How big do you look at the world

[John West]

This is something of a survey. I am curious as to the distribution of screen sizes used by RP viewers. I just changed from my old 15 inch Apple display (1024 x 768 pixels) to a new 23 inch Apple cinema display (1920 x 1200). My graphics world has expanded incredibly. But I wonder how many folks have these bigger screens. Clearly they are becoming more common. I had to change out the graphics card on my old G4, but it works fine with the new display. I previously limited my submissions to RP to 950 pixels wide, in order to maintain a bit of a border on my monitor. With the bigger screen I will submit future images at 1000 pixels, and perhaps even go up to 1024 (the max acceptable). Now that MY world is bigger, I'm wondering what works best for other viewers.

[trainboysd40]

My screen's only a 1680x1050
I like the full 1000 pixels height for the sheer detail, but I don't like scrolling. All in all, detail wins out.

[JimThias]

1024 x 683 is the standard that I crop MOST of my pictures at. It's just seems....right.

[JRMDC]

While my 15" monitor is only 1280 x something, I have always submitted 1024x shots, always wanted to have the biggest possible stuff on the site. So I do some inconvenient side-to-side movements when I am working on pictures.

[Andrew Blaszczyk (2)]

Since I decided to make my site best viewed at 1024x768 (guess that'll have to change soon) I made my screen size 1152 x 864 on my 17" CRT. I was used to 1024 x 768 for a long time but while editing the site I hated to scroll so I set it larger which also makes viewing RP images easier.

[John Craft]

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

2007 Higher 1024x768 800x600 640x480 Unknown
January 26% 54% 14% 0% 6%

And that was a year ago. Add about 10 points to "higher," subtract 6 from 800x600 and 4 from 1024/768 for current numbers.

JAC

[warbonnets]

19" LCD 1280x1024, 15" laptop 1280x800.

[Switched out]

Due to a hardware fault I decided to upgrade my whole system over the Christmas period including the display. I also took the opportunity to upgrade from Vista to Windows XP (Highly recommended if you ask me)

I now run two displays on my setup

24" 1900 x 1200 Wide Screen
17" 1280 x 1024

The laptop is a 15" 1680 x 1050 Wide Screen

All are calibrated by ColorVisions Spyder2

Christine.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by Switched out

I also took the opportunity to upgrade from Vista to Windows XP (Highly recommended if you ask me)

Hilarious!

Perhaps you upgraded from XP to Vista. There is a fair amount of Vista resistance; I have seen vendors that give you the option of having XP installed instead. I haven't used Vista, but from what I've read of it, it does seem like they tried to pack a lot into it and lots of us don't need such a bulky OS.

[Rich K]

For me it's a 19" widescreen LCD. 1440 x 900 resolution.

[Save The Wave]

19" FP 1600x1200
Everything I post to usenet/personal accts I crop to 1200 wide, for RP, 1024.

[westernsteam]

Originally Posted by John Craft

2007 Higher 1024x768 800x600 640x480 Unknown
January 26% 54% 14% 0% 6%

JAC

The W3 schools site is an invaluable resource for anyone building or maintaining a website, but even they warn that their numbers are probably skewed towards the high side, as they're derived from their own log files and their audience is a tech-savvy one, generally closer to bleeding-edge. Yes, these numbers are a year old, but from my own web logs and other evidence, it's pretty clear that, like it or not, 1024x768 is still the sweet spot for web developers, or for those posting images to the web.

I can't imagine doing serious graphics editing on lower resolution displays, but you have to plan for the fact that that's how most of your audience will view your images in the web world once you've done your editing. Probably the mostly highly regarded sharpening package on the market, Pixel Genius' Photokit Sharpener, doesn't even offer "sharpen for web" options beyond 1024 wide, and have been adamant in their opinion that anything larger is currently foolish to even consider.

And just to complicate things further, with the recent popularity of widescreen displays, while average horizontal resolution is slowly moving up, vertical is not following suit at the same pace, so portrait format images will continue to be problematic for web display.

Scott

[Warren]

1024 x 768 works best for me.

[ssw9662]

I use 1280x768. It works fine for me and I'm able to view 1024x768 photos with ease. I usually find myself using a 3x2 aspect ratio for RP submissions since I find that it appears best with this screen size.

[alan-crotty]

1600px X 1200px Mitsubishi CRT 20 inch

Alan

[strikefour]

dual-
17" CRT @ 1600x1200
17" LCD @ 1280x1024

[socalrailfan]

I go with Jim in cropping my photos to 1024x685. I have an old Sony 17" Multiscan 200sx, 12 years old. I'm scared to get a new monitor, this one is just so good, but over the last two years it's developed some real light pinkish horizontal bars near the top. It doesn't really affect anything luckily. I'd like to get a 19" but have no clue what to get. My screen resolution is 1152x864.

[mikekmac]

1024x768 on both laptop (15" display) and desktop (19" monitor).

[PLEzero]

1280 x 800 for me.

[Dennis A. Livesey]

24" 1920 x 1200 iMac for me. It's goregous! It makes me a much better photographer. I look at my old 15" monitor and I wonder how I survived 7 years with it!

Output 1024 x 768 for me too.

[chico]

1024x683 for rp.net, for heartlandrails.com 900x600

for verticles, I always liked 720x480, of course 750x500 for rp.net

chico
http://www.heartlandrails.com