Choosing A Monitor, Part 3: Size

by JL Beeken on 8-13-2007

I did finally settle on a 19″ monitor at 1280 x 1024 resolution, which is quite nice really. At first the great expanse of white light had me pushing my chair to the other side of the room to get away from it. The text is just a teeny bit larger than on my laptop. I don’t know what I was expecting anyway, obviously something larger, hence all the fuss. The good part is I don’t have to hunch over a laptop anymore to reach the keyboard which is probably much better for my bones.

1280 x 1024 is a 5:4 screen, not the more common 4:3. Pretty close but not the same, which means if I optimize pages for 5:4 it may throw something off on the 4:3. There’s not enough space here to set up the two computers side by side (I wish) so I can’t check and I may not be keeping all the people happy all the time. Back to that. Feel free to complain and send screen-shots.

Now that I have my supersonic system with enough space, speed and power to get things done efficiently, I’m starting into a mammoth project of re-creating many GBs of photographs in larger size. And rescanning any not large enough. A few in each year’s folder are smaller than I would like and I’m wondering who scanned them that way in the first place. Surely not moi. Makes me wish I still had box-loads of the originals but alas, they’re spread out across the continent again. There’s a few paper ones living here that I can still salvage.

When I was doing this project originally I scanned most of the photos fairly large and made another copy for editing. I put the original scans and their edited copies on a double-set of about 100 CDs that got remade several times when I made changes, and at least once a year to stay ahead of CD-rot. Way too much work and expense with insufficient equipment but that’s what I had.

I then created a “viewable set” on my hard-drive from the edited copies in a nice standard size of 1024 x 768, being as that was the resolution of my screen until a week ago and it fit on my tiny hard-drive. That was obviously a short-sighted plan as they look lost in space on this new higher-resolution screen. I wonder about people who have the equipment to view photos on their TV’s. What resolution does that require to look good? You might want to think ahead when you’re scanning photos.

Now that I have space to spread out I have a different view of this, of course, i.e. do not make photos small or smaller. Scan them large, edit them and leave them at that size. Especially if you have sufficient hard-drive space, there’s no reason not to. You never know who down the road might want to print one or see them on a higher resolution screen. Maybe in another 3 years a typical screen resolution will be 3,000 or 5,000 pixels wide and then where are our photos going to be? Little dots in an ocean of back-lighting. Maybe it won’t be pixels anymore, maybe it’ll be something else altogether. Surely, they won’t leave us stranded.

Other plans include editing video files, and cleaning up my projects in Passage Express. My main collaborator is ‘off’ til next year due to more pressing projects, and I’m waiting on truckloads of information from her. In the meantime I’m going to try to catch up on my half. I’ve been trying my darndest to get her to switch over to Legacy so we can use Intellishare. It would make a lot more sense as we’re cousins 4 different ways so we’re repeating a lot of the same work. If you’re in a similar situation you might find this useful. Intellishare is a lesser-known option in Legacy and you may not have come across it yet.  Check it out in Legacy’s Help Index.

 

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Powered by sweet Captcha

Previous post:

Next post: