What screen resolution do Poser users set their screen to? What size of screen? Does anyone have two screens?

1.1024x768 2.17" crt 3.yes [17"x2]

1. 1600X1200 2. 19"crt 3. Yes (Three screens I fun poser on one screen and on teh secon U use for materil room settings.)

1280X1024 21" LCD + 19" LCD Yes

1. 1280 x 1024 2. 19" CRT 3. No

1. 1280 x 960 2. 19" CRT 3. Not me

1. 1280 x 1024 2. 17" TFT 3. No

1. 1024x768 2.15" TFT 3.No

1. 1280 x 1024 2. 17" TFT 3. no

1. 640x480 I hated it when Poser 5 forced me to use a screen size of 1024x768! 2. 13" 3. No, I don't think my Windows 95 supports 2 monitors. Yes, I refuse to upgrade my hardware and OS when there's so much great stuff to buy at DAZ!

1. 1600x1200 2. 21" CRT (Sony Trinitron) 3. No Cheers

1)1600X1200

1. Apple Studio Display 23'
2. yea 1280x1024 19' veiwsonic flat crt

1152 x 864 17" CRT No

800x600 13" (that's why 800x600 - tiny space for monitor!) No

1280 x 960 17" no, but plan to get a dual output card soon

1152x864 17" LCD No

1024x768 17" CRT trinitron No

1280 x 1024 17" CRT No

Gigaroc - 23" - who says size doesn't matter - I am well jealous! 1024 x 768 17 " No

1600x1200 22" ViewSonic CRT No NOTE: People, never use 1280x1024 if you can possibly avoid it. Use 1280x960 instead to get the right ratio. 1280x1024 makes everything look short and fat. It's 5:4, whereas a computer screen is made to look right at 4:3. Conversely, if you make a character/object/render that looks right on your screen, it will look tall and skinny on other people's screens. :] Fish

Very true, FishNose, but sadly enough some graphic cards does not support 1280 x 960... (Luckily, mine does!) This is a stupid oversight by the PC industry in general, it looks like we are ending up with 1280 x 1024 as a de facto standard. Weird!

-2560:1024 (spread across dual 1280:1024 monitors) -19" -yup "a computer screen is made to look right at 4:3" Please explain further fishnose... brainfog here perhaps. While traditional broadcast television standards (non HiDef) fixed aspect ratios at 1:1.33, there is no such standard for computer displays. What I mean is if I render an image 4:5 or 2:3 or 10:1, it opens on your 4:3 monitor at the same ratio as I rendered it, it just will not fill up your entire desktop edge to edge. I gather we're talking about two different concepts. Whadeye miss? Were you referring to the difference between square vs. rectangular pixel displays perhaps?

All PC screens (except possibly for highly specialised ones for medical and military purposes, etc) are made a certain height in relation to width, 4:3. The CRT is PHYSICALLLY that shape and ratio. Happens to correspond to TV, 4:3 is the same as 1:1,33, put a different way. If you fill the screen with a picture at 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960, 1600x1200 or 2048x1536, it is precisely 4 wide to 3 high and looks right. 1280x1024 is not - it is 5 wide to 4 high. Short and fat by about 10% or so. What you render an image at is not an issue. It's the number of lines the graphics card is instructed to shoot per cycle. Regardless of what height and width you render at, it looks fine at a 4:3 ratio. If you look at it in 1280x1024, it looks wrong. Simple test - at 1024x768, create a basic block image onscreen, exactly square. Measure it with a ruler on the screen, make sure it is square. Then reset the graphics card to show 1280x1024 and measure the square. It will of course be a slightly different size (smaller), but NOT square. This is what happens when you (if running at 1280x1024) look at other people's images, everything is a bit short and fat. Unless of course they were working at that resolution too and made it look right on their screen :o) ------------------------------------------------ Another thing - PC screens always run at 72 dpi. Standard. So for display onscreen, dpi settings are irrelevant. The only issue onscreen is pixel width by pixel height of the image. Dpi only has significance when printing. For instance, when preparing an image in Photoshop for print. ----------------------------------------------- Plasma and LCD screens are a different kettle of fish. They are even more literal with this pixel thing, being hard wired with a certain specific number of pixels. The matrix is say 1024x768 for instance, and if you run it at any other resolution, it looks like cr*p because the graphics card is forced to approximate, smearing virtual image pixels across the hard wired borders of a different number of physical pixels. In other words, laptops are junk for graphics work unless you will always work at exactly the resolution the screen is made for. :] Fish

Ah! - That makes sense.

Guess I hadn't noticed because I'd forgotten that (similar to the test you proposed) after originally setting my card's display rez, it just seemed natural to adjust the monitor's H & V Size until true circles looked round and a square did in fact physically measure equilateral again.

Although this does yield slightly wider borders at the top & bottom than at the sides, I had (presumptuously) just assumed everyone did something similar to calibrate their picture tube, regardless of aspect ratio, rather than just filling the screen side to side and top to bottom. I now understand your point though and see the difference. Thanks for the elaboration FN.

I'm not trying to show off, i just work in a computer store, so i can pick up all the stuff that comes off demo or gets returened (eg, my screen is cracked in the corner)

Thanks fishnose, That info came at the right time. I just got a new 17" and wanted to up the rez from 1024/768. I was going to go for 1280/1024 when I read this. I'll stick with 1280/960. thanks mac