 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here on a 23" 2304x1728: looks kind of small...
(he he |0)
--
Regards,
Sander
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricy net> schreef in berichtnieuws
38727762.A5622937@faricy.net...
> > it here on a 19" monitor with .28 dp at 1600x1200 res. right now so it
could
> > vary a lot on others knowing how lines change so much.
>
> Same thing here, yes, it does look realistic.
>
> --
> Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
> ___ ______________________________
> | \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
> |_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sander wrote:
>
> Here on a 23" 2304x1728: looks kind of small...
> (he he |0)
Aw you poor baby !
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hm, you must be better! Fine. I hoped to make someone jealous, but this
seems not to be te way. No no: that is not what I have.
--
Regards,
Sander
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> schreef in berichtnieuws
3873C85B.B876E262@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Aw you poor baby !
>
> --
> 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 searched the 'net a little for large monitors for the fun of it since it
got brought up (by me I think).
Oddly enough the two places I found said maximum resolutions were 1024x768
on a 34" and 512x342 on a 23" Mac one. Could it be that resolution remains
low on those big ones or I just happened upon a couple oddball webpages?
Just thought that seemed really strange.
Bob
"Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote in message
news:3874aeb3@news.povray.org...
> Hm, you must be better! Fine. I hoped to make someone jealous, but this
> seems not to be te way. No no: that is not what I have.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Sander
>
>
> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 3873C85B.B876E262@pacbell.net...
> >
> >
> > Aw you poor baby !
> >
> > --
> > 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <387591eb@news.povray.org>, "omniVERSE" <inv### [at] aolcom>
wrote:
> I searched the 'net a little for large monitors for the fun of it since
> it
> got brought up (by me I think).
> Oddly enough the two places I found said maximum resolutions were
> 1024x768
> on a 34" and 512x342 on a 23" Mac one. Could it be that resolution
> remains
> low on those big ones or I just happened upon a couple oddball webpages?
512*342? I think you found a couple monitors that could be classified as
antique. Was it monochrome?
I don't know what the typical resolutions for the newer large monitors
are, though.
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
No, web page was dated 1998 and it was color, I almost put the two URLs here
yesterday but decided it probably wasn't important.
The other monitors, the 23" and 34", that web page was also dated 1998 I'm
pretty sure.
Oh, had them in the history:
http://www.nashville.net/%7Egriffin/monitors/PDS00.html
and http://www.m-media.com/sampo-sm.html
Apparently more consistent with the television sort of monitor but for PCs.
Bob
"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff_99-19B060.06284907012000@news.povray.org...
> In article <387591eb@news.povray.org>, "omniVERSE" <inv### [at] aolcom>
> wrote:
>
> > I searched the 'net a little for large monitors for the fun of it since
> > it
> > got brought up (by me I think).
> > Oddly enough the two places I found said maximum resolutions were
> > 1024x768
> > on a 34" and 512x342 on a 23" Mac one. Could it be that resolution
> > remains
> > low on those big ones or I just happened upon a couple oddball webpages?
>
>
> 512*342? I think you found a couple monitors that could be classified as
> antique. Was it monochrome?
> I don't know what the typical resolutions for the newer large monitors
> are, though.
>
> --
> Chris Huff
> e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
> Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I don't know what the typical resolutions for the newer large monitors
> are, though.
1600x1200
all the way up to
2000-something x Bla
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 01:12:48 -0600, "omniVERSE" <inv### [at] aolcom>
wrote:
>I searched the 'net a little for large monitors for the fun of it since it
>got brought up (by me I think).
>Oddly enough the two places I found said maximum resolutions were 1024x768
>on a 34" and 512x342 on a 23" Mac one. Could it be that resolution remains
>low on those big ones or I just happened upon a couple oddball webpages?
>Just thought that seemed really strange.
>
>Bob
Now that's odd. I used to be able to trick Windows into running at
1600x1200, 43Hz interlaced on my 15" Belinea 105035. Had to fool
around with the settings and eventually switch off PNP because the
darn thing insists on reporting its max res as 1024x768 which it it
isn't. I've run it at 1600x1200 under Linux with no prob but then
again there's no such b.s. as PNP monitor there. I had some success
with old VESA compliant DOS apps such as image viewers (had to type in
the hex VESA mode). The bottomline is, don't believe what you read.
Made the calculations (vsync, hsync etc.) and see if it will support a
given res, then at the store, get an app (even POV-Ray for DOS will
work) and make them test the monitor at this res. In the unlikely
event that the monitor burns, well, it *should* work at all
resolutions allowed by its DACs, and then again, it wasn't your
monitor in the first place ;)
In short, 640x480 is typical for 12", 800x600 for 14" and 1024x768 for
15". For 17" I'd go with 1152x864, then for 19" and 21" try 1280x960
and 1600x1200 for anything bigger use 1600x1200. I am talking 4x3
here, no widescreen or 16x9 stuff, as I have no experience with those.
Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In short, 640x480 is typical for 12", 800x600 for 14" and 1024x768 for
> 15". For 17" I'd go with 1152x864, then for 19" and 21" try 1280x960
> and 1600x1200 for anything bigger use 1600x1200. I am talking 4x3
> here, no widescreen or 16x9 stuff, as I have no experience with those.
Who's stupid idea was it to make a 1280x1024 resolution anyway?
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Now that's odd. I used to be able to trick Windows into running at
> 1600x1200, 43Hz interlaced on my 15" Belinea 105035. Had to fool
Aw! 43Hz is like watching a strobe! I've got a 105076 (don't know the
difference from yours) and would say that the ideal resolution is
1152x864, 76Hz. It's pin sharp in the corners and rock steady.
sig.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
