 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I use an Acer AcerView 76e 17" monitor, left over from my previous computer.
It can safely reach 1280x1024 in 32 bit color (it can go to 1600x1200, but
it's not worth the risks). Not bad for a 2 1/3 year old monitor!
However, one thing that I didn't see mentioned was your display adapter.
That really determines how high of a resolution you can go to just as much
as the monitor. For example, my old Acer system, where I got the monitor
from, had a Rage Pro graphics chip with 2 megs of video RAM. With that
combination, you could get up to 1280x1024 in 8 bit, 1152x864 in 16 bit, and
800x600 in 32 bit. Now, with my new computer (and Rage Fury card) I can get
up to 1280x1024 in any color depth, however, that's a limitation my monitor
sets. In reality, the card can go to 1920x1600 (or something like that)
with no sweat.
In conclusion, my current setup (1280x1024 with 32 bit color) works out
great in Moray. I'd recommend it any day (until I get a bigger monitor.
hehe)
--
This message brought to you by:
-=< Ian (the### [at] hotmail com >=-
Please visit my site at http://spectere2000.cjb.net! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ian Burgmyer <the### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in berichtnieuws
38ba319b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Heh, I use 60 Hz. :) I am considering changing it. Any suggestions?
>
I believe 72 was considered to be all right for comfortable viewing, but it
seems that 85 is now the fashion.
Look at a spot a bit above your monitor and see whether the screen seems to
flash. If it doesn't: it's OK.
> 1280x1024 here. I know it isn't 4:3, but I really don't care, because
DVDs
> look good on it :)
>
I haven't played a DVD yet: what would be in my taste (68 old-world
old-fashioned)?
--
Regards,
Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ian Burgmyer wrote:
> Bruce <dke### [at] sksympaticoca> wrote in message
> news:38B### [at] sksympaticoca...
> > Wow! your answer came in an hour+ BEFORE I even asked! Now that's
> > survice.
>
> You see, Ken is an AI, but is special in the way that he can think before
> the message was posted. His old program was ineffective, working merely
> minutes. But apparently, he's improved it a bit. :)
Chris Colfax, too...and Warp...I think the entire POV-Team and their new Tech
Support crew thingy consists entirely of superintellegent artificial
intellegences, light years beyond human technology(I bet you Warp's memorized
teh entire POV-Ray manual<G>). They're like Jane from the Ender's Game
series.
>
>
> However, the server is very slow at updating the message database, so the
> message appears to arrive AFTER you're message.
>
> *shrug* The Internet is too slow for Ken.
>
> --
> This message brought to you by:
> -=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-
>
> Please visit my site at http://spectere2000.cjb.net! :)
--
You Know You've Been Raytracing Too Long When:
You think Windows loads fast.
Produced by Alex Magidow's Sig File Randomizer(YKYBRTTL jokes courtesy of
c.g.r.raytracing)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 1280x1024 here. I know it isn't 4:3, but I really don't care, because
DVDs
> look good on it :)
>
1280:1024=5:4
5:4 > 4:3
So I also use 1280x1024 on my 17" at 70Hz ...
The bad thing here iss my GfxCard... ATI-Rage-Pro 8MB ..
The Card doesn't make very straight signals ..
At higher refresh-rates the screen is very blurred horizontally...
at 80Hz a 10Pt Font wouldn't be readable...
But I have good eyes and I try to work at this as long as possible
Of course ... something bigger would be nicer..
Hmmm... what about a LCD on 1600x1200 ???
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In conclusion, my current setup (1280x1024 with 32 bit color) works out
> great in Moray. I'd recommend it any day (until I get a bigger monitor.
> hehe)
Oh yes.. I love this too, but the Bad thing on this iss: On that High
resolution I try now to render my Pics at least with 800x600 as a preview so
see something. some years ago with my old system it was OK to have a preview
with 240x160 or something but today a final resolution of 1024 or higher
would possibly take 2-3 days ... ohh... remembers me to the 0PPS-site *g*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:49:02 +0100 "Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote:
>I haven't played a DVD yet: what would be in my taste (68 old-world
>old-fashioned)?
(...continued in p.off-topic)
--
Alan
ako### [at] povrayorg
a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alex Magidow <axi### [at] mninternet> wrote in message
news:38BA71D4.6A156544@mninter.net...
> Ian Burgmyer wrote:
> > You see, Ken is an AI, but is special in the way that he can think
before
> > the message was posted. His old program was ineffective, working merely
> > minutes. But apparently, he's improved it a bit. :)
>
> Chris Colfax, too...and Warp...I think the entire POV-Team and their new
Tech
> Support crew thingy consists entirely of superintellegent artificial
> intellegences, light years beyond human technology(I bet you Warp's
memorized
> teh entire POV-Ray manual<G>). They're like Jane from the Ender's Game
> series.
Yes. . .
The POV-Team is indeed an AI. I went over there and saw the machines
myself! Oop, I wasn't supposed to tell you that. *gets zapped by a bolt of
lightning*
> You Know You've Been Raytracing Too Long When:
> You think Windows loads fast.
LOL! :D
--
This message brought to you by:
-=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-
Please visit my site at http://spectere2000.cjb.net! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sander <san### [at] stolscom> wrote in message
news:38ba5261$1@news.povray.org...
> Ian Burgmyer <the### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 38ba319b$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> > Heh, I use 60 Hz. :) I am considering changing it. Any suggestions?
> >
>
> I believe 72 was considered to be all right for comfortable viewing, but
it
> seems that 85 is now the fashion.
>
> Look at a spot a bit above your monitor and see whether the screen seems
to
> flash. If it doesn't: it's OK.
I believe my monitor can handle up to around 85, but I never tried it out.
Thanks for the suggestion! :)
>
> > 1280x1024 here. I know it isn't 4:3, but I really don't care, because
> DVDs
> > look good on it :)
> >
>
> I haven't played a DVD yet: what would be in my taste (68 old-world
> old-fashioned)?
...ARGH! I'm too young for this :)
"The Matrix" maybe? ;)
Or maybe exercise your mojo with "Austin Powers 2"?
Hey, I (honestly) heard that the "Wizard of Oz" DVD is pretty good, and I'm
considering putting it on my wish list. I, honestly, sort of like that
movie :)
--
This message brought to you by:
-=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-
Please visit my site at http://spectere2000.cjb.net! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Walzer <wal### [at] informatikuni-hallede> wrote in message
news:38bae1e6@news.povray.org...
> 1280:1024=5:4
>
> 5:4 > 4:3
>
> So I also use 1280x1024 on my 17" at 70Hz ...
>
> The bad thing here iss my GfxCard... ATI-Rage-Pro 8MB ..
> The Card doesn't make very straight signals ..
> At higher refresh-rates the screen is very blurred horizontally...
> at 80Hz a 10Pt Font wouldn't be readable...
*shrug* I had a 2MB version of the same card. Now that was hell on earth!
--
This message brought to you by:
-=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-
Please visit my site at http://spectere2000.cjb.net! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Walzer <wal### [at] informatikuni-hallede> wrote in message
news:38bae1e7$1@news.povray.org...
> > In conclusion, my current setup (1280x1024 with 32 bit color) works out
> > great in Moray. I'd recommend it any day (until I get a bigger monitor.
> > hehe)
>
> Oh yes.. I love this too, but the Bad thing on this iss: On that High
> resolution I try now to render my Pics at least with 800x600 as a preview
so
> see something.
800x600? Isn't that a bit steep for a preview?
> some years ago with my old system it was OK to have a preview
> with 240x160 or something but today a final resolution of 1024 or higher
> would possibly take 2-3 days ... ohh... remembers me to the 0PPS-site *g*
Hehehe :)
--
This message brought to you by:
-=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-
Please visit my site at http://spectere2000.cjb.net! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
