Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Resolutions
the_exile
Kupo!
in Zocalo v2.0
What resolution is your monitor set to?
I'm curious, because during my tinkerings with the Hammer editor for Half-Life, I found it much easier to work in 1280 x 1024, despite the fact that fonts seemed quite unreadable at such a size... lazy fool that I am, I stopped reverting to 1024 x 768 when I was done, and now I've gotten used to 1280x1024... my old resolution seems much too massive. I'm probably ruining my eyes with this damned small font...
I want to know if I'm alone in my madness. ;)
I'm curious, because during my tinkerings with the Hammer editor for Half-Life, I found it much easier to work in 1280 x 1024, despite the fact that fonts seemed quite unreadable at such a size... lazy fool that I am, I stopped reverting to 1024 x 768 when I was done, and now I've gotten used to 1280x1024... my old resolution seems much too massive. I'm probably ruining my eyes with this damned small font...
I want to know if I'm alone in my madness. ;)
Comments
[B]I used to use 1600x1200 at Foundation Imaging. I'd use Modeler and Layout in it, and it would drive Dave Adams nuts every time he had to use my machine for something... :p [/B][/QUOTE]
i use 1600x1200 as well, makes my eyes bleed when i sit down at a 640x480 display
The key to lack of eyestrain is your refresh rate, as most of you prolly know. Never go below 75hz, and prefferably stay above 85hz, I sacrifice a little real estate for lack of flicker. I seem to have a humungus sensitivity to it for some reason. I can tell the difference between 75, 85, 95 hz most of the time, even when human eyes arent supposed to be able detect such things... go figure..:)
I'm using two crappy 17 inchers, an HP and an IBM, both at least a couple years old and second-hand, at 85Hz. Looking to get a 19" as soon as I have a space large enough to fit one, so I can get rid of the IBM.
A# just has to [url="http://www.4degreez.com/misc/disorder_information2.html#histrionic"]different[/url], it seems. :p
it's close, actually. I enjoy being the center of attention, but well...the resolution I run at certainly doesn't qualify me for such.. :D
I used to run at 1600x1200, but I discovered that my monitor actually gets a better refresh rate at 1920x1200 (100 Hz instead of 85 Hz). So, I switched resolutions, and used my monitor's calibration settings to squeeze the image until it was no longer distorted (I measured as best I could; it should be pretty close). So, now I work with two black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, like watching a movie in letterbox.
One day I shall work on a resolution like that, but without the black bars! [url=http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2003/09_sep/reviews/cw_sony_premierpro.htm]One day...[/url]
And SXGA+ in my laptop.
XGA and smallers are complete torture.
There are some very "nice" resolutions:
[url]http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/howmanydots/[/url]
And whatever happened to that IBM 21" I saw one time, that had a amx resolution of something like 7500 x 5000?
(btw, thanks linking to a page with a table, and not just linking to google)
[B]so, why write SXGA+ etc. when everyone else in this thread used the actual pixel resolution?
(btw, thanks linking to a page with a table, and not just linking to google) [/B][/QUOTE]
If you didn't notice, E.T did all that long before I did anything.
Guess I should wait a bit before buying the Sony. Which I was going to do anyway, because my monitor works just fine.
Edit: Just got done looking at the info on Apple's site. That new 23" LCD definitely looks like a winner to me. The design is far more conservative (read: professional-looking) than the earlier 23" Cinema Display, you don't need to buy an adapter to hook it up to a PC, and it costs the same as the earlier Cinema Display -- and [i]less[/i] than the Sony. Maybe we'll get lucky, and Apple and Sony will get into some kind of kick-ass display war.
[B]Edit: Just got done looking at the info on Apple's site. That new 23" LCD definitely looks like a winner to me. [/b][/quote]
My thoughts exactly.
[quote][b]The design is far more conservative (read: professional-looking) than the earlier 23" Cinema Display,[/b][/quote]
My thoughts exactly.
[quote][b]you don't need to buy an adapter to hook it up to a PC,[/b][/quote]
My thoughts exactly.
[quote][b]and it costs the same as the earlier Cinema Display -- and [i]less[/i] than the Sony.[/b][/quote]
My thoughts exactly.
[quote][b] Maybe we'll get lucky, and Apple and Sony will get into some kind of kick-ass display war. [/B][/QUOTE]
That would be nice.
I was overjoyed when I read that the displays now use proper DVI connectors. I guess they realised there is a significant potential market with PC users who want the nice monitor but sure ain't going to switch to a mac. :)