DSLRUsers.com

I just picked up my new 19" Mitsu Diamond Digital monitor today (thanks Birddog) and love it. However, I'm a little bit perplexed about about all you guys with similar size monitors saying that you run them at resolutions like 1600 x 1200?

Now, before you all say that I need glasses, I had an eye test a few months ago and the "lenses" are fine I initially set it to the recommended resolution of 1280 x 1024 x 85hz and found myself squinting a little to read text (especially the optusnet cable homepage). At 1600 x 1200, I nearly needed a magnifying glass

I tried playing with font sizes in XP, but it only increased the size of headers and surrounding text but not the text of of a post like this.

Am I missing something? Am I going blind???? Or do you actually surf at more sane resolutions like 1024 x 768 and only increase it 1600 x 1200 for fine work in PSCS?

Try adjusting your advanced desktop properties and increase font size to 125% or 150% or even higher until you find a size that you can read.

I use only 1024x768 and i find it fine, although i would love to increase the size a bit more, but my laptop (which i connect to my Mits Diamond View 17") is not up to any higher resolution.

For a 19" I'm not really comfortable past 1280x960. I run 1600x1200 on my 21" at home, and bump up the font sizes in my web browser (Opera, you should be able to do this in all browsers though). I should probably bump up the Windows font sizes (as Killakoala says) but I haven't really been bothered to do so.

Killa & MC, you both have great wisdom . Thank you very much guys, I am now happily browsing at a much higher resolution and can actually see what I'm reading!!

Although funnily enough the font size in these posts seems smaller than general web pages, but readable... Just having a quick browse around it appears that sites that are "typeset" to say 800 x 600 for example come out half screen and hence much smaller font size. Correct???

Johndec,

That's the most expensive 19" CRT monitor which Johndec paid $1100.00 for

Birddog114 wrote:Johndec,

That's the most expensive 19" CRT monitor which Johndec paid $1100.00 for

Yeah  BTW Birddog has this most amazing printer at his place that prints some of the items I got in invisible ink

I run my 19inch Philips at 1280 x 1024... I'm not comfortable at 1600 x 1200 and I can't stand 1920.

Nnnnsic wrote:I run my 19inch Philips at 1280 x 1024... I'm not comfortable at 1600 x 1200 and I can't stand 1920.

Thanks for that info, that's the resolution I've settled on.

I've been running 1600x1200 on a 19" for years and don't have a problem with it. 1024x768 is a bit big for a 19" considering that is the native res for a 15" LCD.

WOW....i run my laptop at 1900 x 1200...no wonder everyone complains about the font size. Its a 15.4 widescreen WUXGA screen..Pics look great however

A

Do you wear glasses?

I also run a 15.4" WUXGA display at 1900x1200 (~150dpi). Images look fantastic. It took a little mucking about to get text at a readable size. Cleartype fonts look great. The things I like about this screen is that I can locate all of the tool palettes off the main window in PS and NC and there is no need to run any window maximised. It is like having a much larger screen.
The other two LCD monitors that I use are a 14" 1400x1050 (~125dpi) and a 15" 1024x768 (96dpi). The 14" is sweet - it goes everywhere with me. I try not to use the last one, I hate it and is only used for maintainence chores.

I think that the trick is to position the monitor properly. I set the position of the monitor close enough to read text but not so close that I cannot take in the entire monitor at a glance without moving my head or straining my eyes around the screen. I originally had a hard time getting away from 800x600 on a 15" CRT for this reason - too far away. Once set up properly I could work with 1280x960 comfortably.

For someone with average vision (even corrected) I would say that the monitors native resolution is the go. The monitor just needs to be in the right place.

Cheers

Matt

Hi Matt

I am a wee bit confused by your calculations with respect to monitor resolution.

The formulae for resolution is horizontal size in pixels divided by the VISIBLE horizontal size in inches.

Assuming that your 15.4" is visible the resolution would be 123dpi
the 14" would be 100dpi and finally the 15" would be 68dpi

These have been the calculations that I have used as a designer but please correct me if I am wrong

Cheers

Chris

johndec wrote:

Nnnnsic wrote:I run my 19inch Philips at 1280 x 1024... I'm not comfortable at 1600 x 1200 and I can't stand 1920.

Thanks for that info, that's the resolution I've settled on.

Just wanted to say, me too.

My Phillips 19" 109P4 runs a treat at 1280x1024 and 85Hz.

I have just connected a second monitor today (my card has that capability, as most decent cards do I think). It is fun having a second monitor, particularly on PS. But the second monitor is on 1024x768 and the colours are different. Hello confusion.

If you want to experiment further set your res to 1600x1200

right click on blank desktop space, hit properties, when that comes up hit the settings tab, then advanced button.

The advanced window will popup in the first general tab select the DPI settings and custom, select a font size you can comfortably read.

While your here under the monitor tab make sure your refresh rate is at lest 75 hertz

Apply it and press ok.


this brings you back to the properties window, select the apperance tab, then the advanced button on that page, in the Item drop down box change the "Menu" text to a start menu size you can comfortably read. You can also change the "icon" size and font for all your desktop icons here. Apply and ok. Back in the appearance tab hit effects and see if you like cleartype fonts instead (these are generally recommended for TFT's but some people like them).

if you followed all that your did well.

I'd love to run dual 19inchers on my desk, but alas, I have no space left on my desk... only enough space for my speaker control deck and my monitor...

sirhc55 wrote:Hi Matt

I am a wee bit confused by your calculations with respect to monitor resolution.

The formulae for resolution is horizontal size in pixels divided by the VISIBLE horizontal size in inches.

Assuming that your 15.4" is visible the resolution would be 123dpi
the 14" would be 100dpi and finally the 15" would be 68dpi

These have been the calculations that I have used as a designer but please correct me if I am wrong

Cheers

Chris

Chris,

For the 15.4 WUXGA - W is for wide. Horizontal pixels is 1920 (sorry not 1900) and measures 332mm (~13") across its viewable base - measured with a ruler. 1920/13=148dpi
For the 14 in screen, the screen measures 286mm (~11.25") across its viewable base. 1400/11.25=124dpi

The screen sizes quoted (ie 15.4" and 14") are diagonal screen dimensions. I notice from your calculations that you have assumed that they are the horizontal dimensions. I used the industry standard for quoting the screen size.

I hope this clears up the confusion.

Cheers

Matt

Nnnnsic wrote:Do you wear glasses?

No, I actually have 20/10 vision, but I am colorblind which is why some of my images come out so wird!!! My wife has to proof things for me if I print

Andy

Thanks Matt - I did look at the diagonal fact and then totally forgot - Outback 1 Sydney 0

Cheers

Chris

atencati wrote:

Nnnnsic wrote:Do you wear glasses?

No, I actually have 20/10 vision, but I am colorblind which is why some of my images come out so wird!!! My wife has to proof things for me if I print

Andy

Woah, a colorblind photographer!! Now I've heard it all...

Onyx wrote:

atencati wrote:

Nnnnsic wrote:Do you wear glasses?

No, I actually have 20/10 vision, but I am colorblind which is why some of my images come out so wird!!! My wife has to proof things for me if I print

Andy

Woah, a colorblind photographer!! Now I've heard it all...

What about the Aussie movie about a BLIND photographer!!!

Chris

Maybe you should watch the movie Proof, Onyx.

Onyx wrote:

atencati wrote:

Nnnnsic wrote:Do you wear glasses?

No, I actually have 20/10 vision, but I am colorblind which is why some of my images come out so wird!!! My wife has to proof things for me if I print

Andy

Woah, a colorblind photographer!! Now I've heard it all...

Funny thing is, before Photography I was a Graphic Designer, Illustrator, Painter, etc. I didn't know I was color blind until High School.

A

1280x1024 @ 100Hz is the only way to go!

Love 100Hz, even got a 100Hz 76cm tv

I find I tend to jump between different res. 1280*1024 for general use but switching to a higher res for PS work or code cutting/design. (sometimes I have to switch back to 800*600 to test layouts for our users )

I hope you're not a web designer if you're testing layouts and switching to 800x600.

Greg B wrote:

johndec wrote:

Nnnnsic wrote:I run my 19inch Philips at 1280 x 1024... I'm not comfortable at 1600 x 1200 and I can't stand 1920.

Thanks for that info, that's the resolution I've settled on.

Just wanted to say, me too.

My Phillips 19" 109P4 runs a treat at 1280x1024 and 85Hz.

I have just connected a second monitor today (my card has that capability, as most decent cards do I think). It is fun having a second monitor, particularly on PS. But the second monitor is on 1024x768 and the colours are different. Hello confusion.

The Philips 19" seems popular, but I run my 109P at 1400x1050, with all font sizes normal. Seriously considering getting a Benq FP2091 though. Native 1600x1200, rotates to portrait mode, seems to have good reviews, has a great dead pixel policy and you can pick it up for around $1500. What's not to like?

skippy wrote: and you can pick it up for around $1500. What's not to like?

Nothing except the $1500 bit... That would just about buy me an 80-400

Well, there is that!

skippy wrote: and you can pick it up for around $1500. What's not to like?

It's an LCD. (LCD's aren't quite as good as CRT's for colour correction)

I hope you're not a web designer if you're testing layouts and switching to 800x600.

Yep do some web design and other application development, <sarcasm>one of the joys of working for a large semigoverment company is the ability to work on the cutting edge</sarcasm>. Most of our staff still run at 800*600 and use NT4.

a.briggs wrote:

I hope you're not a web designer if you're testing layouts and switching to 800x600.

Yep do some web design and other application development, <sarcasm>one of the joys of working for a large semigoverment company is the ability to work on the cutting edge</sarcasm>. Most of our staff still run at 800*600 and use NT4.

I remeber reading a stat somewhere about aol users - an overwealming percentage were on 15" screens at 800 x 600

I use 1600x1200, I like to be able to fit as much as i can on the screen. Sure its small but I still have very good eye sight.