Windows screen resolution - for Ginger

ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
edited June 21, 2004 in Accessories
From bits and pieces of Ginger's posts I suspect that she might have her screen resolution set lower than it needs to be and so is getting a suboptimal photographic experience with her computer.

In general you want to set your screen resolution as high as possible. The usual constraints are:
  1. What the hardware is capable of. This depends on how good a monitor and video card you have.
  2. If your monitor isn't that great, you may see flicker at the higest resolutions and this might bother you.
  3. Things are going to look smaller at the higher resolutions and you might have trouble reading text. But generally you can fix that...
Here is a page that explains how to set screen resoultions. Start out by tring the highest setting it will allow. Then back off if you get annoying flicker. Look to other settings to increase font size once you have a resolution that works.
If not now, when?

Comments

  • DewrGleisionDewrGleision Registered Users Posts: 159 Major grins
    edited June 21, 2004
    rutt, would you recommend any specific graphics card for photo viewing? Right now this Dell Im on has the 128MB version of the GeForce FX 5200 or similar numerical model (forgot exactly which... been a while). I dont really want to overclock it on this machine (would do it if my LAN-partier machine was working right now!), so is there a stepup youd recommend? I love the new FX series, but I think Id switch to ATI and Raedeon if you thought I should, though I prefer to stay with nVidia, cause thats what I know and love! Also, know any tweaks that might save me excess heat values from overclocking mwink.gif ?

    Also, have you ever had heat troubles running higher resolutions at certain refresh rates (Im talking 75hz here)? This Dell LCD/TV monitor here seems to get a bit on the warm side, and I can only imagine what that does for wear and tear...
    He who throws dirt, loses ground...
  • ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited June 21, 2004
    DewrGleision wrote:
    rutt, would you recommend any specific graphics card for photo viewing? Right now this Dell Im on has the 128MB version of the GeForce FX 5200 or similar numerical model (forgot exactly which... been a while). I dont really want to overclock it on this machine (would do it if my LAN-partier machine was working right now!), so is there a stepup youd recommend? I love the new FX series, but I think Id switch to ATI and Raedeon if you thought I should, though I prefer to stay with nVidia, cause thats what I know and love! Also, know any tweaks that might save me excess heat values from overclocking mwink.gif ?

    Also, have you ever had heat troubles running higher resolutions at certain refresh rates (Im talking 75hz here)? This Dell LCD/TV monitor here seems to get a bit on the warm side, and I can only imagine what that does for wear and tear...
    You are on the high end of this problem, and I really can't help. Sounds like this card can handle 1200x1024 or more easily. I think Ginger's problem is that she is probably at 800x600 for no good reason other than that's the way it came. So I was just trying to give her hand.
    If not now, when?
  • ginger_55ginger_55 Registered Users Posts: 8,416 Major grins
    edited June 21, 2004
    re resolution and monitor
    rutt wrote:
    You are on the high end of this problem, and I really can't help. Sounds like this card can handle 1200x1024 or more easily. I think Ginger's problem is that she is probably at 800x600 for no good reason other than that's the way it came. So I was just trying to give her hand.
    __________________________________________________________

    Hi Rutt, I was at 1024 X 768, so was a bit higher than you thought. I look it up
    to 1152 X 864. Does make a difference. I can't tell from the article if I should take it higher, but I don't think I could read it if the type were much smaller, don't know.

    ginger (Thanks, muchly)
    After all is said and done, it is the sweet tea.
  • ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited June 21, 2004
    ginger_55 wrote:
    __________________________________________________________

    Hi Rutt, I was at 1024 X 768, so was a bit higher than you thought. I look it up
    to 1152 X 864. Does make a difference. I can't tell from the article if I should take it higher, but I don't think I could read it if the type were much smaller, don't know.

    ginger (Thanks, muchly)
    In theory, text size is can be controlled independently of screen resolution, so you set the screen resolution to be as heigh as possilbe with no flicker and 16 or 24 bit color and then up the text size so you can see it at that resolution. In theory slightly smaller letters at greater resolution will be sharper and thus easier to read. So take the plunge and go to 1200x1024 (my personal minimal acceptable resolution.) Then you can change the desktop text sizes for the desktop like this. (Ignore the part about changing resolutions. You will already have set them to 1200x1024 or more.) You will find that most applications will also let you use view->zoom to increase the magnification of particular documents.

    You might not be into this much fussing around, but it nice to get all the resolution out of your monitor and computer than you paid for.

    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]
    If not now, when?
Sign In or Register to comment.