Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 24, 2005, 2:03 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
pineywoodsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 189
Default

I have a 17'' CRT monitor, and have always used the 800x600 resolution settings on my monitor. I noticed that the full size photos from my 3.2mp camera, 2048x1536, look abit "squashed" at the current monitor setting. It doesn't really bother me that much, but I experimented withthe high resolution settingin thecontrol panel of 1024 by 768. The fonts look quite small though to me, butmore annoying than that is that the screen flickers. The photos look alot better though, but the flicker gave me a headache.Apparently I can't use more than 60hz refresh rate at the highest setting, so I had to go back down to 800x600.

Maybe because I have an older machine (5 year old Gateway) maybe it's not capable of the larger screen areas. I notice most of the newer machines use 1024 by 768. I always thought 800x600 was the norm until recently when working with newer machines with the LCD monitors. I guess with the advent of the sharper LCD monitors and better graphics 1024 by 768 is better.










pineywoodsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 24, 2005, 3:07 PM   #2
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

pineywoodsman wrote:
Quote:
I have a 17'' CRT monitor, and have always used the 800x600 resolution settings on my monitor. I noticed that the full size photos from my 3.2mp camera, 2048x1536, look abit "squashed" at the current monitor setting.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "squashed". Your problem could be the software you're using to view your photos (and the size you're viewing them at).

For example, viewing a 2048x1536 image on a monitor set to 800x600 will require you to scroll (up and down; left and right) to see the entire image (it's larger than the screen resolution), if viewing it at 100% size.

But, if the software you're using can downsize the image for screen viewing, you'll see it at a smaller viewing size. Different image viewers use different algorithms for downsizing an image to smaller viewing sizes, so quality can vary widely depending on the software you use. I've seen more than one user indicate that using the built in Windows viewer produced terrible results with their images compared to other viewers. I haven't really noticed that (but I rarelyuse anything built into Windows to view images).

Yes, 1024x768 is probably a more popular resolution for viewing images now compared to 800x600. But, plenty of users have PC's set to 800x600, too.

Quote:
It doesn't really bother me that much, but I experimented withthe high resolution settingin thecontrol panel of 1024 by 768. The fonts look quite small though to me, butmore annoying than that is that the screen flickers. The photos look alot better though, but the flicker gave me a headache.Apparently I can't use more than 60hz refresh rate at the highest setting, so I had to go back down to 800x600.
It may just be the driver you have for your graphics card orchipset (it may not fully support your monitor's higher resolution modes). I'd make sure I was using the latest driver from the manufacturer of your graphics card. It could also be that you're seeing an interlaced resolution setting causing the flicker (it's native resolution may not be that high without interlacing).

You can also change your font to a larger size without impacting the resolution with Windows. But, this can cause some compatibility problems with some web sites and software (I do it though).

I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that due to their design, LCD monitors work best at their native resoltion. Other sizes can degrade quality.

For example, a CRT monitor rated at1280x1024 can dsiplay at 1024x768, 800x600 or 640x480 resolutions, without any degradation in display quality.

However, if you try the same thing with an LCD, anything other than it's native resolution can result in a noticeable loss in quality, depending on the display.

That's what I've read anyway. Perhaps someone that knows more about displays will comment.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2005, 8:26 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
pineywoodsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 189
Default

Quote:
I've seen more than one user indicate that using the built in Windows viewer produced terrible results with their images compared to other viewers. I haven't really noticed that (but I rarelyuse anything built into Windows to view images).

That's what I've been using. I notice it doesn't happen in as badly in my other image viewing programs. Mainly just when I'm using Windowsexplorer (I have WinME). I've been using 800x600 for a long time and I really don't see the need to change it, unless I got a larger monitor, but this one works fine otherwise.




pineywoodsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2005, 8:40 PM   #4
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I would rarely use Windows Explorer to view images (other than glancing through some thumbnails with it from time to time).

But, I have seen users comment that the viewing quality isn't very good on some PC's (probably the downsizing algorithms Microsoft used for displayingimages).

I've never had a PC with Windows ME.So, it maybe that ME's version of Explorer isn't as refined as XP's (speculation on my part).

The next time I'm at my brother's home, I'll take a look (he still has a PC with ME on it, as I spent some time fixing his Windows ME installationthe last time it crashed).

I really didn't even want to go with XP (I prefer Windows 98 since it's much faster and more compatible with some of my applicatoins).

But, too many software packages now require XP. Grrrrr. So, I reluctantly went with it on my main PC (and the image viewer is one of Explorer's built in features with ME and XP).

There are a number of image editors and viewers that will run on 98 or ME. Some of them are free. So, if you don't already have something to view images with, some of the forum members here could point you in the right direction.

Picasa is one free package that is pretty good for quickly viewing and finding photos. But, I don't think it will run on ME.

An editor/viewer that loads very quickly that I use often is Irfanview. It will run on ME. You can download from http://www.irfanview.com (it's free). Make sure to download the free plugins, too.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2005, 4:11 AM   #5
Baz
Senior Member
 
Baz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 219
Default

Yes, Irfanview is excellent. Been using it for years.

Recently I tried FastStone Viewer from:

http://www.faststone.org

It has left & right panes a bit like ACDsee. It's free & runs OK on both 98se & XP.

When viewing an image in full screen, placing the cursor at the left, right, top, or bottom of the screen reveals all the many options for editing, exif & much more.


Baz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2005, 11:50 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I'd be very surprised if your monitor only allowed 60hz. That will certainly cause the flickering you're seeing.... but most modern monitors (made in the last 5 years) can do 70hz or more.

Could you tell us exactly what make and model your monitor is (and if its a CRT or LCD)? And I'll dig around some on the web and see what I can find.

1024x768 is a much nicer way to view pictures than 800x600, so I'd like to help you get to that resolution if I can.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2005, 12:58 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
pineywoodsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 189
Default

I had a Gateway EV700 but it broke and a relative gave me their spare monitor, which is a "no name" monitor, it was a generic Chinese brand named the X-754.

I don't think my old monitor was capable of 1024x768 either because I tried it and the same thing happened, I wasn't able to go above 60Hz and the screen looked all distorted. Perhaps it's my graphics controller or adapter, I have the latest software installed for it. The computer itself is 5 years old (from 2000, Gateway 933 essential).

It's really not that much of a problem, the 800x600, and I've gotten used to the scrolling (I have to scroll on the page posting this since it don't fit into the whole window). If I have to buy a new monitor or graphics card, I might as well buy a new computer. Windows ME is quite unstable as it is, and many new programs won't run in it.

Maybe having only 128mb RAM has something to do with it (large superfine images load slowly). I was just wondering what most ppl have for screen settings. By the end of this year or next year I am hoping to get a new computer anyway, so I can live with this machine's problems for a few more months.
pineywoodsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2005, 7:33 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

That is a fairly wacky monitor, you're right. I could find absolutely nothing on it. Its full name is:
Royal HSUTRLX X754
(I believe) I'd just be shocked if it couldn't do a higher refresh rate... but it might not.


I have a 21" monitor and I run at 1280x1024. But I certainly wouldn't do that on a 19". Then I have trouble reading the fonts. 1024x786 it the minimum I would consider acceptable. 19" monitors (CRTs) are fairly cheap now so you could consider getting one of those and I bet you'd be very happy.

LaCie makes some specificaly designed for picture editing and they are absolutely fabulous. (they are, of course, great for everything else too.)

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:33 PM.