Testing your computer screen

[buzzsaw]

I've found three different pictures all at different resolutions, do they look any different on your screen.

1280 x 1080

1024 x 768

800 x 600

Everyone uses a different monitor....no 2 are the

same (unless calibrated with the same software) and often are quite

different. I've heard it said that some people are using 72 DPI computers, thats probably not true anymore as most are 96 DPI or better, In fact it gets quite complex and you may want to read this article a couple times to make sure you get a good understanding.

http://www.raydreams.com/docs/dpi.html

For instance....

"How big the image will print on paper is determined by its pixel dimensions and the image's DPI, not the printer's DPI. Simply divide the two dimensions by the DPI value, to get the printed dimensions in inches. For example, a 640 x 480 pixel image at 72 DPI will print at 8.89" x 6.67". At 1280 x 960 pixels, a 72 DPI image is not going to fit on a regular piece of paper, 17.78" x 13.33". 640 X 72= 8.89 and 480 X 72= 6.67 .....pretty basic stuff but many do not get this.

[Steve Foss]

Buzz, what is the difference in their resolutions? You've indicated image size

using pixels but not resolution, so it's hard to compare.

While you can see your monitor's resolution and change it using the info in

the link you mentioned, that doesn't indicate what the resolution of images

transmitted will be. By altering the pixel dimensions on your monitor's

screen, you change resolution only because the size of the screen doesn't

change. The higher the pixel dimension on your 17-inch monitor, the higher

the resolution, because it's still a 17-inch monitor. You're packing more

pixles into the same-sized space, thus increased resolution. So you can make

it so your computer screen can resolve to higher than 72 dpi, but only within

limits. By simply posting the three images you did with your pixel dimensions,

I still don't know what the numberic value of their resolution is. I think their

inherent resolutions probably are the same. The large one takes up about

two screens worth horizontally, forcing me to scroll side to side to see the image.

The second one takes up less than that, but still forces me to scroll.

The third is smaller yet. That tell me their resolutions are about the same,

but I still don't know what that resolution is. Not sure if I'm being clear about

that or not.

Your link goes to a page that indicates LCD monitors are higher than 72dpi, but isn't that Liquid Crystal Display?

If so, that's laptops and now some higher-end monitors.

But I believe the huge majority of computer users still use the CRT monitors,

and I believe almost of those are 72dpi.

Also, while the math you showed seems right to me, it's probably

unnecessary to get into such detail for most users. Post-processing

programs allow users to easily and quickly change resolution and

image size to suit their needs before printing.

[jonny_redhorse]

What I see on my monitor when looking at Buzz's 3 duck images are basically good images and show me every detail on all 3..the parts that are looking kinda blurry...really "are blurry".......the sections of each version that are "clear" .are well..."clear" I guess.......lol .....my monitor is an older(2 ) years or so Dell (made by sony ...trinitron 21")...great clarity and resolution and if there's a problem viewing a photo or image.it's usually the image at fault.not my monitor..thing is crystal clear and colors are fantastic but then again.I set the brightness ,saturation.....etc etc...so it could be subjective....people that have seen photos on my monitor have stated how vibrant,rich and clear and life like the images are...I just hope that when I replace this "monolith" on my desk with the newer thinner LCD's.it's as good as what I currently have already!..... jonny

[hobbydog]

I think I see your point Buzz. Basically, what you see on your screen may not be what someone else sees. If you save at 72 dpi and someone views it at 96 or 125 dpi they may lose something. then there is the pxl dimention of the monitor....two 17 inch monitors can be set to different pxl dimentions based on personal preference. If you want stuff small on your screen you may go with 1400 X 1050 or on my big (pos) 21" trinitron I go with 1280 X 960. The 800 X 600 pic above is going to take up a lot less of a screen than on the first one than the second one. That is why someone might think the pics are way to big on his monitor causing him to scroll and another may be able to see the same pic on the same size monitor without having to scroll.

Measure the last pic and what does it measure in inches....it is about 9.7 on my one monitor and 6.5 on my laptop....what is it on yours?

But the biggest differences IMHO is in contrast and saturation, especially on crt monitors. It is very easy to adjust sat, color and contrast on a CRT and it changes as it ages. My 4 year old 21" Trinitron is terrible, even with the saturation turned all the way up. No such thing as too much sat or usm However on my Sony Viao colors are sharp, especially with the brite screen technology. My HP LCD monitor at work is very good as well but different. So when someone thinks it may have too much sat or contrast it really is relative unless everyone has a calibrated monitor or looking at the same one.

Also, just to add to something Steve mentioned....Macs use 72 dpi and windows machines generally use 96. Also I would say CRTs are on the way out. We have all LCDs at work and most people I know have LCDs. Very few new computers are being sold with crts these days.

[Steve Foss]

Shucks, looks like I'm going to have to shell out for a new

monitor or I'll be WAY behind the curve! Is there any way

to find out the actual resolution on my monitor? It's a 6 yr old 17-inch

KDS made for PCs, not Macs, though I use a Mac. I've never

been able to find a way in Mac OS to see the actual ppi resolution

capability of the monitor. I do have mine set at higher pixel

dimension than the default setting. Mine's at 1024x768,

so my folders and other desktop items are smaller on the

screen rather than larger. I don't really understand why I have

to scroll around to see a whole image someone has sized to 900 pixels across.

I can bump my size up one more setting, by my monitor

doesn't appreciate it when I do that and I get a lot more flickering

than at the size I have now.

[buzzsaw]

Quote:

---

But the biggest differences IMHO is in contrast and saturation, especially on crt monitors. It is very easy to adjust sat, color and contrast on a CRT and it changes as it ages.

---

Exactly!! I'm glad somebody else understands what I'm saying.

FYI... I am currently using a flat screen LCD monitor and I have my color quality at it's highest setting of 32 bit and the screen resolution at it's highest of 1280 x 1024 pixels. I'm fairly sure that it's not my monitor thats not seeing images correctly (if you will). An option is to run Adobe Gamma to calibrate your screen (works with those crazy MACS as well) who knows maybe it will help out, but what do I know.

In the end maybe some people just need new monitors???

[Steve Foss]

I've found that gamma works pretty good regardless of the monitor.

Well, I've only used it to calibrate one LCD. All my monitors but

one at work and home have been CRTs. And, while gamma's great,

most of my calibration in my home office is making sure the

image on the screen matches what comes out of my printer.

I can generally get quite close simply by making a print, and then

adjusting the monitor's brightness and contrast to match.

No doubt this critic could use a new monitor indeed, but I've already

eaten my crow for the day on another thread here, and if my monitor

allows me to make prints to my satisfaction (I have very high standards

in that regard), I'll just have to wait for a new one until I hit the Powerball.

Sure wouldn't mind one of those Apple LCD cinema displays. All the big

ones cost is the price of a good used pickup. Sigh.

[jonny_redhorse]

I remember a "gadget" out there for calibrating the monitor if I remember right...called a "spyder"....stick it to your monitors screen(suction cup thing) ,may it be a CRT or LCD or whatever....matches up the color between your monitor and printer for optimum results...always wondered how it works.....made by colorvision"SPYDER PRO"(different models and versions)...200 bucks or so......my colors good enough... jonny

[Steve Foss]

Jonny, I've read that that's a good system. There are quite a few types

of calibration software out there, and from what I've read in the photo trade

journals most of the good ones use the system you describe. No doubt

someday I'll get one, but until then, good enough is good enough.

[Dbl]

Buzz, its my understanding the Adobe Gamma does not calibrate correctly on LCD's. I have both PE4 and CS2 and neither one will work with my LCD. I finally purchased a Pantone Huey that calibrates any monitor, LCD or CRT, and adjusts for room lighting as frequently as you tell it. My monitors are calibrated every two weeks.

It is probably the only way you will actually get an accurate photograph. My LCD at home was reasonably accurate when I first calibrated it, but my laptop was way off. These things only run about $80 or you can step up to more sophisticated calibrators. I think it is just as important as the lens you put on your camera.

[Steve Foss]

Dbl, thanks for that info. Pantone is the color master, and when I design

pages in Quark for the paper and want a color I don't already have, I

choose a Pantone color almost all the time. I was able to calibrate an

LCD with gamma the one time I tried it, but I wasn't aware it won't usually

work. I suppose getting calibration software is like so many other

expenses — you don't know how much you needed it until you

buy it and compare the results with the way you USED to do things.

Is there calibration hardware with your software, or is it just software?

And is there a Mac version?

[buzzsaw]

Good stuff DBL!! That info should be especially hopeful for people who sell their pics for money.

[jonny_redhorse]

since I print only occassionally ...and then mostly 8.5" x11" pics...I noticed quite a dramatic color change from my cannon s820d(which is gathering dust in the corner and growing moss on the north side...lol!)...the monitor shows me the "correct" colors in regard to brightness saturation etc...as soon as I hit the "print" button.the colors on the out coming print are "much " darker then what I saw on my monitor.......sooooo....I just set the setting s "lighter" at print page set-up when I made the print...worked ok for me......I haven't made a print for a year ....but plan on "farming out" my data to get some "bigger" prints for matteing and framing........I'm not spending money on another printer ..jonny

[Steve Foss]

Jonny:

I hear you on printing costs. I use a local photo shop in Ely for my large prints. They have upgraded all their equipment and can make prints to 20x96 and do excellent work.

[Dbl]

I am not trying to sell any one brand, just that I found this to be the only affordable option for me. Someone who makes a living at it may want something more sophisticated that will do more profiling, print matching, etc.

Here is the description from their HSOforum, again better than me trying to describe it.

"Designed for calibrating and profiling all types of monitors – LCD and CRT. Each individual package includes a huey measurement device (emission only colorimeter) with ambient measurement capabilities, and software for monitor calibration.

huey corrects the color on your monitor so photos and designs print more accurately, game graphics are more intense and movies are more true-to-life. Easy-to-use right out of the box, huey adapts your monitor for changing room lighting and applies your personal preferences for viewing accurate color all of the time.

System Requirements:

CRT and LCD Monitors

Windows® 2000 and XP

Mac OS X 10.3 or higher

USB port"

Again I am not endorsing a product, just telling you what works for me. I will say you won't find anything else for this type of money to do what it will do. I found out I had a problem PP photos on my laptop and getting home and viewing them on my home computer and wondering which one was correct. I can't imagine trying to PP a photo and wondering what it really looked like. Now I no longer have that issue.

Here is the statement from PE4 found in the Gamma procedure;

"Note: Skip this calibration procedure if you are using an LCD screen. LCD monitors (such as flat-screen and laptop computer monitors) do not calibrate easily because viewing angles can change colors significantly. Instead, use the manufacturer-provided profile. (See the documentation that came with your monitor for information.)"

I am not sure what CS2 says though I don't imagine it is much different.

[Steve Foss]

Thanks for the info, Dbl. I appreciate it. Shoot me an e-mail, would you?