Monitor Woes
Karla...@adobeforums.com
The problem is screen resolution. According to the Lacie specs, monitors should be set at 1600 x 1200. At that resolution, Photoshop as well as the rest of the CS, and the visuals that I create in PS, are all minuscule, and my three websites look stupid. I called Lacie tech support, and they said that I could go down to 1400 x 1050 but no further without distortion.
There are three problems: 1) Even with adjustments in XP, I still have to keep my nose to the screen at 1400 x 1050 to see PS menus, read PS help etc., and would like the resolution to be at 1024 x 768; 2) indeed, 48+ % of computer users have monitors set at 1024 x 768 or lower and will have the pleasure of seeing what I cannot see and would like to see; 3) 38 % of computer users have monitors set at 1920 x 1200 and will see my work as postage stamps, I think
Qs:
1) Should I go for another LCD monitor that will give me an undistorted 1024 x 768, if such a thing exists?
2) Any other solution invited.
boblevine
critical as Photoshop.
My advice...get yourself to the eye doctor.
Bob
Jim_J...@adobeforums.com
While I wasn't looking for a high end display for color critical work, I just found a perfectly usable piece of junk that has roughly the same resolution, roughly the same size, and probably made by the same child labor in China... but with a better response time and higher contrast ratio for about $150. That's a little cheaper than the $950 you paid.
The question about 'an undistorted 1024 x 768, if such a thing exists?' indicates you could do a bit more shopping. There are plenty of options out there.
Karla...@adobeforums.com
I have been to the eye doctor and wear glasses. But everything is very Lilliputian. As I write, I'm looking at the equivalent of 6 point type or lower.
Jim--
Testing a monitor before buying is useless unless it's hooked up to one's own computer. Before buying, I went to B&H several times and looked at each of the LCDs on display in turn, spending a good hour or more there each time. I chose the Lacie 320, but really it would not have mattered.
As for the "piece of junk" you bought, can you elaborate? What's the make and model of the sweetheart, where did you get it?
As for 1024 x 768, my assistant's research indicates that the monitors of 48% of pc users are at that resolution. Are they all viewing distorted images? If so, Heaven help us.
Finally, you say there are plenty of options out there--and I say, Where exactly?
Karla
Jim_J...@adobeforums.com
I suppose one can find it via newegg.com or tigerdirect.com
These online retailers can break down categories by resolution & size so it should be easy to find 1024x768 (although most of these models are intended for lighter office work so color control may not be a strong feature)
Here are a few:
<http://www.compusa.com/applications/category/category_slc.asp?CatId=164>
I've no idea how well the Hanns-G really handles color as it was purchased for general office use - - but the point is that there is a huge array of display options out there with an equally large array of pricing options.
As for 1024 x 768, my assistant's research indicates that the monitors
of 48% of pc users are at that resolution. Are they all viewing distorted
images? If so, Heaven help us.
I'm not sure how that figure was obtained but it is believable. And, no, they are not likely viewing at a non-native resolution. Remember that a good chunk of the world is still using the CRT which typically were sold at this SVGA resolution for the past 8-10 years.
Bob_Wei...@adobeforums.com
I switched to a 26" NEC 2690WUXi and can finally read text without putting my nose up against the screen. The Lacie 320 packs 100 pixels per inch. The distance between pixels is .255mm. The native resolution of the NEC is 88.7 pixels per inch or .287mm between pixels. Makes reading text much easier.
The pixels density of most modern displays is similar to the Lacie. In fact, both the 24" and 30" versions of the NEC feature more pixels per inch than the 26".
Bob W
Karla...@adobeforums.com
All golden and will try to do, first checking with ever-faithful computer repair-person.
Karla
Bigguy
trouble reading text and menus in PS CS2.
Display area is 20.5" x 12.5" - a bit bigger than the Lacie's 16" x 12 "
You could get a 1024 x 768 monitor and use it on a second VGA output (if
you have one).
G
Beemer
<Karla...@adobeforums.com> wrote in message
news:59b70...@webcrossing.la2eafNXanI...
>I have a 146 gig hard drive with 3 gigs of ram. I'm currently using PS10 as
>part of CS3 to finish a job and will then be loading CS4 with the new
>Photoshop, which I have. I tried Vista Ultimate and after nearly cracking
>up, went back to XP Pro SP3. I had a Nec Multisynch CRT and decided to go
>
> The problem is screen resolution. According to the Lacie specs, monitors
> should be set at 1600 x 1200. At that resolution, Photoshop as well as the
> rest of the CS, and the visuals that I create in PS, are all minuscule,
> and my three websites look stupid. I called Lacie tech support, and they
> said that I could go down to 1400 x 1050 but no further without
> distortion.
>
> There are three problems: 1) Even with adjustments in XP, I still have to
> keep my nose to the screen at 1400 x 1050 to see PS menus, read PS help
> etc., and would like the resolution to be at 1024 x 768; 2) indeed, 48+ %
> of computer users have monitors set at 1024 x 768 or lower and will have
> the pleasure of seeing what I cannot see and would like to see; 3) 38 % of
> computer users have monitors set at 1920 x 1200 and will see my work as
> postage stamps, I think
>
> Qs:
>
> 1) Should I go for another LCD monitor that will give me an undistorted
> 1024 x 768, if such a thing exists?
>
> 2) Any other solution invited.
>
XP allows you to select a larger defaut font size. Go to control panel
then display properties then general and you will see DPI setting change
from normal to Large font.
regards,
Beemer