Hi,
I do a lot of post on images.
I have my screen set at 1024/768 at a 17 inch monitor.
I was just wondering, what kind of settings do you use when doing a large image with a lot of postwork, at my settings the post is very hard, scrolling all the time,zooming out doesnt work, it gives the wrong perspective on the image.
I really want to work at actual size.
So any input will be most welcome:-)
Thanks in advance, Dalinise.

Hi Dalinise, I know exactly what you mean, its a convoluted and messy way of working, reminds me of using an airbrush with all the masking that had to be done, it feels restrictive and confining. I have the same resolution but only a 14" LCD monitor, and work on pictures up to 2300x3300 pixels. Apart from the obvious solution of hardware upgrading and larger monitors (and lots of money spent on it) there is little that can be improved. Ive found the "zoom and scroll" method works okay when done with the navigator tool in Photoshop Elements. Well, that wasn`t very helpful, all I can offer is sympathy B) Mark

First of all...surprised to see YOU asking for input ! All your stuff is so darn good...hard to beleive you have been annoyed at all with postwork...hehe. But I see Routledge has already given my answer. The navigation tool in PS is your friend. Drag left or right is easiest way for me to "size" my work area. And drag the red box where you want on the thumb is easiest to "find your spot". That is, if you USE PS. Lots use PSP. BTW, keep up the GREAT work...have always been envioius of your art.

I'll throw in my nickels (inflation, and all) and say I just do the same thing. Scroll and zoom and tackle a few pieces at a time, zoom out to check, zoom back in and resume. I normally render everything at 3000x3000 and I'm at 10x7 on a 15" monitor, so, I obviously do a lot of zooming. I've gotten used to it, so it's not a big deal any longer.

I use 2 15" LCD Monitor (2048X768) side by side. I use Photoshop 6 for postwork and I would move all the tool bars to one monitor and keep the main screen on another. If I am using only one monitor I would hit the "tab" key to hide the tool bars or hit the "tab" key again to show the tool bars. By tool bars I mean to include the layer window, color picker, history window, etc. BTW I love Dalinise' work - looking forward to your anything new from you, Dalinise. JVR

Echoing JVRenderer's compliments...just spent a while in Dali's gallery again and wondering why some of those don't appear in the new printing gallery. BTW, JV, I've always been scared to try two monitors...worried about crashes...seems to me only Mac has done that well...so are you on a Mac or PC? If PC, how stable is it?

Hi Chuck, I am on a PC. Specs: MB-Abit KR7A, CPU-Athlon XP1800, Mem-1 GB PC2100 DDR, Hard Drive-Maxtor ATA133 40GB, Video Card-Matrox G400 (Dual Display support), Multimedia-1 DVD, 1 CDRW, Soundblaster live 5.1, Monitors-Viewsonic VG150 ViewPanel, OS-Windows 2000 (regularily updated). I built this last December. I had about 2 maybe 3 lockups. I'd say it's pretty stable. JVR

Yep, I'd call that REAL stable. I'll have to keep that in mind...darn shame I just got a new PC and discarded that thought at the time...would hate to throw away my 64MB nVidia card now.

I run a 21 inch monitor at 1600x1200 at 32 bit for both Poser and PShop. Do all my textures in 3000 or 4000 size, postwork on images at about 3000. Note 1: Ron and everyone else - avoid 1280x1024 when working with figures. The screen ratio at that particular resolution is incorrect. It's 5:4. All other resolutions (640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960, 1600x1200, 2048x1636) are at the correct 4:3 ratio. if you work with figures, and pose and scale at 1280x1024, you're going to make them look right for your eye at that incorrect ratio. When then viewed by anyone using the normal correct ratio of 4:3, your figures will be too tall and skinny, since you automatically (unknowingly) compensated for the ratio when you were posing. So on your own screen at 1280x1024 they look fine, but not elsewhere. A good alternative (I use this when on a smaller monitor) is 1280x960 (4:3) which not all monitors and cards support, but a fair number do. Note 2: It's going to take years before I change to LCD. I'll stick to my CRT. Reason: A CRT monitor can show any resolution with correct shaped pixels in the correct number to display the chosen resolution. However, an LCD cannot - it has a FIXED number of discrete pixel points, a matrix of precisely 1024x768 points or 1280x1024 whatever. Choosing any other resolution forces the monitor to approximate the resolution by 'smearing' each pixel across the fixed physical boundaries of the matrix, making your image smear/lose focus. Since I swap resolutions all the time, for testing cd-rom productions, editing video, running games etc, I must always get a sharp picture at every resolution. Also, the LCDs are so color brilliant and contrast high that your images are likely to look 'grey' on other people's CRT monitors. In the future, new flatscreen monitors with very high pixel counts (in the thousands) will appear, that allow resolutions to be approximated far better. IBM has already developed this technique for medical imaging, but the monitors cost a fortune - yet. :] FishNose

Sorry, that should be 2048x1536 in the sixth line above. Not 2048x1636. Typo. :] FishNose

For anyone who uses Photoshop, one of the handiest features for this kind of work is New View (Menu/View/New View). You can use a New View to zoom in tight for small details and still check the overall progress on the original. mac

Speaking of Photoshop - I have PShop 7 installed now. I was trying it out in 1792x1344 (boy, that's a bunch of tiny menu texts!) and then saved the workspace as a preset. PShop bombed completely, and so did Win2000! I rebooted and PShop refused to start. Reported a 'hardware or system error'! I had to reinstall it and now avoid anything higher than 1600x1200. I guess I should report the bug to Adobe. Even they can (and do) make mistakes! :o] FishNose

Ok ron how the hell did you do that to your workspace in poser? The pose, setup thing. Looks like folders? Can Poser4 do that?

That's the Poser Propack screen.

Thanks for the tips FishNose, I never would have known

Fishnose, I understand what you're saying about resolutions and screen ratio. However I don't seem able to get 1280x960. My choices are: 1.) 1280x1024 2.) 1152x864 3.) 1024x768 4.) 800x600 I don't know if the limitation of choices comes from this lovely on-board video chip, or the Compaq 17" Monitor. The monitor does say it has a "native resolution" of 1280x1024. It doesn't look like I can get a good screen ratio. So is that going to be a great liability?!

Ron- You could use 1152x864, that works. Of course, you don't get quite as big a screen, but the ratio is right. Regards- Lemurktek

Thanks to all of you for the feedback :-) It was very helpfull, and yes ChuckEvans, I need help too :-)))And thanks for the compliments! The reason why my work isn't in the printinggallery , is because it wasn't the right size, but most of all because I was under the assumption that there would be no demand for it, there is stuff outthere that is sooo much better then mine in my eyes, that I wouldn't like to make a naieve fool out of myself by placing mine in the printingsection, only to find out that nobody would buy it:-) . Fishnose, thank you for the correct settings, I was just trying them out and almost had them set on the wrong resolution . Now I have them at 1280 x 960 and it works much better, still have to adjust to the textsize though :-) And now something for all of you to have a great laugh about so pay attention: I have been so busy creating and painting that I didnt even knew about the navigator tool!!!!!! WAUW, what a discovery!!!! I dont have to scroll and zoom anymore, I can just use navigator, this is very helpfull indeed :-))))) THANKS !!! Okay signing of now, beeing very gratefull :-) Dal.

Ron - yes, 1152x864 is excellent. I missed that res, sorry about that. I've even used it, hell... Oh and another thing - using a certain resolution almost never sets it automatically at the best 'refresh rate' (sounds like number of beers per hour on a hot day), so one often has to set that manually. Refresh rate: the rate at which the picture on your monitor is updated. This is what causes flicker if the refresh rate is too low, llike a TV. On a TV you don't think about it too much (it's 50Hz in PAL, 60 Hz in NTSC on most TVs) since you're sitting far away from it. Ther are modern TVs (I've got one) that do double rate. The pictures is absolutely still. But on a computer monitor you're real close and a default rate, often 60 Hz,is very tiring for the eyes. It should be 75 Hz or higher for good ergonomics. My eye limit (where I see flicker) at high resolutions is about 78Hz. How to change it: Right click on desktop, choose 'properties'. Click on 'settings' Click on 'advanced' What you get now depends on your graphics card and whether it has specil utilities installed, but look for an option that shows the refresh rate and change it. With a little luck you'll get a drop down list of rates to choose from, the ones your card and monitor can handle. Pick the highest one available. Getting rid of flicker makes a huge difference to eye fatigue, so if you set this right you can pose twice as long before you get tired! :o] :] FishNose

Thanks again :-)))

I just checked my settings, and my monitor is apparently only capable of showing 60HZ. I haven't noticed any flicker, but maybe that's due to my aging eyes and "no-line bifocals?!" I'll probably change the screensize sometime today. I woke up too early and should try getting more sleep.

To best see flicker it is advisable to look with the side of your eye, ie look past the edge of the monitor not directly at it. Try it with a TV, it is more noticeable, particularly in the UK where it is only 50Hz. Our eyes are designed to "blur" motion, that is why a film at only 30Hz doesn`t look like a flip-book.

Actually I think a film is 24/25 Hz not 30.

I switched to 1152x864 resolution and suddenly 75hz was available. I suddenly saw a bad flicker that wasn't seen before. I went back down to 60hz, and don't see the flicker. *** This monitor may not be the absolute greatest. It's a Compaq monitor, and was on sale for about $80, after a rebate. We got it at a time when a $200+ monitor just wasn't feasible for us. I've been very happy with this monitor. Maybe I don't need to fuss about it.. outside of changing that resolution.

Ron - the 'bad flicker' you saw may well have been just for the few seconds after switching refresh rates - If you leave it at that rate, it settles down after 5-7 seconds or so. Or did you run it for a longer while? Rout - yes, film runs at 24 fps. :] FishNose

Thanks Fishnose. I put 24/25 because in the UK they get shown at 25 fps, to sync with our 50Hz electricity. Point of trivia, films run 4% shorter in the UK, leaving us more time to get on with other things.

Now that is amazing! I had no idea. And 4% is a lot! Do you mean that this is the case at a movie theater?? :] FishNose

Hehe, yeah, lived in Europe for years and swear I could see the 50hz lights in the ceiling flickering...of course the more Bock beer I drank the less noticeable it bacame. OK, I'm surely not a video/monitor guru, but to add (or attempt to add something) to the info (I'm going on memory since I don't want to read the whole thread again)...interlaced and non-interlaced monitors will also make a difference in screen flicker (I think). One other thing, and this comes from the complaints of customers I serve out of our IT shop...flicker seems to show up best on a full white background. At least that was a major commonality in the complaints we received. So, possibly look for flicker with that kind of screen...not one filled with different colors.

Yes Chuck, you're right - but non-interlaced monitors disappeared off the market way back - the quality was too low, quite simply. About when the 386 was the processor of choice .:o] And flicker is certainly most noticeable with a very light screen - which is one of the reasons I always use a neutral grey BG for both Win desktop and Poser. Also, eye fatigue increases with high contrast and brightness. Fluorescent lights do most certainly flicker noticeably here in Europe - so I never use them myself. Only standard lightbulbs, which are 'slow' - they can't cool fast enough to flicker.

In answer to the original question, I work in 3200x2400 (in a 22" monitor, even though I use 1024x768 screen res (blind you see...hehe)) on most renders (and paintings) and in Photoshop I use the New View with one magnified and one not so that I can tell what it looks like both ways. I wish to the powers that be that Painter had this feature, but it don't which makes it useless for sizing issues (at least to me). Also I've noticed that if it's not clear in the larger resolution, when you shrink it down, it will have equally unclear issues (that will show up even more), so it's important to make sure that everything is clean in the upper resolution before shrinking... As to the monitor, having it too close to an electrical field can cause it to flicker at certain refresh rates that you wouldn't think it would...I had it flickering at 85 and realized finally if I moved it, that took care of it...

Yep, true, ShadowWind...although the experiences I have seen with outside interference usually causes some sort of "waving" at the edges, not so much flicker. I've seen people use a small fan at thier cubicles and have it beside the monitor...causing it. There is one monitor in one of our field offices in Kentucky that obviously sits against a wall that is cursed. I suspect that wall must hide all the main electrical cables coming in the building since NOTHING makes the monitor stop "waving" until you move it about 8 feet away from that wall. But that's a bit off topic...hehe.