Dual 19" monitors here in the main system running 1600x1200, The same on the wife's system, 1280x1024 13" monitor on my second system. (All 3 are networked.) I use it to check forums and email when I'm working on the main system. Oh! one crappy old win 98 system on a old 13" monitor networked to just play MP3 files while I work.

1280 x 1024 on a 17inch thin LCD monitor. The system I use to login to the internet is our oldest system.

Attached Link: http://www.ehow.com/how_13829_connect-two-monitors.html

This guy says you can connect up to 10 monitors on a PC in Windows. Now if I only had 10 eyes to watch 'em all... ;)

Attached Link: http://engadget.com/2005/10/25/uc-irvines-monster-hiperwall-monitor/

At home, where I actually get to spend some time in Poser - 1680 x 1050 (20in iMac G5) At work, where I don't - 2560 x 1600 (30in Apple connected to Dual 2.7 GHz G5) (I haven't had the nerve to connect a second 30in monitor, even though one is unused) The clear winner, though, is UC Irvine's Center of Gravity - 25600 x 8000 A wall of fifty (50) 30in Apple displays hooked up to a cluster of 25 PowerMac G5s.

an unused Apple 30" monitor.....that is conspicuous nonconsumption. BTW, Dell is continuing it's agressive pricing and positioning of the big Ultrsharps. The 24" LIST has been reduced to $850 because of the introduction of the 30" (2560x1600 pixels native), which lists at $2200, but you can get them to go lower. I know it is expensive, especially because if you go dual 19" CRT you can get just about the same real estate for less than $500 total. ::::: Opera ::::

1280 x 1024 (on 2 x 19" TFT)

depends on the computer:
1024 X 768 on Dell CRT monitor
1024 x 768 on my old 15" flat panel
1280 x 960 on the laptop
1280 x 1024 on the desktop 19" flat panel

Heck, you can get 2 19" crts now for as little as $60! Much as I'd like to get flatscreens, I'll wait till the pricing on them drops even further.

I use a dual screen set up with each screen at 1024 X 768. I'm looking to get 2 or 3 high def monitors when I get my taxes back and cash I have saved up.

Apple Cinema Display at office 1680 x 1050 Home Monitor (1024 x 768) Regarding the 4:3 aspect thing... Your monitor uses square pixels regardless of what resolution it's set at. The aspect ratios that you are referring to are relevant in the video realm where TV screens and some of the media use non-4:3 pixels. It doesn't apply to your monitor unless you're trying to display something specifically set to be non-4:3 on your monitor. A circle created in Photoshop using squaree pixels (the default) will appear to be a circle on your monitor no matter how you rotate it and what your screen resolution is. Unless... you have used your monitor controls to stretch the picture out.

Dual 43cm (1 CRT, 1 LCD) both @ 1280 x 1024

Regarding the 4:3 aspect thing... Your monitor uses square pixels regardless of what resolution it's set at. The aspect ratios that you are referring to are relevant in the video realm where TV screens and some of the media use non-4:3 pixels. It doesn't apply to your monitor unless you're trying to display something specifically set to be non-4:3 on your monitor. Well, square as differing from what, round? ;-) Let me make a simple example- you have a display that measures physically 12" wide x 9" high (thus 4:3 ratio). Your ultra-cheap display card uses a 640 x 350 (the old EGA ratio, a not-square one). The pixels actually measure .01875" wide x .0257 high. Non square, right? Now, to show what happens when you rotate a circle with is display, you draw one on the screen that seems perfectly round, it is 257 pixels wide X 188 pixels high, and measures 4.82" wide and high. Now, you rotate it 90 degress in PhotoShop. Photoshop rotates the actual pixels, so the former circle is now 188 pixels wide x 257 pixels high. The oval on the screen measures 3.52" wide x 6.60: high. Oh My! Bear in mind most modes aren't as non-square as the old EGA ratio, ut uou get the idea how it goes. ;-)

and this is why I don't do circles freehand ;) in tS, I type in the size I want or I use the Snapto tool. perfect circle each time.....

Here is a Dr Geep graphic on what I'm saying...

Which brings up a more important effect of non-square screen sizes:

When I set my right monitor to make the above graphic to 1280 x 768, I made the first circle round, then rotated a copy of it 90 degress in Photoshop. However, when I brought the picture into the left monitor (still running a "square" 1280 x 960) neither circle was round, one was a tall oval, one a wide one. Graphics are a set number of pixels, the result will change due to what the pixels actually measure.

So, if you are running a non-square pixels (which would be whenever the physical size of the display doesn't match the pixel ratio, it doesn't have to be 4:3, that is only the "normal" size) AND what you produce is shown on another, "industry standard" square pixel display the result is going to be too tall or too narrow, got what I'm saying? ;-)

We need to produce "standard" graphics (gamma factor too) if we expect our pictures will look as intended on other computers.

Message edited on: 02/14/2006 10:06

Bobasaur is correct. The pixel's he's referring to aren't the "classic" pixel, which is always square on computer screens under the standards they are set up (including your EGA example) under. Televisons, however, inclusive of HDTV, have a different standard that uses a rectangular pixel. In some situations, a computer creation will seem somewhat distorted on a televsion screen if the difference in pixel aspect isn't taken into account. Most video editing software adapts this as a default setting depending on the NTSC or PAL format.

2X19inch-1crt 1lcd both set to 1280 x 1024 would prefer 2X80inch HD plasmas but need to win 160,000 lol....

@jim Square as opposed to rectangular. I'm not familiar with EGA but your description of it sounds like TV pixels. They are taller than they are wide. The image above shows different Pixel aspect ratios as offered by Photoshop CS. If you create a perfect circle in an image based on one of the TV ones (D1 or DV), it will look distorted on a computer monitor - unless the software compensates for it in your display. Photoshop will do that. If you create an image using square pixels - the norm for computer monitors - it will look distorted on a TV unless you convert it. What you have described is like working in a document created using TV pixels but displayed on a computer monitor without any compensation. I have no idea how common EGA is but it's never come up as a concern in any of my professional studies in video production so my suspicion is that it's not that prevalent. That's not said to diminish your point at all. Please bear in mind that the stuff I'm talking about is only relevant if you're working back and forth between computer monitors and TV screens. Or maybe I should qualify that by adding "non-EGA computer monitors" Also, I'm referring to the aspect ratio of the pixels themselves. Not the number of them that are displayed in any given direction on a computer monitor. If you are using square pixels, your square pixel based image (such as Poser outputs) will display properly regardless of whether your monitor is 1024 x 768 (4:3 aspect) or 2048 x768 (an 8:3 aspect I made up just for example purposes). All the latter gives you is more screen real estate to work on.

Woah.

That's some sort of cross-post. I've been writing in between renders and haven't refreshed the page.

And here's the JPG I referred to.

It looks like the moral of the story is "don't use an EGA monitor."

;-) p.s. I think I get what's happening so I want to re-iterate, the aspect ratio of the display is not the same as the aspect ratio of the pixels themselves. The pixel's shape is a function of the hardware (as in monitor) you're using. It can't be changed - although sometimes software can compensate for it.

Message edited on: 02/14/2006 11:13

1280x1024 17" LCD.