you're suggesting but I'm not sure how to test the monitor for whitepoint change. I believe NVIDIA's Detonator 3 driver actually does control gamma though. Image is below. Maris - Original Message - From: "shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 10:40 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution | | Maris writes ...| | > And is it really a gamma control, or just a contrast or | > brightness control?| > ...| | Easily tested ... if it brightens blackpoint, | it is a brightness control ... if blackpoint doesn't | change but whitepoint does, it is contrast ... | if neither Bp or Wp change, it controls gamma | (... altho you can wonder if it is a true gamma | power function ...)| | shAf :o)| | > | > | >| > | > Does the Matrox G450 have a setting for changing the | > monitor's gamma?| > || > | Yes, but not numerically. It is a WYSISYG control.| > || > | Frank Paris| |
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Larry wrote: >When I was trying to get my monitors to match visually, I scanned the >Macbeth Color Checker and made it the wallpaper on both my systems. Is the colour checker downloadable? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
