 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bruce wrote:
>
> Was just curious what size of monitor's people were actually using for
> doing 3D modelling.
I have a 15" monitor and would kill for a 19". 17" is "nice" but if you
can hold out for a 19" with decent resolution specs DO IT.
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
(I'm just writing down my thoughts here)
I have a 17" and it's cool. Before that I worked on a 15" and even
that was great cause I was used to work on a 14" (800*600! I now work
at 1280*1024 :-)
I think, but I'm not sure, that a 19" is rather expensive compared to
a 17", so I think, but I'm not sure (did I say that already?) that
it's still better to buy a 17".
But again: I'm not sure!
ZK
Bruce wrote:
>
> Was just curious what size of monitor's people were actually using for
> doing 3D modelling.
>
> I've only just played with Moray a couple times, but found it pretty
> tough to make anything reasonable with my old 14", so I'm looking at
> upgrading my system, and trying to decide between a 17" and a 19"+
>
> Of course, the bigger the better, but I was just wondering if a 17" is
> actually worth it, or if I should just skip it, save up a few more
> penies and go direct to a 19"?
>
> Thank in advance for any comments
>
> Bruce Lamming
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Recently I went from a Panasonic 17" to a Viewsonic G810 (21"). With a 32Mb
video card, I'm running 1280x1024 at 32bit. I'd say go for the 19"+ with
.25mm dot-pitch (or better). Depending upon your age, vision acuity, and the
time you expect to spend in front of a monitor, the effect may vary. But, to
my way of thinking, with visually intensive programs such a Moray/Povray,
most people don't give enough consideration to the monitor they'll be
using -- you have asked a good question, and your eyes will say 'thank you'.
...larry
Bruce <dke### [at] sk sympaticoca> wrote in message
news:38B### [at] sksympaticoca...
> Was just curious what size of monitor's people were actually using for
> doing 3D modelling.
>
> I've only just played with Moray a couple times, but found it pretty
> tough to make anything reasonable with my old 14", so I'm looking at
> upgrading my system, and trying to decide between a 17" and a 19"+
>
> Of course, the bigger the better, but I was just wondering if a 17" is
> actually worth it, or if I should just skip it, save up a few more
> penies and go direct to a 19"?
>
>
> Thank in advance for any comments
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It might start to become a bit like college ruled paper compared to wide-ruled
for school. I can see it that way anyhow. I always liked tiny writing (to many
a teachers dismay) so when I moved on to the college rule from wide rule after
elementary school (whatever those of you elsewhere call it) I was very content
to write smaller but then soon after started writing smaller still. I think
this must be a common thing because of the way the concept works to begin with;
large crayon-writing kids to pencil scrawls and eventually pen handwriting.
Whatever the purpose it does seem a typical characteristic.
What I'm getting at is that a person could probably move downward in monitor
size from a 19+" monitor at kindergarten age to a 17" in grade school then 15"
at adulthood, back up to a 17" or 19" when older and lazier eyes take control
perhaps. I'm half joking.
Resolutions for each of those sizes, and age brackets, going from 640x480 to
1024x768 then 1280x1024 and back again to 1024x768 (I have a 19" @ 1152x864
currently). Just to make a guess at a common screen setup.
I'm only pointing out one potential reasoning behind this, not that it has any
basis in reality or whether I know or not if it does. Modeling in a 3D program
is of course possibly very different from a average persons use of a monitor.
Bob
"Zeger Knaepen" <ZEG### [at] studentkuleuvenacbe> wrote in message
news:38B### [at] studentkuleuvenacbe...
| (I'm just writing down my thoughts here)
| I have a 17" and it's cool. Before that I worked on a 15" and even
| that was great cause I was used to work on a 14" (800*600! I now work
| at 1280*1024 :-)
| I think, but I'm not sure, that a 19" is rather expensive compared to
| a 17", so I think, but I'm not sure (did I say that already?) that
| it's still better to buy a 17".
|
| But again: I'm not sure!
|
| ZK
|
| Bruce wrote:
| >
| > Was just curious what size of monitor's people were actually using for
| > doing 3D modelling.
| >
| > I've only just played with Moray a couple times, but found it pretty
| > tough to make anything reasonable with my old 14", so I'm looking at
| > upgrading my system, and trying to decide between a 17" and a 19"+
| >
| > Of course, the bigger the better, but I was just wondering if a 17" is
| > actually worth it, or if I should just skip it, save up a few more
| > penies and go direct to a 19"?
| >
| > Thank in advance for any comments
| >
| > Bruce Lamming
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I started many years ago with 15" at 1024x768 and I was quite happy with it,
until 5 years ago when I switched to 17" at 1024x768 and liked that very
much !
Then I got the opportunity to buy relatively cheap a 21" Sony Trinitron
Multiscan 520GS and I am in heaven now! My eyes are old, about the same age
as I am, but after a recent thorough maintenance job I can see as clearly as
when I was 45! Now the 21" seems a bit overdone, but I am still in heaven.
I would suggest that you wait a little and buy a 19". That would serve you
for as long as the tube lasts...
--
Regards,
Sander
Bruce <dke### [at] sksympaticoca> schreef in berichtnieuws
38B### [at] sksympaticoca...
> Was just curious what size of monitor's people were actually using for
> doing 3D modelling.
>
> I've only just played with Moray a couple times, but found it pretty
> tough to make anything reasonable with my old 14", so I'm looking at
> upgrading my system, and trying to decide between a 17" and a 19"+
>
> Of course, the bigger the better, but I was just wondering if a 17" is
> actually worth it, or if I should just skip it, save up a few more
> penies and go direct to a 19"?
>
>
> Thank in advance for any comments
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Bruce!
In the beginning I worked with Moray on a 15" Monitor @ 800 x 600 pixels
85Hz. Since three weeks I have a quite good 17" Monitor with 95KHz
horizontal frequency. Now I have Moray running at 1024 x 768 pixels @
120Hz with small fonts.
Working with Moray becomes more comfortable with higher resolution. But
my opinion is: Better have a good 17" monitor than a bad 19" monitor.
Karl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Was just curious what size of monitor's people were actually using
> for doing 3D modelling.
I just use a normal (not very expensive) 17" monitor at 1024x768.
Of course, you'll see an increasing number of people using 19" or even
21" monitors, but actually these wouldn't even fit on my desk. So a
BIG flat-screen is the thing I'm dreaming of... but that's REALLY
expensive so of course I'll never have it.
Florian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Never heard of a 13" monitor!
75 Hz is not enough for real comfort.
I forgot to mention that I use 1260x960 now routinely. Dont forget that with
age your vision becomes less acute: mine went down from 1.2 to 0.4 the last
few years; now it is back to 1.0!! 21" seems a bit overdone but I love the
resolution and the large icons and lettering...
--
Regards,
Sander
Psychomek <psy### [at] cyberhighwaynet> schreef in berichtnieuws
38B407C0.674CEC89@cyberhighway.net...
> I have a 15" monitor at 800x600 32bit at 75hz and it is better on my eyes
than
> that crappy 13" 640x480 8bit i had....
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have a 19 inch monitor and i love it. it's a viewsonic v95 and cost 450
bucks plus tax. i think it was worth it. one reason is that once you get
into 19 inch+ monitors, you don't feel the need to upgrade all the time
like you do with CPUs. another reason is that you can run at high
resolutions and actually see everything. i run at 1280 by 1024. so save
and get the 19".
Bruce wrote:
> Was just curious what size of monitor's people were actually using for
> doing 3D modelling.
>
> I've only just played with Moray a couple times, but found it pretty
> tough to make anything reasonable with my old 14", so I'm looking at
> upgrading my system, and trying to decide between a 17" and a 19"+
>
> Of course, the bigger the better, but I was just wondering if a 17" is
> actually worth it, or if I should just skip it, save up a few more
> penies and go direct to a 19"?
>
> Thank in advance for any comments
>
> Bruce Lamming
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The 5:4 aspect ratio doesn't bother you? I use 1280:960... :)
--
Regards,
Sander
ryan constantine <rco### [at] yahoocom> schreef in berichtnieuws
38B6CD78.9834C22F@yahoo.com...
> I have a 19 inch monitor and i love it. it's a viewsonic v95 and cost 450
> bucks plus tax. i think it was worth it. one reason is that once you get
> into 19 inch+ monitors, you don't feel the need to upgrade all the time
> like you do with CPUs. another reason is that you can run at high
> resolutions and actually see everything. i run at 1280 by 1024. so save
> and get the 19".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. :)
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! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sander <san### [at] stolscom> wrote in message news:38b4e937@news.povray.org...
> Never heard of a 13" monitor!
They exist. . .and they are so small you wouldn't want to run it in 320x200.
My friend had one, and it was hard to read at 800x600.
> 75 Hz is not enough for real comfort.
Heh, I use 60 Hz. :) I am considering changing it. Any suggestions?
> I forgot to mention that I use 1260x960 now routinely.
1280x1024 here. I know it isn't 4:3, but I really don't care, because DVDs
look good on it :)
> Dont forget that with
> age your vision becomes less acute: mine went down from 1.2 to 0.4 the
last
> few years; now it is back to 1.0!! 21" seems a bit overdone but I love the
> resolution and the large icons and lettering...
21" monitor. . .that's my dream. However, it's a bit out of my price range
;)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] hotmailcom >=-
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
