People with large displays don't necessarily extend their browser window across its full width. I certainly don't, and I only have 1680 pixels across (CG223W).
30" 2560x1600 - and even now I feel that my vertical and square images are tiny. I had short time 24" 1920x1200 in vertical orientation as secondary monitor to display verticals larger, but consider table space lost, the gained 320px more wasn't worth it (also monitor didn't caliber to identical colors with main monitor even it did in "normal" orientation).
my desktop screen is 24" 1920x1200 and i don't have the browser window maximized, its probably somewhere around 1400x900 pixels.
on my laptop the screen is 13.3" 1366x768, it runs w7 and i have the taskbar on the left hand side instead of the default bottom, because imo that provides for better working area vertically. i do run the browser maximized with this resolution, and only rarely i run into issues with pictures posted on forums that are over 750 pixels vertically or wider then 1200.
carstenw wrote:
How about a followup survey: What is your browsers normal width and height (viewing area only).
home:
Width: it depends, normally about half of the screen (=1200-1400 pixels), but typically I have 2-3 browser windows open some of them larger, some smaller. If I have larger photos on page I'm viewing I change the window size e.g. when I view Pano-Mania thread I maximize the browser
Height: always 1600px (minus Mac top bar, and browser window address bar and tabs so about 1500px)
laptop - browser always maximized to 1280x800 screen:
Width: 1280px minus the scrollbar
Height: 800px minus browser address bar and tabs -> over 700px, sometimes I also use fullscreen viewing
Notice! I never use laptop for critical image viewing, even it's calibrated, it's display can't show very wide gamut and has reflective surface = useless for critical image viewing.
Just 1920x1080, at this point in time I don't need anything more,
I did try out an IPS panel, but it had uniformity issues, so I went with a 24" and after calibration it's quite nice for what I paid, I may get a high end wide gambit panel at some point.
1440 (browser maximized) these days on my laptop, that should change in a month or so when i upgrade (am thinking ipad + desktop and ditch the laptop).
Home: Dell U2711 at 2560 x 1440 + Samsung SyncMaster 215T 1680 x 1050
Notebook: ASUS 1366 x 768
As Samuli says, I don't normally use the entire screen for viewing one image (in PP). When I want to view full screen, it's limited by aspect ratio, and so the full width is not used.
Using a mac pro here. Safari has a green button which will expand the window to include the widest image. So while I don't run Safari full-screen all the time it's definable and always different. I guess if I did a time-lapse of the window it would dance all over the place.
People who have small screens are free to use the zoom feature. ⌘- on Safari for example.
I'm also running a Dell U2711 on my workstation (running OS X Lion) but I'm usually browsing the web on a cheap Asus laptop screen, also with 1366 x 768 (which is running Windows 8 giving me full screen browsing).
FlyPenFly wrote:
Just curious if the FM Alt gear forum also correspond to the world wide internet in terms of most common screen resolution.
I wouldn't expect it to. I think the general population is still in the 1024-1280 long-side area, with incremental increases. The most noticeable stat is in the opposite direction, with smart phones (of many variations) becoming more wildly accessible, a lot of people are finding the average, or popular screen resolutions used to view a site dropping towards mobile displays. With that in mind, It still boggles me why people still use flash-only sites... it's basically sticking the finger at the viewer, saying "I'm more important than you"... all IMO of course.
We're all keen photographers, so we're naturally using higher resolution and larger displays than the most common screens out there. Both of mine are 1920 long-side, but I do often visit on my phone if I'm passing time, looking for information, or if something comes to mind whilst on the go.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I'm also running a Dell U2711 on my workstation (running OS X Lion) but I'm usually browsing the web on a cheap Asus laptop screen, also with 1366 x 768 (which is running Windows 8 giving me full screen browsing).
ricardovaste wrote:
I wouldn't expect it to. I think the general population is still in the 1024-1280 long-side area, with incremental increases. The most noticeable stat is in the opposite direction, with smart phones (of many variations) becoming more wildly accessible, a lot of people are finding the average, or popular screen resolutions used to view a site dropping towards mobile displays. With that in mind, It still boggles me why people still use flash-only sites... it's basically sticking the finger at the viewer, saying "I'm more important than you"... all IMO of course.
We're all keen photographers, so we're naturally using higher resolution and larger displays than the most common screens out there. Both of mine are 1920 long-side, but I do often visit on my phone if I'm passing time, looking for information, or if something comes to mind whilst on the go.
Windows 8 I didn't think that was released yet?...Show more →
Windows 8 is in public beta, free download at Microsoft.
The nice thing about the Windows 8 specific apps is that all of them are full screen natively. Very clean, intuitive and easy to use once you get used to it imo. Dare I even say very Apple-like (though I think in some ways, Windows 8 out apples Apple even).
I think that people that frequent photo forums, or basically photographers in general, just as those that frequent graphic design or gaming forums are typically going to have higher resolutions/larger displays simply because its important for what they do.
Typical consumer who uses the web for FB, internet etc probably doesn't want to spend the cash for a large display, is happy working on their laptop, ipad etc.
However, if you know your spending all day working on photos, gaming etc, then getting that nice display is money well spent.
Its just like the difference if your listening to streaming radio stations while working vs doing home audio recording and mastering. Some $30 speaker system is fine and good for casual use, but I bet those that frequent music production forums all have some pretty high end studio monitors.
I've got a Blue Sky monitor system with powered sub and a 2560 display as I enjoy both pursuits lol
My SyncMaster which displays 1680 is very old now, but I feel pretty comfortable with it. That's probobly just because I haven't tried anything higher res yet, and don't realize I need to upgrade.
The irony is that the Apple New Ipad has more resolution in 9.7" than 95% of Windows users regardless of whether they are using 17" laptops or 27" 1080P desktop monitors.
With the large number of digital photographers in the market with tens of mega-pixel cameras you would think that there would be affordable large,high resolutions monitors for sale. But there are not or at least I can't find them. Most begin at $1,000.
Personally I'd like buy a 30" 4K monitor for $1,000 just for photo viewing/editing. The DPI won't be more than that on the new IPAD so I don't really understand the unavailability of large, high-DPI monitors.
.
I didn't think that was released yet?