April 4, 200422 yr For me I would go for 1024 X 768 Anyway can it max out more than 1600 X 1200? and which is the max?
April 4, 200422 yr At work, my workstation has a 17" monitor and I run it at 1280 X 1024.As for maximum resolutions, it really does depend on the monitor and graphics card you're using...and the drivers also make a big difference. Here at home, my 22" monitor on an old nVidia GeForce3 card ((yeah, gotta upgrade sometime)), seems to have different max resolutions every time nVidia release a new driver. While at the moment, I can set it to 1920x1440 using 56.64 drivers, the 56.65 drivers only had a max resolution of 1792x1344. It tends to jump around for some reason. Nonetheless, I run at 1600x1200 so it's no big deal and honestly, high resolutions only really matter ((for the hardcore)) in games.
June 5, 200422 yr You never, I repeat never use the 1280 X 1024 on any moniter. It has an incorrect aspect ratio and pixels will be distorted.
June 5, 200422 yr You never, I repeat never use the 1280 X 1024 on any moniter. It has an incorrect aspect ratio and pixels will be distorted.I've never heard of that before... where did you hear/read that from?
June 5, 200422 yr I've never heard of that before... where did you hear/read that from?They talk about it quite often in the OT thread over at Pixelation a pixel art community, where distortion really matters when your working pixel by pixel. Because as you probably know, the ratio normal TV's and moniters use is 4:3, while that resolution is 5:4.
June 5, 200422 yr I've never heard of that before... where did you hear/read that from?They talk about it quite often in the OT thread over at Pixelation...the ratio normal TV's and moniters use is 4:3, while that resolution is 5:4.Well, thats intresting. I prefer to use 1280x1024 myself... i've nevered noticed a ratio difference, considering i am even a web designer. Things like that would obviosuly seem like they would screw up the layout when you have other system not only with a different res, but a different aspect ratio.Thanks for the Info. Shun Di
July 15, 200422 yr QUOTE (Chaosratt @ May 29 2004, 01:25 PM) 1024x768x32 @ 85hz Ditto.. Me too..Chris.And me!How many hertz do TFT or LCD pannels run at?!Chris.They generally "run" at 60-85hz, but refresh rate doesn't make any difference on an LCD...it's pixel response time there, which is a hardware feature.You never, I repeat never use the 1280 X 1024 on any moniter. It has an incorrect aspect ratio and pixels will be distorted.It's interesting you should say that...because this LCD monitor that I'm on at work has a native resolution of 1280x1024...Sure, you'll get some stretching depending on the monitor, but then no monitor is perfectly 4:3 either. Me, I think they should have gone with the golden ratio, or roughly .618 ...lol
August 5, 200422 yr Well, my 17-incher runs at 1024x768x16-bit @ 85 Hz.That's simply bcos that's a comfortable res and at good refresh.Otherwise, when seriously demanding graphics drop my way, I see them at 1152x864x32-bit @ 75 Hz.Although 1280x1024 is a supported resolution, I don't use it for I end up with the refresh-rate too low (60 Hz).BTW, I seem to have an interesting extra resolution offered, how many more of you have that that capability? I'm able to drive up to : 1400x1050 @ 60 Hz.Not very easy on the eyes, I must say!
August 6, 200422 yr I've ran my screen on 1280x1024 @ 60 Hz for years now.. never had a problem with my eyes nor my head.. and I don't notice flickering or whatever you call it. Only if I look at it with the corners of my eye, I can see it, but only barely even so. Soo... I'd say 60 Hz isn't that bad. My TV runs at 50 Hz...
August 6, 200422 yr Prolly you got used to 60Hz - I won't, cause I love my eyes. Do please have concern about your eyes, because 60 Hz is actually quite strainful for them (ask any doctor). Health-care is a booming industry now, and we wouldn't like to add to their profits, just not right now .A display frequency of 50Hz for a TV is very good - you view it from a distance. A CRT monitor, on the other hand, is stared/drooled-at from very close by! OK, I've gone sufficiently off-topic, out of concern for you, lets get back please.
Create an account or sign in to comment