Page 4 of 9
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:19 pm
by mickyd
reible wrote:The following are for educational purposes only and for that purpose only.
The following set of photos are of a copy of the tiger I found online at a resolution of 500x375.
First with screen resolution set at 800 x 600
[ATTACH]3790[/ATTACH]
Second with 1024 x 768
[ATTACH]3791[/ATTACH]
Third with 1600 x 1200
[ATTACH]3792[/ATTACH]
Forth with 1680 x 1050
[ATTACH]3793[/ATTACH]
Fifth is with the screen at 1680 x 1024 and Safari open so the whole image can be seen and then some.
[ATTACH]3794[/ATTACH]
Ed
Show the screens as they would look when in the forum. With them set at "wallpaper" on the desktop, they may be different. Open up the forum as you would normally view it and photograph the tiger I have in my original post so that I can see how YOU see them. By the way, this is exactly why I started this thread. What you see vs. others can be very different. Thanks for working with me on this one. I am sure others will benefit. Just be patient and we'll get the point across.
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:19 pm
by mickyd
reible wrote:The following are for educational purposes only and for that purpose only.
The following set of photos are of a copy of the tiger I found online at a resolution of 500x375.
First with screen resolution set at 800 x 600
[ATTACH]3790[/ATTACH]
Second with 1024 x 768
[ATTACH]3791[/ATTACH]
Third with 1600 x 1200
[ATTACH]3792[/ATTACH]
Forth with 1680 x 1050
[ATTACH]3793[/ATTACH]
Fifth is with the screen at 1680 x 1024 and Safari open so the whole image can be seen and then some.
[ATTACH]3794[/ATTACH]
Ed
Show the screens as they would look when in the forum. With them set at "wallpaper" on the desktop, they may be different. Open up the forum as you would normally view it and photograph the tiger I have in my original post so that I can see how YOU see them. By the way, this is exactly why I started this thread. What you see vs. others can be very different. Thanks for working with me on this one. I am sure others will benefit. Just be patient and we'll get the point across.
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:58 pm
by reible
More stuff to look at. First I rotated my screen which then limits the horizontal resolution to 1050. In this case the width of the images is wider then the width firefox can display so it makes the images stack vertically.
[ATTACH]3795[/ATTACH]
This is with firefox set with enough width to display the images as shown.
[ATTACH]3796[/ATTACH]
This is the post that Dusty did if firefox is set wide enough to show both images. If it set to narrow the images stack.
[ATTACH]3797[/ATTACH]
Ed
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:10 am
by reible
More fun if you want it.
[ATTACH]3798[/ATTACH]
In this case the image should be centered so if you change the width of your browser it still should stay in the center, to be honest I've never tried this here...
Ed
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:47 am
by dicksterp
Mine is set at 1920 x 1200. It is a 6 year old 23" HD Cinema Display driven by a 9 year old Cube.
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:51 am
by a1gutterman
I voted 800 X 600, as it is that way most of the time, but I do change it occasionally. The LOML likes it that way, so even when I change it, it mysteriously changes back.
So what's a little scrolling more or less?
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:32 am
by heathicus
I have two monitors that, unfortunately, are not the same size. Sometimes that drives me crazy, but I can't work without a dual monitor setup.
My primary monitor is a 19" widescreen LCD set to 1440 x 900. I would go higher, but it's a cheap monitor and that's the highest resolution it will support. The second monitor is a older regular 17" LCD set to 1280 x 1024. Again, that's the highest resolution it will go.
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:39 am
by colday
Two 24" monitors at 1920 x 1200 each.
The second is only used (mostly) for photo work, otherwise it is off.
Steve
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:44 am
by Ed in Tampa
I use 800x600 because anything else produces fonts that are too small for me to read comfortably. I tried the next higher setting and on some sites the printing was simply too small to read unless I leaned near my monitor.
I'm using a 17" monitor and would love the have higher resolution but since forums like this use fixed font size. Incidently I have corrected better than 20 20 vision so I must be doing something wrong.
Monitor Resolution
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:28 pm
by dusty
Another Test
[ATTACH]3799[/ATTACH][ATTACH]3800[/ATTACH]