The Doll Forum

Szalinski wrote: Even laptops are suffering under the onrush of smaller, hand held units. think I-pad, Droids, and phones. How well can this format be viewed on them? Oh, you will be reducing the size, I'm just trying to save you the trouble of having to do it later.

All the new technology has higher screen resolutions though. Almost all the new laptops have widescreens, if it's small, they just make the print smaller, which is stupid in some ways, but that's how that is. My 5 year old HP laptop is 1280 x 800.

They do not reduce the speed limit to 20mph because some people still use horses and d clunkers. Yes there are lot's of iPhones out there that use under 640 resolution and those owners don't expect to be able to view whole web pages. I have an iPhone. I also just bought a Webbook with 1024 x 576 display for it's small compact size. The resolution is the trade-off you pay for the convenience of portability.

Sz, your argument is inconsistent with your camera arguments. For someone that is so concerned about quality of photos the fact that you are here arguing convenience over quality is a bit hard to fathom

You don't need this thread. You can just go argue with yourself

Midiman

I'm reminded of a discussion we've been having at work this week. One of the local radio stations, one of two that still plays rock and metal from the last 20 years, went under. Two of my friends are in an absolute panic, as they no longer have a source of free music, and info about new bands.

The rest of us just shruged, and went back to using Pandora, our iPods, MP3 collections, etc.

I have sympathy for those left out in the cold by the march of technology. I wish I had a better answer than, "Upgrade your stuff. It's cheap."

midiman wrote:They do not reduce the speed limit to 20mph because some people still use horses and d clunkers.

Or bicycles. But you don't prohibit us from using them either. I have the same rights to those roads and freely use them. At the speed I prefer to ride at. And the road does not become un-rideable because of it.

Yes there are lot's of iPhones out there that use under 640 resolution and those owners don't expect to be able to view whole web pages. I have an iPhone. I also just bought a Webbook with 1024 x 576 display for it's small compact size. The resolution is the trade-off you pay for the convenience of portability.

As you just pointed out the screen on a cell phone is very small, You yourself have mentioned your eyes aren't what they used to be, Now think about having to read a post at half the size (and resolution) it is already or less because you have to reduce it in order to see the whole thing. I'm upgrading to a larger screen because the 1024 I have now is not as easy to see as it was. I already got myself a larger TV for the same reason.

Sz, your argument is inconsistent with your camera arguments. For someone that is so concerned about quality of photos the fact that you are here arguing convenience over quality is a bit hard to fathom

You don't need this thread. You can just go argue with yourself

Midiman

This has nothing to do with photography, who said anything about photos? I'm complaining about is the cross scrolling to be able to read the post, which cannot be done if the text is at the top and the horizontal scroll bar a number of vertical scrolls down. What does scrolling to read text have to do with the clarity of a photograph?

And just what is the purpose of the nested window anyway? It doesn't make the posts fit any better. Quite the contrary, it makes them more difficult for a good percentage of the members to enjoy the forum. People had wide screen monitors before you instigated this and no one complained. If a post was bigger than their screen they used the horizontal scroll bar on their browser and no one complained. Why should they? They could still read it; now they can't. So I'm complaining, and so have a few others. At least those who aren't afraid to stand up for what's right. This used to be a place that was fair to everyone, now if you don't live up to some High And Mighty's standard you're made to feel like you don't matter; and if you complain about it you're shot down. "Get with it, this is the 21st century"?

Please enlighten me. And if you can do so in a way that I cannot logically refute (and so far that hasn't even been much of a challenge), then I'll shut up about it.

Deal?

mine's at 1920 x 1200

Mine is also currently set at 1920 X 1200
24inch HD

I use more than one. 1920 x1200 ,1680x1050 and 1920x1080 side by side by side. Also laptops with 1600x900 and 1366x768.

2560X1600 via a single 30inch monitor on my personal PC, 3840x1200 via 2 24inch monitors using dualview on my workstation.

The best resolution to optimize sites is 1360X768. Fortunately, forums are very easy to optimize since they don't use absolute DIV positions, the table width on most forum themes are set to 100% so regardless of the resolution most people won't have viewing issues.

For example, open a bookmark window in your browser, expand it and watch the content readjust itself according to how much screen real estate is available.

Anyways, as of 2011 85% are using a resolution higher than 1024X768.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

Farmerdancow wrote:

Szalinski wrote: Even laptops are suffering under the onrush of smaller, hand held units. think I-pad, Droids, and phones. How well can this format be viewed on them? Oh, you will be reducing the size, I'm just trying to save you the trouble of having to do it later.

All the new technology has higher screen resolutions though. Almost all the new laptops have widescreens, if it's small, they just make the print smaller, which is stupid in some ways, but that's how that is. My 5 year old HP laptop is 1280 x 800.

You can adjust the size of text regardless of your resolution either through the browser, display settings in windows or video card software.

wahwah wrote:<snip>
Anyways, as of 2011 85% are using a resolution higher than 1024X768.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

And only 2.6% of Americans need a wheelchair ramp. http://dsc.ucsf.edu/publication.php?pub ... ction_id=4 The other 97% of us have to pay for them. Not that I mind doing this (they do make it easier to get Sharon around).

But then I always have been empathetic to the underdog, I certainly don't mind giving up a minor luxury so as many others as possible can be happy...

I'm old school, apparently. I have only 1024 x 768 on a 15" screen. I've had this computer since 2004, though.

The 32" Samsung I just bought could be a monitor, but it'll have to do as my TV. I don't have room for it on my computer desk, what with my big-ass Dell printer.

1920x1080 here.

Newegg.com has 35+ different wide screen monitors ranging from 17" to 21.5" for under $100.00 so IMHO there is no reason not to invest in a minor upgrade to bring your self out of the 3x4 aspect ratio stone age.

But hay that's just My $0.02

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi ... 1&name=Yes

Hmm, I wonder why digital cameras are still "in the stone age" then? Most people use their PC's to view their photos, and no one wants to look twice as wide as they are (talk about the camera adding pounds)!

The latest cameras have the option to take pictures in a 16:9 aspect ratio.
So, they have evolved as well.

If a PC monitor is setup properly, meaning, the resolution send to it by the computer is it's native resolution, like FullHD (1920x1080), pictures don't get distorted, and they are displayed just like they're intended, you'll simply get borders around the picture.

But a regular photo doesn't have a 4:3 aspect ratio, like the old computer monitors have, but they're 3:2, and they don't get distorted either

Aye as AlexKnight said most new digital cameras have the 16:9 aspect as an option. I recently spent a good deal of time shopping for a new digital and all of the DSLR's I looked at had the option.