PDA

View Full Version : What's your standard screen resolution?



robc
21-Nov-2006, 14:12
Just wondering what your standard screen resolutions is and on which platform?

You should be able to to make multiple choices.

Michael Gordon
21-Nov-2006, 14:42
For surfing or for imaging? I run two 'puters at diff. resolutions.

Jim collum
21-Nov-2006, 14:55
1600x1200 on all of them (not on your list)

jim

Mark Stahlke
21-Nov-2006, 15:01
80 characters by 40 lines seems appropriate for this forum.

Cheers,
Mark

robc
21-Nov-2006, 15:03
For surfing or for imaging? I run two 'puters at diff. resolutions.

for both really, I'm just curious as to the variation in screen res that people use. But for surfing I would be interested in the lowest that people use. I can get those figures elsewhere.

These figures are obviously going to be heavily skewed towards people doing digital imaging which is different from the average user.

QT Luong
21-Nov-2006, 15:05
Just wondering where you got this list from. I also use 1600x1200, which I thought was fairly standard.

robc
21-Nov-2006, 15:09
Just wondering where you got this list from. I also use 1600x1200, which I thought was fairly standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_resolution#Common_display_resolutions

I would have included more but we're only allowed 15 options in a poll.

and 1600 x 1200 was next!

Jack Flesher
21-Nov-2006, 15:36
1600x1200 all the time on both monitors.

Donald Qualls
21-Nov-2006, 15:44
I'm at 1152x864 -- like the fellow who jumps 53 feet into a sponge, "any higher and I'd kill myself." This is the highest resolution at which my (CRT) monitor can maintain 75 Hz scan frequency, which in turn is the lowest frequency that I find completely flicker-free in all light.

Same on both computers (one WinXP Home SP2, one Win98SE) at this desk.

Eric Leppanen
21-Nov-2006, 16:39
1600x1200 on a PC.

Eric Brody
21-Nov-2006, 16:55
I am a long way from being a computer nerd but when I tried 1600x1200 on my LaCie 19" monitor on my PC, things were VERY hard to read. I'd love to hear a discussion by some of you more knowledgeable folks on the pros and cons of various resolutions and in particular why you choose what you do. All this relates to digital imaging of course,

Thanks.

Eric

Kirk Gittings
21-Nov-2006, 17:43
Eric, Lacie recommends 1600x1200, but I find that very difficult to read also.

robc
21-Nov-2006, 17:43
most modern crt's have a grid behind the screen which is fxed and dictates the optimum screen resolution. But this is not the whole story. The dot pitch is fixed and determines the design spacing of the grid. Altering resolution from the design spec does not give optimum results. You need to buy a monitor designed for the resolution you want to use.

having said that you can change resolution. Resolution is controlled by the graphics card, and setting it to 1600x1200 will work. But, the card must give a high enough refresh rate and the refresh rate must be within the spec limits of the monitor. You'll need 75Hz plus for 1600x1200. The graphics card software can also change the base font size so that you can read text at 1600x1200. Fact is that unless you have a bigger monitor, then 1600x1200 is too high res for reading text and changing it in the graphics card software is likely to make other applications look strange or unreadable.

I think your monitor is designed for 1280 x 1024 screen res and if thats what the manual says then that is what you should use.

Jeffrey Sipress
21-Nov-2006, 19:16
1920 x 1200 Apple Cinema Display

1600 x 1200 Lacie 321

Where were these choices?

Doug Dolde
21-Nov-2006, 19:34
1600x1200 EIZO Coloredge

jim kitchen
21-Nov-2006, 23:22
1920X1200 Mac...

Daniel Geiger
21-Nov-2006, 23:53
2560 x 1600 on 30" Mac cinema display. For PS and ID.

Edwin Lachica
22-Nov-2006, 03:22
1280 x 854 on 1.67Ghz Powerbook

Remigius
22-Nov-2006, 04:49
PC, dual head with 1600x1200 and 1280x1024

robc
22-Nov-2006, 09:27
Results so far in slightly more meaningful format:




Resolution Used Percent
800×600 2 3.51
1024×768 13 22.81
1120×832 1 1.75
1152×864 4 7.02
1152×900 0 0.00
1280×1024 17 29.82
1280×800 1 1.75
1366×768 0 0.00
1440×900 2 3.51
1400×1050 1 1.75
1600×1024 4 7.02
1600x1200 7 12.28
1680×1050 2 3.51
1920x1200 2 3.51
2560x1600 1 1.75

Bob McCarthy
22-Nov-2006, 11:07
1920 x 1200 on Mac Cinema display latest version

1600x1200 on PC Samsung 213T

robc
23-Nov-2006, 06:56
Final result ( just in case anyone is interested).



Resolution Used Percent
800×600 2 2.78
1024×768 15 20.83
1120×832 2 2.78
1152×864 5 6.94
1152×900 0 0.00
1280×1024 21 29.17
1280×800 1 1.39
1366×768 0 0.00
1440×900 2 2.78
1400×1050 1 1.39
1600×1024 4 5.56
1600x1200 8 11.11
1680×1050 2 2.78
1920x1200 3 4.17
2560x1600 1 1.39
other 5 6.94

Jerzy Pawlowski
23-Nov-2006, 10:25
One more 1600x1200 on all 4 PCs, 1400x1050 on laptop.

Leonard Metcalf
24-Nov-2006, 06:24
Makes a farce of all those recommendations to keep your websites at 700 px... seems like 1000 is now the norm.

Regards,

Len

Ted Harris
24-Nov-2006, 08:06
Another vote for 1920x1200 on a 23" Cinema Display

robc
24-Nov-2006, 09:34
Makes a farce of all those recommendations to keep your websites at 700 px... seems like 1000 is now the norm.


Not quite. These figures are heavily skewed towards large format photographers and those using the higher resolution screens such as 1600x1200 are not your average user.

Real world figures for your "average" browser resolution are not often available and where they are, they are often misleading. My own figures which are skewed towards UK users, indicate 10% using 800x600, 40% using 1024x768 and the rest higher resolutions. If you had an online shop 800x600 would be perfectly acceptable design parameters for your web site. But for a photography site, 800x600 puts severe limitations on the size of an image which can be displayed on screen. So it depends on what your site is about and also your target audience. For example if your target audience is an imaging professional, then it is highly likely they will be using a high resolution screen so 1280x1024 may be acceptable. My own view is that for photography, 1024x768 is the lowest common denominator but it is still quite workable to design for 800x600. But if the majority of your users are then 1600x1200 the images will look very small on screen. Advice to design for 800x600 screens is stil valid, but only to a point.


its perfectly feasible to design a site which picks up the users screen resolution and serves up images of the appropriate size.

paulr
24-Nov-2006, 15:29
I'm trying out google analytics on my site, and it gives you stats on the screen resolutions of your visitors. I was surprised by the results ... only a percent or two using monitors smaller than 1024 x 768.

My guess is that people who visit photo sites are a skewed sample of all internet users.

JW Dewdney
24-Nov-2006, 15:31
1600x1200 and 870x1152 depending on which computer I'm using.

David_Senesac
24-Nov-2006, 20:26
Given so many high end photography users here, it is surpising so few are running at 1200x1600 or more. I'm at 1280x1024 at the moment on an old 21 inch Viewsonic CRT mainly due to some OS issues the last time I upgraded. Before that for a few years I was 1200x1600 that I liked more for Photoshop but which is generally too small for web text. Certainly being able to view a large image in as much detail as possible is an advantage when evaluating images. ...David

Keith Laban
25-Nov-2006, 04:19
NEC SpectraView 2090. 1600x1200 for photo editing. 1024x768 for web design and general stuff.

Ed Richards
26-Nov-2006, 19:38
another 1600x1200

robc
27-Nov-2006, 01:43
Given so many high end photography users here, it is surpising so few are running at 1200x1600 or more.

Given that there are over 9000 registered members and at any time there might be several hundred guests visiting the forum, 71 voters represent less than 1%, maybe less than 0.5%, so the sample size is not really big enough to make any real conclusions. It could be that only those who are seriously interested in the digital side have responded in which the figures could be hugely skewed. Who knows. What we need is a few hundred more voters to give a better picture...

Bruce Watson
27-Nov-2006, 05:59
1600x1200 on all of them (not on your list)

Same here.

ageorge
5-Dec-2006, 15:28
Dual 1600x1200 Mac

naturephoto1
5-Dec-2006, 15:43
1280 x 800 on my widescreen Laptop Dell PC.

Rich

squiress
5-Dec-2006, 15:57
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_resolution#Common_display_resolutions

I would have included more but we're only allowed 15 options in a poll.

and 1600 x 1200 was next!

Some pretty weird ones that you did include. I run 1600x1200 and then a pair of 24" at the office at 1920x1200, so 3840x1200 for the pair.

Stew

picsareus
5-Dec-2006, 19:02
I am a long way from being a computer nerd but when I tried 1600x1200 on my LaCie 19" monitor on my PC, things were VERY hard to read. I'd love to hear a discussion by some of you more knowledgeable folks on the pros and cons of various resolutions and in particular why you choose what you do. All this relates to digital imaging of course,

Thanks.

Eric

I have the similar experience. I set mine at 1024 x 768 since any higher resolution and the text and everything starts to be too small for comfort on my 22" Viewsonic CRT monitor. I should probably use a higher setting for viewing photographs, and then switch it back for doing "normal" computer stuff.

andrew vincent
5-Dec-2006, 21:53
1920x1200 on a mac (HD cinema display connected to a laptop)