Hi All, I have two questions about what people are doing with screen resolutions. I use a CRT and have my resolution set to 800 x 600. This makes things easy for me to see, and doesn't strain the video card (I have an older computer!) Question one: What resolution are you using and why? Question two: Flat panels are becoming very popular. The one's I have seen use a high resolution, usually 1024 x 768. Lower resolutions tend to look fuzzy and huge on the panels I have seen. If you use a flat panel, what resolution are you using? I'm just trying to get an idea of what people are doing these days. Thanks for your help!

I use 2624x1600.

I have one 19 inch CRT at 1600x1200 and an LCD at 1024x768.

I use the CRT for graphics and the LCD for email, chat, and so on. Even though I have a high quality LCD, I still don't find the value range to be good enough for graphics work.

1024 X 768. Most websites seem to look best (to me) at this resolution, same with artwork. Can't help you with second question, I don't have that kind of monitor.

1024x768 here too. Images look much better in this resolution. Besides, Renderosity is optimized for 1024x768.

1024 x 768

1024 x 768 I got a flat screen with my new pc, but chose a 15" one rather than the 17" regular screen I had on the previous pc. I haven't regretted getting the smaller screen - the active pane seems to work out at the same size as the old 17" screen.

1600x1200 on a 21inch crt everything is small...website are usualy half my screen... makes viewing two sites great though...and just general multi-tasking and not having to have so many windows closed or covered. also working at such high resolution, i average 900x800'ish, it leaves plenty of room for tools. not just in bryce.

I mainly use 1024x768 too, I have 1 PC with a 21" monitor that I have set to 1280x1024

1600x1200 on a 22" CRT. At 85Hz, which is more important than the resolution, cause 1600x1200 at 60Hz would be awful. But... My browser window is about 1024 pixels wide, just like with other mundane programs. OTOH, Bryce is set to full window, with 1024x768 document as default. Rhino also shows much more at 1600, as well as Photoshop and any other 3D/graphic program.

I have a 15" LCD (laptop) set at 1600x1200. Since that's the resolution it was optimized for, I'm stuck having to use it. But everything is painfully small to view and doing artwork on it sorta sucks. Aside from that...I have no complaints about the quality of the images I view with it. I just worry my own artwork ends up being too big for others or has flaws that I wasn't able to catch because I couldn't see them. I wish I'd known LCD screens allow for only one resolution before I ordered it. Live and learn :/

I agree with what's been said, for the most part! I use a 15" Shamrock set to 1024x768, and a 19" Viewsonic (my baby!) set to 1024x768. I will never use or own a LCD panel, they are garbage to me (refresh rates stink, native resolutions stink, NO true gaming potential = STINKY!). Until Plasmas get a bit cheaper, and even then they will not replace a CRT in my mind for brightness and clarity. 800x600? Only if you are using a 14" monitor, or your graphics card can't support anything higher. I use that setup at work, where all THREE are true! (14" CRT, onboard graphics, at 800x600 it STILL looks horrible!)

I find 1152x864 to be comfortable.

1024 x 768 crt. I think lcds are no good for rendering...too coarse.

1280 X 1024 on a 19" CRT monitor gives a lot of real estate to work in.

I'm with Aldaron at 19", 1280 x 1024. I have a 15" LCD on my old computer which I believe is set to 1024 x 768.

Hi All, Thanks for the replies about the resolutions and the flat screens. I knew you'd have interesting comments! Which leads to more questions that have me puzzled. As you know, Web delivery can be slow on a modem, though many are moving to cable and DSL. So, images are usually kept small to compensate (okay, it's the file size not the image size, but overcompression is another issue.) What does this do to those of you viewing at resolutions of 1024 and higher? Do you go crazy because the images are tiny? I like to write Bryce tutorials (I have no idea why, considering the work it takes, but I love discovering things in Bryce and sharing them) and I've put up three Bryce tutorials on my web site: http://www.clydesight.com/bryce.html The sample images look large enough to me at 800 x 600, but now I am thinking you must hate them because they are too small. And, at the high resolution, doesn't it take much longer for Bryce to render an image, thus slowing down your work load? And finally, going to the Web for movie trailers, even the large ones are small on 800 x 600 resolution. So do you see basically a postage stamp if you look at these? What are your experiences? Thanks!

For me, I really don't mind what size an image is, as long as it's a good image. Clarity and clean-ness really aren't image size dependent. I use an old program called Riptide which will calculate .jpg compression inversely, simple math really, so I can make any image hit the under-500K mark for galleries, or the under-200K mark for forums, so compression distortion isn't much of a factor...

1024x768 but i prefer higher stuff like 1152x864. 1024x768 is a compromise between my two hobbies, gaming and graphics. John