![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
5,184 x 3,456 Resolution 18MP Canon Camera
- Thread starter isai95
- Start date
Yes I was wrong. 4x 24" monitors (1,920x1,080) = 8,294,400 about 8MP
So I have to do 4x 30" monitors (2,560x1,600) =16,384,000 about 16MP. Since each 30" monitor only displays about 4MP picture at once.
Not an easy solution to display a 18MP picture at once. Which would be the best way?
Thanks.
6x27" (2560x1440) would be extremely close. 2560x2 = 5120 (62 pixels short) and 1440x3=4320 which is more than enough.
So you would end up at 5120x4320. If you bought the Korean Ebay monitors you could get them for ~$270 each x6 = ~$1650. Not cheap, but it could be worse.
So you would end up at 5120x4320. If you bought the Korean Ebay monitors you could get them for ~$270 each x6 = ~$1650. Not cheap, but it could be worse.
Thank you! Wow! that's not bad! and What video card would you suggest me?
Ummmmm. That is a problem since the setup I recommended requires 6 Dual-Link DVI outputs (the most on any graphics card under $1000 is 2, as far as I know). Which means you either need a bunch of expensive miniDisplayPort to Dual Link DVI adapters or something like 3 cheap graphics cards to get all your outputs going. I'm REALLY not an expert on systems like this so somebody else can hopefully give you good suggestions. I just know a bit about the Korean monitors.
One thing to keep in mind is that the 18MP cameras isn't necessarily 18MP sharp; due to the use of the bayer pixel array and demosiacing algorithms, noise filtering in camera images, etc. Google search / wikipedia search "bayer sensor", "demosiacing algorithm", etc.
For camera sensors, a single component is used per pixel,
while monitors use all three color components is used per pixels.
(Note: a few sensors, such as "foevon sensor" (google this) can do all 3 color components per pixel. However, these camera sensors are not widespread, and is not used by your Canon)
So for the Canon 18MP is 18 million red or green or blue pixels. Computer monitor pixels contain all red and green and blue pixels. Technically, you can get away with just 6MP, but since the color components in a bayer pixel array of a camera sensor are spatially displaced, you do gain resolution improvement. So instead of a 1/3 factor, the sweet spot is approximately a 1/2 factor. Basically, you lose almost no human-perceptible sharpness when downsampling an 18MP image to 9MP (1/2 factor). Thus, three 2560x1600 monitors is more than sufficient to render all the "usable sharpness" of a Canon 18MP image if you're presenting.
It's also why studios often prefer to digitally film at a resolution higher than the presentation standard - e.g. film at 4k, downconvert to 1080p for display on Blu-Ray. If you're using bayer sensors, it's much sharper when you downconvert 4k bayer (3840x2160p or 4096x2160p) down to 1080p. Or having 8k film scans, and downconvert for 4k digital cinema, etc.
Obviously, it depends on what you are trying to do -- mastering or presenting? Editing the image pixel by pixel? Presenting slide shows? Etc.
If all you want is to enjoy the sharpness (e.g. presentation), you'll get practically all the sharpness of a Canon 18MP image downconverted to two 2560x1600 monitors (approx 8MP total), due to the bayer stuff mentioned above -- 18MP image at 1 color channel per pixel, versus 8MP at 3 color channels per pixel. In fact, if you downconvert most full-resolution digital camera image down to half resolution and then upwards, it's often hard to tell any degradation at all (e.g. 18MP to 8MP then reupconvert to 18MP) -- unless you're really aggressively testing resolution test patterns, etc -- due to this effect -- unless you're using stuff like Foevon or other sensors (that have 3 channels per pixel)
So....
If you're mastering (e.g. editing) -- preserve the resolution.
If you're presenting -- display at half pixel resolution is all you need. (it still looks 99% as sharp). e.g. just let the slideshow viewer scale the images as you play them, to the monitor resolution.
So, if you're just showing off pictures, all you need is a 4K monitor (3840x2160) or two 2560x1600 to gain almost the full sharpness benefit for your human eyes -- since downconverting *bayer sensor* (like your Canon) preserves the vast majority of the intrisinic resolution of the image, to a certain point (e.g. 50% pixel reduction). Due to large file sizes, many digital photographers often now capture at half the camera's rated resolution, if the camera already has a good built-in downconverter -- to get the smaller file sizes with nearly no sharpness loss -- by overcoming resolution-limiting factors (nyqist factor) via downconversion. Although you can just capture the full image size, and just let the display/slideshow viewer downconvert to your display's resolution while playing the slideshow. I'd say a 3840x2160 monitor is your ideal sweet spot, or two 2560x1600 displays.
Good scientific reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optica...ersampling_and_downconversion_to_maintain_MTF
(Other useful google search keywoards "optical transfer function", "oversampling imagery", "oversampling video", "nyquist frequency in image processing", "
For camera sensors, a single component is used per pixel,
while monitors use all three color components is used per pixels.
(Note: a few sensors, such as "foevon sensor" (google this) can do all 3 color components per pixel. However, these camera sensors are not widespread, and is not used by your Canon)
So for the Canon 18MP is 18 million red or green or blue pixels. Computer monitor pixels contain all red and green and blue pixels. Technically, you can get away with just 6MP, but since the color components in a bayer pixel array of a camera sensor are spatially displaced, you do gain resolution improvement. So instead of a 1/3 factor, the sweet spot is approximately a 1/2 factor. Basically, you lose almost no human-perceptible sharpness when downsampling an 18MP image to 9MP (1/2 factor). Thus, three 2560x1600 monitors is more than sufficient to render all the "usable sharpness" of a Canon 18MP image if you're presenting.
It's also why studios often prefer to digitally film at a resolution higher than the presentation standard - e.g. film at 4k, downconvert to 1080p for display on Blu-Ray. If you're using bayer sensors, it's much sharper when you downconvert 4k bayer (3840x2160p or 4096x2160p) down to 1080p. Or having 8k film scans, and downconvert for 4k digital cinema, etc.
Obviously, it depends on what you are trying to do -- mastering or presenting? Editing the image pixel by pixel? Presenting slide shows? Etc.
If all you want is to enjoy the sharpness (e.g. presentation), you'll get practically all the sharpness of a Canon 18MP image downconverted to two 2560x1600 monitors (approx 8MP total), due to the bayer stuff mentioned above -- 18MP image at 1 color channel per pixel, versus 8MP at 3 color channels per pixel. In fact, if you downconvert most full-resolution digital camera image down to half resolution and then upwards, it's often hard to tell any degradation at all (e.g. 18MP to 8MP then reupconvert to 18MP) -- unless you're really aggressively testing resolution test patterns, etc -- due to this effect -- unless you're using stuff like Foevon or other sensors (that have 3 channels per pixel)
So....
If you're mastering (e.g. editing) -- preserve the resolution.
If you're presenting -- display at half pixel resolution is all you need. (it still looks 99% as sharp). e.g. just let the slideshow viewer scale the images as you play them, to the monitor resolution.
So, if you're just showing off pictures, all you need is a 4K monitor (3840x2160) or two 2560x1600 to gain almost the full sharpness benefit for your human eyes -- since downconverting *bayer sensor* (like your Canon) preserves the vast majority of the intrisinic resolution of the image, to a certain point (e.g. 50% pixel reduction). Due to large file sizes, many digital photographers often now capture at half the camera's rated resolution, if the camera already has a good built-in downconverter -- to get the smaller file sizes with nearly no sharpness loss -- by overcoming resolution-limiting factors (nyqist factor) via downconversion. Although you can just capture the full image size, and just let the display/slideshow viewer downconvert to your display's resolution while playing the slideshow. I'd say a 3840x2160 monitor is your ideal sweet spot, or two 2560x1600 displays.
Good scientific reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optica...ersampling_and_downconversion_to_maintain_MTF
(Other useful google search keywoards "optical transfer function", "oversampling imagery", "oversampling video", "nyquist frequency in image processing", "
Last edited:
I guess Sn0_Man is right about the 6x 27" LCD monitors.
2,560 x 1,440 = 3,686,400 x 6 = 22,118,400 that's more than the resolution that my Canon 60D 18MP camera can produce, even would display at once the new Canon 5D Mark III 22.2MP resolution if one day I go full frame.
Now what affordable video card should I use to drive these monitors? Thanks guys.
2,560 x 1,440 = 3,686,400 x 6 = 22,118,400 that's more than the resolution that my Canon 60D 18MP camera can produce, even would display at once the new Canon 5D Mark III 22.2MP resolution if one day I go full frame.
Now what affordable video card should I use to drive these monitors? Thanks guys.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,116
IIRC, the rating used by cameras that implement foevon sensors are generally x3 of the actual pixel count of the final image.
EG a 4.7MPx3 "actual" outputted pixels but sell the camera as a 14MP camera even though the final output is actually 4.7MP(given that each pixel consists of an RGB Value) They vertically stack the sensors to receive all 3 colors(RGB). 2 different ways of doing the same thing I guess. but informative post non the less.
I wonder, if I go with the 6x 27" LCD (2560x1440), which setup would give me the best aspect ratio for viewing pictures? 3 on top of 3 portrait mode or 3 on top of 3 landscape mode?
I guess for pictures is 4x3 aspect ratio. Thanks guys.
I guess for pictures is 4x3 aspect ratio. Thanks guys.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if I'd spend the money on buying so many monitors for pictures from a 60D...even with L series prime lenses.
I'd rather sell, then upgrade to a full frame camera (5D MK3, Nikon D800, even a used Nikon D700...etc), for overall better image quality then purchase more monitors.
But what is the purpose of needing to display all of the 18MP at once?
I'd rather sell, then upgrade to a full frame camera (5D MK3, Nikon D800, even a used Nikon D700...etc), for overall better image quality then purchase more monitors.
But what is the purpose of needing to display all of the 18MP at once?
The 60D is a very respectable crop camera, depending on photography purposes it challenges any full frame camera. Besides I'm learning. When I master a crop camera just after that I'll try to go full frame.
That exactly, being able to see the whole picture at once on its native resolution, without scrolling, on its whole glory. Right now I'm using a 32" LCD TV about 1920 x 1200 which allows me to see only like and 8th of the whole picture/resolution at once.
I need to see first what a whole 18MP picture looks like at once.
Besides, 6x 27" LCD monitors are not in heaven for me, it's only like $1,800.00 which is what an average good L series prime lens cost.
Last edited:
That's right.
The Foevon 4.7MP (native) image is so sharp it is comparable to a bayer sensor 14MP (majority of cameras, including Canon), that they advertise the 4.7MP as 14MP. The sharpness is packed much more efficiently, with none of the bayer and demosiacing stuff. That's why I advocate a little bit downconversion (about 50%) at the presentation level for bayer images, so the OP with Canon doesn't need *that* much computer monitor to show off 18MP images...
So then 4x 27" lcd (2,560x1440) would suffice. This setup will achieve about 8MP, almost half of my 18MP pictures requirement, according to your research.
If you're presenting, and going by my by recommended 2:1 factor (50% downconversion for bayer-sensor images), then you only need you only need half as many -- two 27" 2560x1440 monitors.
This achieves 11MP if you count all 3 color components (R,G,B subpixels):
2560 x 1440 x 3 = 11,059,200 per one 2560x1440 monitor.
Do you really want to go for overkill?
Do you really need all 44 million subpixels for 4 monitors, for 18 million 'subpixels' (bayer sensor) of a Canon image?
On the other hand, are you trying to preserve the aspect ratio (by using a 2x2 array of monitors)?
Are you aiming for editing, or are you aiming for presenting?
If you're just showing off images, you'll gain virtually no angular sharpness improvement (when adjusting distance for same FOV, e.g. adjusting your viewing distance adjusted for 30 degrees of FOV) for two versus three versus four 2560x1440 monitors, for 18MP bayer-sensor images. You may gain about 1% improvement in sharpness.
So your decision about going with 4 monitors probably should go with different factors:
There's another good reason for going with 4 monitors. If your images are 16:9, then using 2x2 monitors in a rectangular 16:9 array, will preserve the aspect ratio of your image. You can get quite close by using two portrait-rotated 2560x1440 monitors side-by-side, but if perfectly preserving the aspect ratio is important, then stacking your monitors 2x2 provides useful benefit. It consumes more space and expense, but if that's not important -- then 2x2 is fine. Overkill is good sometimes.
Last edited:
If you're presenting, and going by my by recommended 2:1 factor (50% downconversion for bayer-sensor images), then you only need you only need half as many -- two 27" 2560x1440 monitors.
This achieves 11MP if you count all 3 color components (R,G,B subpixels):
2560 x 1440 x 3 = 11,059,200 per one 2560x1440 monitor.
If it is acceptable, yes.
Definitely, I'm aiming for presenting only. I need to show off the pictures to clients, models, relatives' vacation or party pictures, etc.
If you're just showing off images, you'll gain virtually no angular sharpness improvement (when adjusting distance for same FOV, e.g. adjusting your viewing distance adjusted for 30 degrees of FOV) for two versus three versus four 2560x1440 monitors, for 18MP bayer-sensor images. You may gain about 1% improvement in sharpness.
So your decision about going with 4 monitors probably should go with different factors:
There's another good reason for going with 4 monitors. If your images are 16:9, then using 2x2 monitors in a rectangular 16:9 array, will preserve the aspect ratio of your image. You can get quite close by using two portrait-rotated 2560x1440 monitors side-by-side, but if perfectly preserving the aspect ratio is important, then stacking your monitors 2x2 provides useful benefit. It consumes more space and expense, but if that's not important -- then 2x2 is fine. Overkill is good sometimes.
I would like the setup that gives the best possible aspect ratio to the pictures.
Wow! are you saying the I could get away with 2x 27" (2560x1400) in portrait mode?
I don't mind buying 4x 27" displays really; if I could get a better solution than the two in portrait mode.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,116
what type of presentation is it ? You might be better suited with 4 of the samsung 4mm bezel LCD tvs, 1080p = 2mp, so 4 is 8mp, you get the size factor too
each 27" 1440p monitor is roughly 3.7MP, so 4 is actually 14.8mp, and overkill. 4 1080P TVS = 8MP
each 27" 1440p monitor is roughly 3.7MP, so 4 is actually 14.8mp, and overkill. 4 1080P TVS = 8MP
It would not be a power point in company office kind of presentation to watch from 15' away. It will be from my desktop computer at home, perhaps from 3 to 5 people group.
You might be better suited with 4 of the samsung 4mm bezel LCD tvs, 1080p = 2mp, so 4 is 8mp, you get the size factor too
What model are these and what price are we talking about?
It would be better if I don't have to de-bezel them.
So do you think that 2 of these in portrait mode would suffice? Thanks kindly for such a great info.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,116
I mean is it to show potential clients your photography work? or is it a studio display for people visiting? showing your boss some pictures you took of people stealing crap?
http://www.samsunglfd.com/solution/spec.do?modelCd=Samsung ID
not sure on the price, but I'm betting pricey, you can alternatively look at the consumer line of thin bezel tvs.
http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product...spx?path=e7fe5872c341919cb7ac79cded0ffcc9en02
http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product...spx?path=e2787047769f55b2b56934c6a35f4441en02
I think 2 in portrait would look bad, unless you are showing pictures in portrait, if you are showing the picture in a landscape orientation then 3 would be better for aesthetic purposes.
15' viewing distance changes everything -- totally.
I thought you were talking about desktop viewing distances.
But at 15 feet distance, Canon 18MP is already better-than-retina if displayed at small computer monitor sizes.
Why don't you get a single 60" 1080p HDTV, connect it to your computer?
At 15 feet away, a 60" HDTV is already close to Retina in terms of angular resolution.
You need to be sitting closer, or having a bigger display, to gain benefit of 4K or extreme resolutions.
You save some money by buying one 60" HDTV, versus four 2560x1600 displays. (that will become at least 2x or 3x Retina overkill for angular resolution.)
Don't go with just only two 27" displays viewed 15 feet away, it will look anemically small at that view distance. Go with at least 4 (four 2560x1600 displays), or just go with one 60" 1080p HDTV, which has more surface area, and it will still look "small" at 15 feet viewing distance.
No bezels!!!
It may only be 6 mega-subpixels equivalent (1920x1080 x 3 = 6,220,800), but it's fine for 15 feet viewing distance, it's already a full third of the subpixels of your Canon 18MP. You're practically hitting approximately "Retina" already for a 2560x1440 monitor viewed from just 6 feet, beyond that, why bother? Use one good 60" 1080p HDTV instead. Compared to buying four monitors, you can even have enough money left over to choose a model with much better color gamut, too.
For 15 feet view distance, I strongly advise you to go at least 55" diagonal (either via 4 panels, or via single display)
Maybe buy a good "native 1080p" projector instead? Those cost only $1500 dollars nowdays, and you can display a bright 100 inch image in a dimmed conference room.
Or if you *really* want the resolution, and have a big budget, why not buy a 4K projector? (3840x2160 projectors exist -- such as Sony VPL-VW1000ES for approximately $18,000 dollars). You may need a specially chosen/tweaked graphics card to make it work with the Sony projector, but you gain the benefit of a 100 inch screen, AND the extreme 4K resolution -- if you need shock-and-awe kick ass league presentations -- it will be stunning for a 15 view distance -- if money is no object. Do your homework though, as doing 4K from PC's is still a little difficult to do, but there's a bunch of experts that can tell you how. The refresh rate might need to be low (e.g. less than 60Hz on some of these 4K projectors), but since it's constant-illumination, there's no flicker.
Note: The Radeon 7900/7700 series supports 4K over HDMI, though I'm not sure if the signal is compatible with the Sony VPL-VW1000ES 4K projector.
Last edited:
Agreed. For 15' viewing distance 1080p is going to be fine.
And a single 1080p display is going to be far better for viewing than four separate monitors side by side. Those thick bezels running through the vertical and horizontal centerlines are going to be hard to get past. Not to mention you'll have to invest in some calibration hardware to make all four monitors match.
And a single 1080p display is going to be far better for viewing than four separate monitors side by side. Those thick bezels running through the vertical and horizontal centerlines are going to be hard to get past. Not to mention you'll have to invest in some calibration hardware to make all four monitors match.
My photography work.
I don't want to go lower than 2,560x1440 resolution per display, otherwise picture quality would start suffering degradation. Remember I want to preserve as much detail as possible at once.
The viewing is not for 15' away. If that was the case I'd get a projector.
TV displays would not work to achieve this goal as they are 1920x1080 only, plus the bezel thickness is enormous.
1. Is your priority maximum angular resolution at 15 foot viewing distance?
2. Do you have a $20,000 budget?
3. Do you have a room that can be darkened?
If so, my recommendation is a 4K projector, a Stewart Filmscreen brand wall-mounted screen, and a Radeon 7900 series.
They'll show off your photography more than 100x better than *any* consumer computer monitors/HDTV's. GUARANTEED.
Example, Sony VPL-VW1000ES projector with 3840x2160 resolution, a 100 or 120 inch StewartFilmscreen.com screen.
The Radeon 7900 series supports 4K over HDMI, I think it can be adaptored to the Sony VPL-VW1000ES (need to confirm)
Sony VPL-VW1000ES -- 4K projector -- approx $18000
Stewart Filmscreen 120" studio-quality screen (mini IMAX) -- approx $1500
Radeon 7900 series graphics card -- approx $500 (supports 4K over HDMI)
Total: $20,000 for a 100% bezeless 4K wall-sized system.
24 million subpixels with NO bezels!
Play the "IMAX" league!
Don't have the budget? Stuck at 60" (total) or less? Forget 4K -- just get 1080p -- it's still retina quality at 15 feet. You're not going to be able to show further angular resolution to human eyes at 15 feet viewing distance using a 60" or less display.
Last edited:
No. It has to be from my desktop computer about 4' or 6' away.
No. Maybe I can go to 3K but not 20K.
4x 27" should not be that expensive. About $500 each should not exceed $2,000
No.
Thank you, no projector.
Ok, since at least 1 of the three prerequisites is not met -- and since you're also needing them at a desktop too -- then your best compromise is a 2x2 array. It's a flexible "compromise" -- it's desktop usable (you can sit in front of them), AND it's presentation usable (it's reasonably good looking and big enough at 15 feet distance). Go for a 2x2 array -- four display panels. Some brands of 27" monitors already have fairly thin bezels, choose such a model.
But buy all 4 monitors all at the same time, from the same brand/factory/revision number, with the same wear-and-tear on backlight (preferably all zero hours), manufactured nearly at the same time. Don't buy the panels piecemeal. You don't want different backlight brightnesses and different color tints from adjacent panels. You don't want to mix panels from different factories (even if it's the same monitor model) because they look "different" next to each other. Buy a spare or two. Panel arrays look best if the panels are all exactly the same, driven by the same firmware, with the exact same wear-and-tear on its backlight, and also calibrated (e.g. Spyder colorimeter) for best matching. If possible, drive all of the panels from the same graphics card, and if not possible, make sure your two graphics cards is an identical model. Then you can eliminate virtually all the visible differences between adjacent panels, and do all of this within a $3K budget. (You might need to go Korean, especially with good cheap 27" IPS panels, I highly recommend IPS for photography). At cheap Korean prices, you have enough money left to buy a fifth computer monitor, to have a spare, just in case one monitor fails. Make sure the rear of the monitors is cooled reasonably well, perhaps with an additional small ultraquiet fan (whenever you're not presenting), as multiple monitors can heat each other up, leading to premature wear -- especially if they're CCFL (warmer) rather than LED (cooler).
But buy all 4 monitors all at the same time, from the same brand/factory/revision number, with the same wear-and-tear on backlight (preferably all zero hours), manufactured nearly at the same time. Don't buy the panels piecemeal. You don't want different backlight brightnesses and different color tints from adjacent panels. You don't want to mix panels from different factories (even if it's the same monitor model) because they look "different" next to each other. Buy a spare or two. Panel arrays look best if the panels are all exactly the same, driven by the same firmware, with the exact same wear-and-tear on its backlight, and also calibrated (e.g. Spyder colorimeter) for best matching. If possible, drive all of the panels from the same graphics card, and if not possible, make sure your two graphics cards is an identical model. Then you can eliminate virtually all the visible differences between adjacent panels, and do all of this within a $3K budget. (You might need to go Korean, especially with good cheap 27" IPS panels, I highly recommend IPS for photography). At cheap Korean prices, you have enough money left to buy a fifth computer monitor, to have a spare, just in case one monitor fails. Make sure the rear of the monitors is cooled reasonably well, perhaps with an additional small ultraquiet fan (whenever you're not presenting), as multiple monitors can heat each other up, leading to premature wear -- especially if they're CCFL (warmer) rather than LED (cooler).
Last edited:
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,116
I understand it's for your photography work, but what type of work is it? are you a wedding photographer? a sports photographer? Nature?
depending on the type of photography you want display, different setups would work better, a thin bezeled TV (we're talking 4-6mm thick) would work well for wedding photography.
Thank you for that observation, I'll try to get them in the same serial sequence of manufacturing if possible.
I do porno photography, ha, ha, ha, just kidding!
I do weddings, sports, modeling and macro stuff. A little bit of everything.
Option #2:
Two 27" 2560x1440 monitors on your desk --- AND --- a good 55" or 60" 1080p HDTV sitting next to your desk.
It's doable (just about) in under 3K. You can run multimonitor among all 3 displays. Use the two 2560x1440 for desktop work, and the HDTV for showing off. A well-chosen 1080p LED HDTV will look noticeably better at 15 feet viewing distance, if it has better color, which will be far more noticeable than the sharpness. There are many good 60" HDTV's for a hair less than $2000. If you calibrate properly, the pixel sharpness of a 60" HDTV can be matched perfectly with 1920x1080 output from a computer -- maxing out the HDTV's sharpness capability (will look much sharper than a Blu-Ray freeze-frame), perfect text, no fuzzy text, ClearType compatible. The Samsung 2011 UN55D6500 can be had for $1500 in clearout sales -- 4.5 star amazon rating -- or even buy the 2012 UN55ES6500 new online at the same price -- it is a 55 inch LED HDTV and works great with computers. Just spend a little time calibrating it. You got $1500 left for two or even three desktop monitors, plus the required cables and wiggle a new graphics card in too.
Why try to kill two birds with one stone (desktop viewing distance and presentation viewing distance), when your 3K budget can already buy separate displays for both?
Jack of all trades, master of none. Know what I mean?
Different tools work best for different jobs (desktop vs presentation).
You have enough budget to achieve a 'reasonable' best of both worlds!
You can run all 3 simultaneously in multimonitor mode, and then switch the same images/videos between big display and your desktop pair, and I think it's achievable on a single graphics card (I think -- need to verify)
Last edited:
I already have a Samsung 55 HDTV 1920x1080 but some how I don't like how the pictures look like, bad aspect ratio, therefore the interest of going multiple 27" LCD 2560x1440 computer monitors.
Do you guys know if the 27" LCD korean monitors do portrait mode?
Do you guys know if the 27" LCD korean monitors do portrait mode?
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,116
if you are using lightroom, I believe you can assign a single monitor as your preview monitor, while the other 2 show you the full gui + pic.
What do you mean by bad aspect ratio -- are the pictures stretched, or are there black bars? What aspect ratio is your photography? 4:3 or 3:2 or 16:9?
If your photography is 16:9 and it's not filling your HDTV, then there's a setting that needs to be tweaked, or you're not playing your pictures full screen. I know it can be done properly. Also, calibration needs to be done to make the picture higher quality on that TV. (if things looks too bloomed, or shadowy, or dull, or overbright -- the Samsung Service Menu can fix these settings. It's like a Konami code you have to punch into a remote, to access a special adjustment menu.)
Nontheless, it's a good idea to multimonitor your desktop with that big display -- that way, you can keep your GUI & menus on the desktop, and have fullscreen 16:9 preview on the HDTV.
The aspect ratio is 3:2. I can change it in the camera to be 4:3 or 16:9 but this setting is not available in the automatic setting. I'd have to take pictures on manual mode only. I'm not that proficient on manual mode yet.
Please tell me how. Thanks.
That's why I want to play with a multimonitor setup that would accommodate the 3:2 aspect ratios.
Mark Rejhon
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
There's a few ways to display a 3:2 image on a 16:9 display:
1. Black bars. Image has correct aspect ratio
2. Zoom. Crop the top and bottom.
3. Stretch to fill.
Some image slideshow programs can be configured to one of the three of the above, if there's a preference you have.
Most slideshows do #1 -- adding black bars -- but some others are configurable.
Disclaimer: The service menu may void your warranty. Some of that may be in the fine print. That aside...
You may want to get advice from a home theater section (HardOCP HTPC, or HDTV forum, or avforum, avsforum, hometheaterforum, etc...some forums have more experience with Service Menus) about calibration of a HDTV, and which service menu settings are safe, and which service menu specific settings are unsafe. Most of the time, most settings aren't a problem, but you might run into something that adds premature wear (e.g. strong overvoltage for pixel response time acceleration) ... some service menus have no dangerous settings on some models; your model might be one of them -- but see disclaimer above.
To find instructions entering the service menu or factory menu for your HDTV, type the model number in Google (e.g. fictional example: ACME Inc. Model ACME55EX500) followed by the words "service menu" -- you'd be googling "ACME55EX500 service menu" in this example case; many sites reveal the easter egg settings of a specific electronics gadget such as HDTV displays that are hidden from consumers. But if you already have a Spyder colorimeter, and know how to adjust stuff like R Gain, G Gain, B Gain, (terminology may different; hite level / black level / gamma for each pixel component), then it's probably a great start. Different Samsung HDTV's have different procedures for going into the service menu...
Last edited:
I guess just for displaying purposes even a cheap ($70.00) ATI Radeon HD 5550 works fine. This card supports up to 8 monitors: see here:
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desk...hd-5000/hd-5550/Pages/hd-5550-overview.aspx#5
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desk...hd-5000/hd-5550/Pages/hd-5550-overview.aspx#5
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,092
Make sure someone recommends the proper DisplayPort adapters to him so he doesn't waste money there. Or whatever he needs.