This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Computer Graphics with Photoshop > January 2007 > Widescreen monitors
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Widescreen monitors
|
|
| Derek Fountain 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| Is anyone using a widescreen monitor for Photoshop work? I don't have
room on my desk for 2 monitors, but I could fit one of these. My
assumption would be that the wide screen is a useful thing to have, and
I can't think of any drawbacks. Can anyone confirm they're worth the
extra outlay?
--
Derek Fountain on the web at http://www.derekfountain.org/
| |
| Tony Cooper 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 12:37:35 +0000, Derek Fountain
<nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>Is anyone using a widescreen monitor for Photoshop work? I don't have
>room on my desk for 2 monitors, but I could fit one of these. My
>assumption would be that the wide screen is a useful thing to have, and
>I can't think of any drawbacks. Can anyone confirm they're worth the
>extra outlay?
When I was recently shopping for a new monitor I made some in-store
comparisons. It seemed to me that the wide-screens distorted the
image slightly by squeezing it top-to-bottom. It wouldn't be a
problem for viewing most things, but I think it would in Photoshop
projects. What you see on a wide-screen might not be what you'd see
on another screen or in print.
I should point out that the above is personal opinion and was observed
using images that weren't loaded in Photoshop.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
| |
| ronviers@gmail.com 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
> wide-screens distorted the
> image slightly by squeezing it top-to-bottom.
> Tony Cooper
> Orlando, FL
My guess it that if there is some squeezing or stretching that it can
be corrected by either selecting the pixel dimensions to match the
monitor or using custom dimensions. But that is just a guess.
Good luck,
Ron
| |
| Johan W. Elzenga 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| Derek Fountain <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> Is anyone using a widescreen monitor for Photoshop work? I don't have
> room on my desk for 2 monitors, but I could fit one of these. My
> assumption would be that the wide screen is a useful thing to have, and
> I can't think of any drawbacks. Can anyone confirm they're worth the
> extra outlay?
I'm using an Apple 23" Cinema Display AND a Dell 21 inch, but the Cinema
Display alone is also a great screen for Photoshop.
--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
| |
| Derek Fountain 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| > I'm using an Apple 23" Cinema Display AND a Dell 21 inch, but the Cinema
> Display alone is also a great screen for Photoshop.
Which Dell do you use, Johan? I'm currently totally bogged down in LCD
monitor specs and can't find the one to go for. 21" might be a bit
expensive for me, but if someone like yourself were to specifically
recommend one I might just go for it...
--
Derek Fountain on the web at http://www.derekfountain.org/
| |
|
|
| Johan W. Elzenga 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| Derek Fountain <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Which Dell do you use, Johan? I'm currently totally bogged down in LCD
> monitor specs and can't find the one to go for. 21" might be a bit
> expensive for me, but if someone like yourself were to specifically
> recommend one I might just go for it...
It's the Dell UltraSharp 2001FP, so a small correction: it's a 20 inch.
I only use it as my second screen, so the images in Photoshop are on the
Apple and only the palettes are on the Dell. That means I cannot
specifically recommend the Dell for Photoshop work.
--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
| |
| Charlie Choc 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:39:44 -0500, Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 12:37:35 +0000, Derek Fountain
><nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
>When I was recently shopping for a new monitor I made some in-store
>comparisons. It seemed to me that the wide-screens distorted the
>image slightly by squeezing it top-to-bottom. It wouldn't be a
>problem for viewing most things, but I think it would in Photoshop
>projects. What you see on a wide-screen might not be what you'd see
>on another screen or in print.
>
>I should point out that the above is personal opinion and was observed
>using images that weren't loaded in Photoshop.
You need a video card that will support the widescreen monitor resolution. I
have a 24" at 1920x1200 and there is no distortion.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
| |
|
| Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 12:37:35 +0000, Derek Fountain
> <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> When I was recently shopping for a new monitor I made some in-store
> comparisons. It seemed to me that the wide-screens distorted the
> image slightly by squeezing it top-to-bottom. It wouldn't be a
> problem for viewing most things, but I think it would in Photoshop
> projects. What you see on a wide-screen might not be what you'd see
> on another screen or in print.
>
> I should point out that the above is personal opinion and was observed
> using images that weren't loaded in Photoshop.
>
>
The store doesn't have the screen drivers loaded to make the corrections.
| |
|
|
| Jethro 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:05:34 +1100, Rob <mesa@mine.com> wrote:
>Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>
>The store doesn't have the screen drivers loaded to make the corrections.
Can you tell me what you get for 'uptodate' screen drivers? What dies
such a driver really do?
I just bought a 22" wide-screen LCD monitor, and am playing with
photos. Right off the bat I notice that the photos are elongated
horizontally (to fill the full screen-width I guess). As a result, I
have to agree that 'What you see on a wide-screen might not be what
you'd see on another screen or in print'. In fact, the photos are NOT
elongated on the printed paper, and so look quite good,
proportionally, to the original - BUT NOT QUITE THE SAME AS THE SCREEN
IMAGE. It even causes me to wonder if I draw a circle on the screen,
and then print it, will I still get a circle? I haven't done that
yet, but I plan to.
I don't know how much this distortion would affect trying to edit
photos in Pshop, but I fear it might. I am sitting here trying to
decide if I made a wrong move buying the widescreen LCD, since I
wanted to use it in part for photo editing.
This is why I ask you - would a correct screen driver render a screen
image without elongation? And how would it show up? Would the screen
window itself be what it used to be on my old VGA monitor? Namely
quite square?
Now maybe I am 'way off-base here, and the image-elongation would not
negatively affect me. What do you think about all this? Should
widescreens be used for graphic editing?
Thanks
Jethro
| |
|
| When you say you made a perfect circle, did you make it using a shape
with set dimensions? If you made it with set (typed in) dimensions, then
that obviates errors at the computer side. If it did not print as a
perfect circle, then you have a printing issue.
Make a simple, perfect circle. Save it a postscript and read the code.
It's elementary and will show you that it's okay.
| |
| Charlie Choc 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:29:47 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>I just bought a 22" wide-screen LCD monitor, and am playing with
>photos. Right off the bat I notice that the photos are elongated
>horizontally (to fill the full screen-width I guess). As a result, I
>have to agree that 'What you see on a wide-screen might not be what
>you'd see on another screen or in print'.
What is your screen resolution set to. If it is not the correct aspect ratio for
your monitor it will look distorted. You may need a new driver and/or video card
to get the resolution you need.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
| |
| Jethro 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:05:55 -0500, Charlie Choc
<charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:29:47 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>
>What is your screen resolution set to. If it is not the correct aspect ratio for
>your monitor it will look distorted. You may need a new driver and/or video card
>to get the resolution you need.
In ControlPanel>Display, I have it set to 1600X1200.
I chose that from these available choices:
800X600
1024X768
1152X864
1280X768
1280X960
1280X1024
1600X1200 <<<===
1792X1344
1800X1440
1856X1392
1920X1080
1920X1200
1920X1440
2048X1536
My video card is a RADEON 9200 PRO SEC.
I have tried several of these resolution choices. While the choice
affected the icon and text sizes on the displays, none changed the
elongation of the display horizontally, and accordingly they all fill
the display. I have a feeling that if I could enter the right
resolution, then the display would NOT elongate horizontally. Right?
And then, a circle would remain a circle. A skinny face would remain
a skinny face. Etc.
Are U saying that I should search out more uptodate drivers for this
video card (AGP), in the hope of coming up with the correct
resolution?
I have read of a term 'aspect ratio'. Is that involved here? If so,
is that something I can change? And if so, how?
Do you guys have any answers for me?
| |
| Charlie Choc 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:44:32 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:05:55 -0500, Charlie Choc
><charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>In ControlPanel>Display, I have it set to 1600X1200.
>I chose that from these available choices:
>800X600
>1024X768
>1152X864
>1280X768
>1280X960
>1280X1024
>1600X1200 <<<===
>1792X1344
>1800X1440
>1856X1392
>1920X1080
>1920X1200
>1920X1440
>2048X1536
>My video card is a RADEON 9200 PRO SEC.
>
What does your monitor documentation say about the monitor resolution to use?
1600x1200 is a regular 4:3 aspect ratio, just like 1280x1024, 1024x768, 800x600,
etc. That will give you an elongated image on a widescreen. Try 1920x1200.
That's what I use with my 24" Dell and there is no distortion.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
| |
| Jethro 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:04:38 -0500, Charlie Choc
<charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:44:32 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>What does your monitor documentation say about the monitor resolution to use?
Nothing that I see. About 20 pages 18 of which are non-English.
I have written down for whence I know not that it has a native
resolution of 1680X1050, but that is not one of my selectable choices.
I don't think I can enter a manual resolution can I? I know not how
to do that.
>
>1600x1200 is a regular 4:3 aspect ratio, just like 1280x1024, 1024x768, 800x600,
>etc. That will give you an elongated image on a widescreen. Try 1920x1200.
>That's what I use with my 24" Dell and there is no distortion.
1920X1200 still produced an elongated screen, but worse - the left
part of the screen is not viewable. I set it back to 1600X1200.
| |
| Charlie Choc 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:45:36 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>I have written down for whence I know not that it has a native
>resolution of 1680X1050, but that is not one of my selectable choices.
1920x1200 is the same aspect ratio as 1680x1050. FWIW
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
| |
| Jethro 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:02:38 -0500, Charlie Choc
<charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:45:36 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>1920x1200 is the same aspect ratio as 1680x1050. FWIW
Yeh but I can't select either one.
| |
| Charlie Choc 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:09:24 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:02:38 -0500, Charlie Choc
><charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>Yeh but I can't select either one.
You probably need to contact your monitor manufacturer.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
| |
| Jethro 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:22:39 -0500, Charlie Choc
<charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:09:24 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>
>You probably need to contact your monitor manufacturer.
Yeh - I found and downloaded a RADEON 9200 PRO set of 'current'
drivers and they won't install for a bunch of reasons including the
fact that I am not an Administrator, and I AM. I'm the ONLY user,
Thanks
Jethro
| |
| Loren Amelang 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:44:32 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>In ControlPanel>Display, I have it set to 1600X1200.
>I chose that from these available choices:
>800X600
>1024X768
>1152X864
>1280X768
....
>I have tried several of these resolution choices. While the choice
>affected the icon and text sizes on the displays, none changed the
>elongation of the display horizontally, and accordingly they all fill
>the display.
Sounds like somewhere down in the depths of the display's menu system
it is set to "always fill the full display area". If you have any
interest in photo-realism, you probably want to turn that off. There
may be a choice to "preserve aspect ratio", and there is almost
certainly a choice to show "actual pixels".
> I have a feeling that if I could enter the right
>resolution, then the display would NOT elongate horizontally. Right?
Very likely. My system (Intel 815 graphics) did not show the 1680x1050
choice until I plugged in my Dell 2005FPW. Then it suddely appeared in
the list, and choosing it worked perfectly. In your list, 1280x768
should show the proper aspect ratio, even if it is scaled up to fill
your screen (if it really is 1680x1050 native), but the scaled pixels
will of course look blocky.
>And then, a circle would remain a circle. A skinny face would remain
>a skinny face. Etc.
Well, on my Dell that is true for analog VGA and DVI inputs, but for
the RCA and S-Video inputs there is no combination of settings that
will show a proper aspect ratio. Dell doesn't consider this a problem
at all...
>Are U saying that I should search out more uptodate drivers for this
>video card (AGP), in the hope of coming up with the correct
>resolution?
That is your best shot at filling your whole screen correctly. Chip
vendor drivers (ATI) generally provide more capable drivers and more
frequent updates than computer builders, or Windows itself. Probably
as part of a 20 or 30 MB download...
>I have read of a term 'aspect ratio'. Is that involved here?
Precisely. Somehow most people these days seem quite tolerant of
improper aspect ratio. I'm always amazed to find people I thought were
tech-savvy watching 4:3 video stretched to fill their 16:9 widescreen
TVs. They'd rather see fat people than black bars. Guess it makes them
feel better about thier own weight issues.
Loren
| |
| Charlie Choc 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:31:58 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:22:39 -0500, Charlie Choc
><charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>
>Yeh - I found and downloaded a RADEON 9200 PRO set of 'current'
>drivers and they won't install for a bunch of reasons including the
>fact that I am not an Administrator, and I AM. I'm the ONLY user,
>
You need to contact your *monitor* manufacturer, not the video card
manufacturer.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
| |
| Loren Amelang 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:54:30 -0500, Charlie Choc
<charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:31:58 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>You need to contact your *monitor* manufacturer, not the video card
>manufacturer.
After thinking about this, it may be good advice. You still need a
graphics driver from ATI that knows how to do 1680x1050, no matter
what. But it may not show you the 1680x1050 choice unless it sees that
a 1680x1050 capable display is connected.
I can't remember now whether my 1680x1050 option appeared immediately
when my Dell connector was inserted, or only after I "installed" the
display using the CD that came with it. It is more likely it was a
display driver from Dell that made the difference, since I don't
believe analog VGA is a two-way connection.
If your particular display manufacturer is no help, I suspect
"installing" any brand of 1680x1050 capable display would enable the
1680x1050 choice. Just download a driver for a display you don't even
own and try it... I can't see that my display driver did anything
else beyond enabling that resolution choice. (Another case of vendors
trying to make computing simpler...)
Loren
| |
| Tony Cooper 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:55:32 +0000, Derek Fountain
<nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>Looks like a Samsung SM940T is the most suitable for what I need. I
>don't suppose anyone is using one who can vouch for it as a
>Photoshop-friendly device?
I'm using a Samsung SM931b (not a wide screen) and love it. I'm
almost afraid to post this since someone will be along soon and tell
me that the SM931b is total crap and the worst choice.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
| |
| Jethro 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:52:09 -0800, Loren Amelang <loren@pacific.net>
wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:44:32 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>...
>
>
>Sounds like somewhere down in the depths of the display's menu system
>it is set to "always fill the full display area". If you have any
>interest in photo-realism, you probably want to turn that off. There
>may be a choice to "preserve aspect ratio", and there is almost
>certainly a choice to show "actual pixels".
>
>
>Very likely. My system (Intel 815 graphics) did not show the 1680x1050
>choice until I plugged in my Dell 2005FPW. Then it suddely appeared in
>the list, and choosing it worked perfectly. In your list, 1280x768
>should show the proper aspect ratio, even if it is scaled up to fill
>your screen (if it really is 1680x1050 native), but the scaled pixels
>will of course look blocky.
>
>
>Well, on my Dell that is true for analog VGA and DVI inputs, but for
>the RCA and S-Video inputs there is no combination of settings that
>will show a proper aspect ratio. Dell doesn't consider this a problem
>at all...
>
>
>That is your best shot at filling your whole screen correctly. Chip
>vendor drivers (ATI) generally provide more capable drivers and more
>frequent updates than computer builders, or Windows itself. Probably
>as part of a 20 or 30 MB download...
>
>
>Precisely. Somehow most people these days seem quite tolerant of
>improper aspect ratio. I'm always amazed to find people I thought were
>tech-savvy watching 4:3 video stretched to fill their 16:9 widescreen
>TVs. They'd rather see fat people than black bars. Guess it makes them
>feel better about thier own weight issues.
>
>Loren
Yeh - I have a few friends that have had same problem and they live
with it. I should have bought a regular LCD monitor, not wide screen.
I have spent two days trying to download up to date drivers for my
video card and my monitor - have not succeeded yet as I described
earlier. Today's another day.
Thanks
Jethro
| |
| Jethro 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:22:39 -0500, Charlie Choc
<charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:09:24 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>
>You probably need to contact your monitor manufacturer.
I finally was able to download/install a set of ATI drivers for this
RADEON 9200 PRO AGP video card. It provided a few more resolution
choices in Control Panel>Display>Settings. Not 1689X1050, however. It
did provide 1920X1200, so I tried it, It produced a desktop display
too wide for the screen - the left two columns of desktop icons were
off the screen! I could work over to them however, using the mouse.
But that's not good. I'll try some of the other new resolutions I
spotted.
Thanks
Jethro
| |
| Jethro 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:33:17 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:22:39 -0500, Charlie Choc
><charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>I finally was able to download/install a set of ATI drivers for this
>RADEON 9200 PRO AGP video card. It provided a few more resolution
>choices in Control Panel>Display>Settings. Not 1689X1050, however. It
>did provide 1920X1200, so I tried it, It produced a desktop display
>too wide for the screen - the left two columns of desktop icons were
>off the screen! I could work over to them however, using the mouse.
>But that's not good. I'll try some of the other new resolutions I
>spotted.
>
>Thanks
>
>Jethro
I found three new resolutions, all of which I tried with no good
results:
1280X720
1360X768
1360X1024
BTW - In my prior post I meant 1680X1050 not 1689X1050 - sorry
Thanks
Jethro
| |
| Charlie Choc 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:44:32 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>BTW - In my prior post I meant 1680X1050 not 1689X1050 - sorry
1680x1050 is an 8:5 aspect ratio. If you divide the width by the height of your
available choices, any combination that gives 1.6 as a result should be the
right proportions.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
| |
| Jethro 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:34:09 -0500, Charlie Choc
<charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:44:32 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>1680x1050 is an 8:5 aspect ratio. If you divide the width by the height of your
>available choices, any combination that gives 1.6 as a result should be the
>right proportions.
1920X1200 fits that bill. So I tried it. Opened Pshop - created a
new window - rendered it 5X5 to make it square - drew a filled (black)
circle - printed it - it produced a vertical ellipse. I imagine the
result was that way because it wanted to squeeze the elongated total
window width on my wide screen to the 8 1/2" paper width. So that's
no good. Further - the maximum window sizes will not fit on the
screen, and so the window jumps all over the place as I try to point
to the window side edges. That's no good either,
Thanks
Jethro
| |
| Charlie Choc 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:40:21 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>1920X1200 fits that bill. So I tried it.
Your monitor won't display 1920x1200. You need a resolution equal to or smaller
than 1680x1050.
Your issues are with your *monitor* not your display adapter. I have an ATI
RADEON and 1920x1200 displays perfectly on my monitor, but your monitor
apparently can't handle that resolution and you need to find one that it can
handle with the proper aspect ratio.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
| |
| Jethro 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:49:00 -0500, Charlie Choc
<charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:40:21 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>
>Your monitor won't display 1920x1200. You need a resolution equal to or smaller
>than 1680x1050.
>
>Your issues are with your *monitor* not your display adapter. I have an ATI
>RADEON and 1920x1200 displays perfectly on my monitor, but your monitor
>apparently can't handle that resolution and you need to find one that it can
>handle with the proper aspect ratio.
The only ControlPanel>Display>Settings>resolution of those that are
available to me that produce the desired situation that a round circle
stays a round circle is 1280X768. All the others print an ellipse
from a circle of one level of elongation or another. So I guess I
should stick to that.
What do I lose by not using one of the higher resolution settings
(e.g.1600X1200)? In other words, should I consider using 1280X768
ONLY for graphics (pictures), but use a higher setting otherwise?
That would require accessing ControlPanel>Display>Settings some, but
if it would be worth it, I guess I could do it.
Thanks for your interest
Jethro
| |
| Charlie Choc 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 18:47:36 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>What do I lose by not using one of the higher resolution settings
>(e.g.1600X1200)?
Higher resolution will give more details, but that's pretty useless if things
are distorted. If you don't want to check with the monitor manufacturer to see
if they have any better ideas you should stick with 1280x768.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
| |
| Jethro 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:57:13 -0500, Charlie Choc
<charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 18:47:36 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>
>Higher resolution will give more details, but that's pretty useless if things
>are distorted. If you don't want to check with the monitor manufacturer to see
>if they have any better ideas you should stick with 1280x768.
Oh I thought I said - I e-mailed ACER. No reply, but it is weekend.
Maybe they will come through with something.
Thanks again
Jethro
| |
| Charlie Choc 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 20:15:37 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>Oh I thought I said - I e-mailed ACER. No reply, but it is weekend.
>Maybe they will come through with something.
>
If you have their 22" widescreen (Al2216W), did you download and install the
file from here?
http://www.acerpanam.com/synapse/fo...words=&areaid=7
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
| |
| Jethro 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:11:45 -0500, Charlie Choc
<charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 20:15:37 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>If you have their 22" widescreen (Al2216W), did you download and install the
>file from here?
>http://www.acerpanam.com/synapse/fo...words=&areaid=7
No
I have the ACER AL2234WD. Do you have the URL for that model by
chance? I would appreciate it if you do.
Thanks
Jethro
| |
| Charlie Choc 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 23:02:51 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:11:45 -0500, Charlie Choc
><charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>No
>
>I have the ACER AL2234WD. Do you have the URL for that model by
>chance? I would appreciate it if you do.
>
Go to www.acerpanam.com and search from there.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
| |
| Jethro 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 18:09:34 -0500, Charlie Choc
<charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 23:02:51 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>Go to www.acerpanam.com and search from there.
Oh - I had been there before - I got 'nothing found' for this monitor.
So I gave up trying to get something that way from ACER.
Thanks again
Jethro
| |
| Charlie Choc 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 00:05:30 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 18:09:34 -0500, Charlie Choc
><charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>Oh - I had been there before - I got 'nothing found' for this monitor.
>So I gave up trying to get something that way from ACER.
>
A Google search for that monitor doesn't turn up anything either - apparently
your monitor doesn't exist.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
| |
| Jethro 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 19:24:09 -0500, Charlie Choc
<charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 00:05:30 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>A Google search for that monitor doesn't turn up anything either - apparently
>your monitor doesn't exist.
Oh great! Got it from Tiger. No wonder. I never learn.
Jethro
| |
|
| Jethro wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:05:55 -0500, Charlie Choc
> <charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> In ControlPanel>Display, I have it set to 1600X1200.
> I chose that from these available choices:
> 800X600
> 1024X768
> 1152X864
> 1280X768
> 1280X960
> 1280X1024
> 1600X1200 <<<===
> 1792X1344
> 1800X1440
> 1856X1392
> 1920X1080
> 1920X1200
> 1920X1440
> 2048X1536
> My video card is a RADEON 9200 PRO SEC.
>
> I have tried several of these resolution choices. While the choice
> affected the icon and text sizes on the displays, none changed the
> elongation of the display horizontally, and accordingly they all fill
> the display. I have a feeling that if I could enter the right
> resolution, then the display would NOT elongate horizontally. Right?
> And then, a circle would remain a circle. A skinny face would remain
> a skinny face. Etc.
>
> Are U saying that I should search out more uptodate drivers for this
> video card (AGP), in the hope of coming up with the correct
> resolution?
>
> I have read of a term 'aspect ratio'. Is that involved here? If so,
> is that something I can change? And if so, how?
>
> Do you guys have any answers for me?
>
Well thats not correct as the screen you have will be 1680x1050 and this
is on the CD that came with the screen.
| |
|
| Jethro wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:22:39 -0500, Charlie Choc
> <charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Yeh - I found and downloaded a RADEON 9200 PRO set of 'current'
> drivers and they won't install for a bunch of reasons including the
> fact that I am not an Administrator, and I AM. I'm the ONLY user,
>
> Thanks
>
> Jethro
NO the drivers for the screen you need.
| |
|
| Jethro wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:22:39 -0500, Charlie Choc
> <charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I finally was able to download/install a set of ATI drivers for this
> RADEON 9200 PRO AGP video card. It provided a few more resolution
> choices in Control Panel>Display>Settings. Not 1689X1050, however. It
> did provide 1920X1200, so I tried it, It produced a desktop display
> too wide for the screen - the left two columns of desktop icons were
> off the screen! I could work over to them however, using the mouse.
> But that's not good. I'll try some of the other new resolutions I
> spotted.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jethro
It should have the native resolution as the others are unsharp.
| |
|
| Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:55:32 +0000, Derek Fountain
> <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I'm using a Samsung SM931b (not a wide screen) and love it. I'm
> almost afraid to post this since someone will be along soon and tell
> me that the SM931b is total crap and the worst choice.
>
>
Samsung make heaps of screen for other parties including Dell.
| |
|
| Jethro wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 19:24:09 -0500, Charlie Choc
> <charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Oh great! Got it from Tiger. No wonder. I never learn.
>
> Jethro
And they don't list it either.
you could try to download the driver for another 22"Acer LCD - AL2216W
AL2216W.zip
File Size: 6.572 KB
that may work or you could ask tiger where the CD is that should come
with the screen. Check with the manual what should have been supplied
with the monitor.
| |
| Charlie Choc 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 01:54:04 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>Oh great! Got it from Tiger. No wonder. I never learn.
>
I don't see an AL2234 on the Tiger site, sure you got the model number right?
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
| |
| Jethro 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 07:22:10 -0500, Charlie Choc
<charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 01:54:04 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>I don't see an AL2234 on the Tiger site, sure you got the model number right?
Yeh - Dang
I meant AT2223WD
Sorry
Jethro
| |
| Jethro 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| Dang again
It is AL2223WD AL2223WD
AL2223WD AL2223WD
Senility has set in - sorry.
Jethro
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:22:35 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 07:22:10 -0500, Charlie Choc
><charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>Yeh - Dang
>
>I meant AT2223WD
>
>Sorry
>
>Jethro
| |
| Charlie Choc 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:54:56 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>Dang again
>
>It is AL2223WD AL2223WD
I'd suggest trying the driver for the other monitor I sent you the link for - it
may enable the resolution you need.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
| |
| Jethro 2007-01-10, 6:20 pm |
| On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 10:52:41 -0500, Charlie Choc
<charlie.choc@XXXXXXXXXX.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:54:56 GMT, Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>
>I'd suggest trying the driver for the other monitor I sent you the link for - it
>may enable the resolution you need.
I did (AL2216W). My Device Manager said before I started that I had a
'default monitor'. I initiated it to get the new driver, and it tried
but said it could not use it for the monitor and left things intact.
Thanks anyway.
We try, huh?
Jethro
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|