Prolly been axed before but, if you will ...

One more time ... si vois plait. ;=]

Do you have your screen size set to:

640 x 480 ?
800 x 600 ?
1024 x 768 ?
1152 x 864 ?
1280 x 720 ?
1280 x 768 ?
1280 x 960 ?
1280 x 1024 ?
Other ?
What's a screen size?
...... (Pssssst - NaySayGuy wanted me to include that last question.)

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Hi, Doc. 1024 x 768

1280 x 1024.

Jeff

Renderosity Senior Moderator

Hablo español

Ich spreche Deutsch

Je parle français

Mi parolas Esperanton. Ĉu vi?

1024 x 768

My Renderosity Store

1280 x 1024. mon plaisir


<strong>bandolin</strong><br />
[Former 3DS Max forum coordinator]<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.renderosity.com/homepage.php">Homepage</a> ||
<a href="http://www.renderosity.com/mod/sitemail/">SiteMail</a> ||
<a href="http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=70375">
Gallery</a> || <a href="http://www.renderosity.com/mod/freestuff/index.php?username=bandolin">
Freestuff</a>
<p><em>Caution: just a hobbyist</em></p>

1280 x 1024 - 22 inch monitor.

1280 x 960 my good Doctor.

1024x768 as a rule on a 17-inch; but I have a utility called QRES which I've configured to change to 1152x864 when I launch my graphics programs, Poser included, and change back when they close. Even that small change makes a difference.

2560x1024

Damn, khai, what do you use for a monitor, the Enterprise viewscreen?

Jeff

Renderosity Senior Moderator

Hablo español

Ich spreche Deutsch

Je parle français

Mi parolas Esperanton. Ĉu vi?

LOL @ m_m

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

1152 x 864 because I like to be different :)

Gill

BTW - Just 4 the record, NSG is still using a monochrome (green) 640 x 480.

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Dual screen, each 1280 x 1024.

Steve

What's a screen size? heh, j/k....1280x1024 on a 19" TFT

"That which doesn't kill you is probably re-loading"

Dual screen, 1600x1200 for main window, 1024x768 for palettes

1024 x 768

Artwork and 3DToons items, create the perfect place for you toon and other figures!

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=23722

Due to the childish TOS changes, I'm not allowed to link to my other products outside of Rendo anymore :(

Food for thought.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYZw0dfLmLk

I'd have it at 3840x1024 if I could hook the 3rd monitor on my desk into the 1 PC... (I love having a 6ft by 3ft desk :) )

1280 x 1024

1600 X 1200 - Poser preview window at 1024 X 768. On a 19" old crt piece of crap!

The GR00VY GH0ULIE!

You are pure, you are snow
We are the useless sluts that they mould
Rock n roll is our epiphany
Culture, alienation, boredom and despair

1152x864 on a 19" CRT on one machine, and 1280x768 on a 21" LCD on the other.

1024 X 768. I change the resolution as I change my computers. LOL! It all depends on what the screen size is on my monitor at the time.

2 x 21" each 1600x1200

Ok gang ... this is OT from the OT but I am looking for ... anyone having experience with ...

"black CDRs?"<<< That's BLACK ........... NOT BLANK, ok? ;=]

..... anyone .......... anyone .......... anyone .......... Bueller .......... Bueller .......... anyone ... ???

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

P.S. NSG only uses blank CDRs in his 'pooter and never gets any errors ....................................... or data. ;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

The PC has 1280x1024 on a lovely 17" TFT, the PowerBook gives me 1280x854 in 15".

Message edited on: 02/11/2006 11:04

Yes, I bought 20 black CDRs a year or two ago. I just thought they looked good, no other reason (sad, or what?). Anyway, they seemed to work as well as any other CDR. Can't remember who made them, but it was a well-known company.

Steve

1024 x 768

1280 x 1024

1024 X 768 :)=

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

1024x768 :)

1280x1024 AND 1024x768 right next to it :) Michal 4blueyes

1152x864 on a 17" LCD :)

"That's another fine mess you got me in to!" -- Oliver Hardy

My screen size set to 1024 x 768. Cheers DR

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."
Thomas Jefferson

I use 1440 x 960

(Mac Powerbook G4 Native Widescreen) Aluminium laptop

warpo

4x 1280x1024 19 inch LCD my desk had 3 66 pound each CRTs on it......my desk cried they were used, 12 years old, got em 10 bucks each damn those things last long now everything is a "1-3 year warranty" and then breaks :P

Mine has a 4 year warranty...

Jeff

Renderosity Senior Moderator

Hablo español

Ich spreche Deutsch

Je parle français

Mi parolas Esperanton. Ĉu vi?

Ouch...just finished counting the pixels...I'm tired now. It's 1024 x 768 (maybe I missed a few?) ;-)

1152 X 864 on a 19" crt

1024x768 on a 17" CRT

The liver is evil - It must be punished.

Maxell makes black cdr's, I use them quite often for music screen size-1280 x 1024

1600 x 1200 19" CRT

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

1024 x 768 on a 17" Helen

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Senior MarketPlace Tester

If anyone sees a mind wandering aimlessly around..... It is mine. I want it back.

2048x1536 21" + 1280x1024 17" CRTs (Win) and 1440x900 LCD (Mac)

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

-- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

1024 x 768 on a 21 inch monitor.

1280x1024 on 17"crt

Windows 7 64Bit
Poser Pro 2010 SR1

Attached Link: http://digitaltigers.com/zenview-powerscapehd.shtml

1400 x 1050

I work on a Dell Laptop and the default resolution is 1600 x 1200. I couldn't see to work at that high a resolution so after expermenting I went with 1400 x 1050. Apparently the options for larger text/gaphics while maintaining clarity is limited on this computer, LOL

I want the screen at the link above!!!!!!!!!

My birthday is March 1st .... HINT!!!! hehe

Message edited on: 02/11/2006 12:37

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

1024 x 768 17" CRT monitor.

Injustice will be avenged.
Cofiwch Dryweryn.

1024x768, 1280x1024 and 1900 something by 1200 something.

1024x768 on a 12 inch screen... Why are these forum pages too wide even without an image in the thread? With the images above this thread is exactly 1024 across whichever font size I use. A narrower text block of maybe 640 is easier to read. Black CDs look kool and have never run any different then silver for me. They remind me of old LPs. [sniff}

PC: 19" set to 1280x960 (in order to keep the 4:3 ratio). Mac: 12" iBook set to 1024x768 (it won't go to 1280x960). I tend to be on the Mac unless I'm working with Poser. But often I work with the PC by logging in to it from a remote location with the iBook, using the free 'Remote Desktop' application from M$. :)

Truth has no value without backing by unfounded belief.
Renderosity Gallery

1680x1050 on a 20" iMac G5

Acadia said: I want the screen at the link above!!!!!!!!! My birthday is March 1st .... HINT!!!! hehe Wow, and eight grand is right within my superfluous gifting budget! ;0)

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

-- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

1280x960 19" monitor

1024/768 and boy do I feel deprived now lol

1152x864

800x600

1024 x 768

"You don't know what we can see
Why don't you tell your dreams to me
Fantasy will set you free." - Steppenwolf

1280x1024 17 inch TFT monitor

drools huge @$$ monitor! i want :(

1920x1200 Dell 24" LCD. Even then, though, I STILL run out of real estate with my preview window set to 720x540 when all the animation tools are open. :: og ::

Hey there Dr., I use 1440 x 900 (17" widescreen) on my Fujitsu Siemens m3438 laptop...

I just went from 1024x768 15" laptop to a 1280x800 15" laptop. I have and use black cds for music and data.

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

1600x1200

2 x 21" monitors running 1280 x 960. Beware of non 4/3 resolutions! Isn't this a sweet setup? ;-)

re: non-4/3 resolutions ... Good point Jim.

BTW - nice setup - what CPUs are you running?

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

BTW - I run a non 4/3 resolution. It's 1280 x 1024 because I have a 19" TFT and that is what the mfgr recommends and, also, it provides the best display.

If I try to use a 4/3 resolution, things get "fuzzy." ;=[

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

1680x1050 :) I'm running on a Dell 2005FPW. I'd be upgrading to the 24" widescreen Dell has right now if I could convince someone to take this one off my hands :)

what's wrong with non-4/3 screen size setups? 4:3 equates to 1.333 I am running 1920:1200 which equates to 1.6, but it's just for screen real estate. Please explain. ::::: Opera :::::

17" monitor at 800x600 Im in the freakin stone age. Poser 5 takes time to work around in for sure......

"what's wrong with non-4/3 screen size setups?" Because graphics apps are set for a 4:3 aspect ratio. Anything else and graphics will appear to be either somewhat squished or somewhat elongated.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

2560x1024 (2x 1280x1024) 19" TFTs on my primary Poser workstation 1600x1200 19" CRT on my primary Vue workstation. Those Dell UltraSharps 24" and 30" look nice, but they're a bit too pricey for my budget. When prices drop, I'll get one of those for sure. About that 4:3 setups: those are right for CRTs, they'll get you square pixels. TFTs often have other dimensions, a 5:4 setup (1280x1024) will get you square pixels. It's usually best to run a TFT at its native resolution. Other resolutions are often blurry. CRTs don't have this problem. But a TFT at its native resolution is sharper than any CRT.

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery My freestuff

*"what's wrong with non-4/3 screen size setups?"

Because graphics apps are set for a 4:3 aspect ratio. Anything else and graphics will appear to be either somewhat squished or somewhat elongated.*

You know, you can fix that if you use another aspect ratio. There are these buttons on the monitor that let you adject horizontal/vertical position and size! ;) I'd like to add: Yes, I'm pedantic. I always set the colors to be equivalent and do some correction. I also literally measure the visible display on the monitor so that it matches the aspect of the resolution. Can't fail (well, unless you have an LCD without these controls...) Message edited on: 02/11/2006 16:56

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

-- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

17" Screen @ 1024x768.8)

MS Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1
Intel Core i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz, 12.0GB RAM, AMD Radeon HD 7770

PoserPro 2012 (SR1) - Units: Metres , Corel PSP X4 and PSE 9

???????????? .8 ??????????????????? See, I do read all these posts. ;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

1280x1024. 'Cos that's the max (at 4:3 ratio(?) ) that my monitor (which I believe is 17") can provide and still let me read the text.. Cheers, Diolma

Yeah, you can adjust the monitor physical to match the pixel aspect ratio, but then your giving up screen size. If you rotate a circle 90 degress with a non 4/3 display it circle becomes an oval. ;-) I've got a 3.2 Pentium overclocked to 3.5 on my main system, I sometime fire up the other computer which is an old AMD 1.3, it is connected via a KVM switch and network cards. I sorta bought my house with how I was going to setup my computer room in mind, here is a panoramic pic of the whole deal, I couldn't get it into one picture! ;-)

That looks like a li'l peace [sic] of heaven! ;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

i am not following this conversation. For instance, "If you rotate a circle 90 degress with a non 4/3 display it circle becomes an oval" is not remotely true on my 16:10 monitor. I knew it was not, but tested it just now in my 2D app with a bit-mappped circle. Doesn't matter which way I turn it, it is/looks round. Do you mean "If you have a non-4:3 monitor, and set it to a 4:3 screen resolution like 1024x768, things will be distored?" If that's what you mean, then yes. But then, if you have a big 19" CRT, which is intended to be 4:3, but set the desktop resolution to be 1920x1200, which is not 4:3, you'd get a distored desktop also, right? But don't people with 'whatever' display size adjust their settings to the correct aspect ratio for the monitor, so everything is nice and normal? ::::: Opera :::::

now jim, admit it. You cleaned up the desktop before you took those pictures. VERY COOL SETUP!

what is a TFT, and how is it different than CRT and LCD?

I'm always amazed at the amount of responses a simple question like this gets.


<strong>bandolin</strong><br />
[Former 3DS Max forum coordinator]<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.renderosity.com/homepage.php">Homepage</a> ||
<a href="http://www.renderosity.com/mod/sitemail/">SiteMail</a> ||
<a href="http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=70375">
Gallery</a> || <a href="http://www.renderosity.com/mod/freestuff/index.php?username=bandolin">
Freestuff</a>
<p><em>Caution: just a hobbyist</em></p>

TFT: = "Terrifying Financial Threat" I suspect...:-)) Cheers, Diolma

" TFT: = "Terrifying Financial Threat"

I suspect...:-))"

naw.. thats upgrading system so it can run Vista, buying Vista..

just so you can play Halo 2 on your PC.

...cheaper to buy an XBOX...

Message edited on: 02/11/2006 18:13

TFT=Thin Film Transistor. LCD=Liquid Crystal Display. Both are used for flatscreens. LCD is the older technology. LCD used to have a terrible response time. So if you moved your mouse, the display couldn't refresh fast enough to keep up with the movement. Tricks like mouse trails were needed to keep your mouse pointer visible. TFT had faster response times and better colors, but was far more expensive. That describes the situation of a couple of years ago. I'm not sure how things are right now. I should catch up on my tech reading...

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery My freestuff

1152x870

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." -- Bruce Graham

1024x768 on a 14" monitor 800x600 on a 17" monitor!!!!!

Stupidity also evolves!

Operaguy- The pixel ratio has to match the monitor aspect ratio. 1920 x 1200 is a perfect match for a 16:10 monitor, most monitors are still 4:3, though. I started on 3D many years ago on a system that had a Targa 16 card with 512:486 resolution, the rotate the circle effect was VERY noticable on them! The old EGA cards were 640 x 350 too, also far from 4:3. I also remember Macs had this monitor you could rotate (physically) 90 degrees to get a full page display, tall and narrow, now that I think of it. Anyway, most "modern" display cards offer square ratios. I mostly mentioned this for the people who have a choice between 1280 x 1024 and 1280 x 960 modes, in this case more gives you less, perhaps. ;-)

1024 x 768 each on dual monitors.

It's all fun and games...
Until the flying monkeys attack!!!

1 x AMD64 3 GHz 1 x AMD Athlon 1.8 GHz 1 x AMD K6/III 400 MHz for storywriting 1 x Intel Pentium III 800 MHz in Notebook

CPUS: 2 x Intel Xeon 2.66GHz 2 x Intel PIII 1.0 GHz 1 x AMD64 3500+ 1 x 1.8GHz G5 PPC Eventually want to upgrade that AMD64 to a 4600+ or 4800+ dual core. :P

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

-- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

AMD 3500+ i am really hoping Poser 7 takes advantage of more than 1Gig Ram and is dual core and/or dual processor aware. That would be glorious. ::::: Opera :::::

Hiya Doc :-) I'm using 800x600 - you can't go any higher with 15" monitor without tiny icons/letters/everything trying to kill your poor weak eyes :( My Poser scene window is usually 380x380 or 480x360. It's small, but posing is still posible - by rotating camera and zooming in often.

Outdated gallery over at DeviantArt

Fics at FanFiction.net and Archive of Our Own (AO3)

1024 x 768

CASETTE
=======
"Poser isn't a SOFTWARE... it's a RELIGION!"

1280 x 1024 on a 19 " CRT, but for surfing I switch to 1024 x 768.0 due to the small letters 8-)

Ulli

"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!"

1024 x 768

The important thing is not to stop questioning.
- Albert Einstein

Indoda

1280 x 960 on my 19" flat screen CRT at home, and 1280 x 1024 on twin 19" TFT panels at work. The Viewsonic TFTs at work are built to 5/4 ratio. Rhino circles look perfectly round. Mike K

I'm glad I'm not the only one who uses 800 X 600, and that's on a 19" monitor.

1024 x 768 on one.. 800 x 600 on da other :0)

1024x768 how many monitors can any one video card support that supports more than one? With those new pci-e cards, where folks plug in 2 vid cards, can you have 4 monitors hooked up ??? Can you remove the case of a CRT to make them appear closer together ? then mount in a home-made case? kinda like modding your PC ????? such ideas for an early Sunday morning

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together.
All things connect......Chief Seattle, 1854

erm.. I've seen one setup posted online.. where the tester had put 6 PCI-E Vid cards in and had hooked up 12 monitors...

my Geforce will only support 2 monitors... :*( as to the ratio / circle debate.. in my modeler of choice when I do circles... I type the size I want in. and it's then a perfect circle ;) I trust the numbers in the program more lol (and I never do 2D circles freehand. use the Shift key in Photoshop ;))

Message edited on: 02/12/2006 10:24

1680x1050

...... Kendra

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.

Way too many people take way too many things way too seriously.

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)

"I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end" - Margaret Thatcher 1989

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.

Way too many people take way too many things way too seriously.

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.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

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

The supreme irony of life is that hardly anyone gets out of it alive.
Robert A. Heinlein

11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-11900K @ 3.50GHz 3.50 GHz
64.0 GB (63.9 GB usable)
Geforce RTX 3060 12 GB
Windows 11 Pro

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.

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

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

Getting old and still making "art" without soiling myself, now that's success.

@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.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

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

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

1280x1024 17" LCD.

________________________________________________________________

If you're joking that's just cruel, but if you're being sarcastic, that's even worse.

Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL

Subject: OT - Survey - What screen size do you use? ... ;=] ...