| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 60706 | 2005-08-10 08:22:00 | Sick Monitor/Display | Blue Druid (4480) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 380073 | 2005-08-11 08:40:00 | Okay. I was not even aware that the two were not part and parcel of the same package. In view of the fact that both the flickering lines and "spasms" have seemingly vanished (like toothache in the dentist's waiting room) since uninstalling FxFoto (which I only installed out of curiosity), is it possible that a heavy graphics demand on the system could be stressing an already aging system to produce the symptoms. When I bought the setup in 1999, digital cameras were in their infancy and seldom more than 3 Mp max. Most images would have been less than 500 kB. this has changed dramatically to the point where I now use a 12 Mp camera since I need the highest possible resolution for up to A0 size prints. Using RAW, BMP or TIF formats can make for some quite sizable individual images. Could it be that I am trying to tow a large truck with a mini and it's starting to haemorrage? |
Blue Druid (4480) | ||
| 380074 | 2005-08-11 09:00:00 | Unlikely. A large image would be scaled back to the capabilities of your graphics adapter anyway, its only if you were running the monitor outside its limits of refresh and resolution that it could cause an actual monitor problem. They are set in control panel - display. All a "monitor driver" does is restrict those settings to the range that the monitor is capable of. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 380075 | 2005-08-11 09:07:00 | I don't know about that. I'd think that making big demands would simply mean that your comp does things at an extemely leisurely pace. Have a look at your camera's manual and see what it says about the required specs for the comp. I tend to agree with godfather, I think your monitor may be on the way out. Truck it around to a compliant mate's place, plug it into their comp and see what happens. |
mark c (247) | ||
| 380076 | 2005-08-11 09:52:00 | I have my refresh rate set at 85 hertz and screen resolution at 1024x768. I had always assumed that the image displayed would only ever be a representation of the actual image due to the limitations of the monitor. You're right about the leisurely pace, Mark but I accepted that as the penalty of working with large files on a 450MHz machine with only 256MB RAM. However, since I only really work on one image at a time, I am probably almost as slow as the process! It is only when I start moving several files in a directory from point A to point B (between drives or directories) that I start encountering major problems and am reduced to moving them a file at a time (frustrating when sorting a 1GB card full of images). It has been during such maneuvers that I encounter display problems. Usually, after the exercise is over and a couple of reboots later, the problem resolves until next time. It is worth noting, though, that annoying though this phenomenon is, it has never been as dramatic as what I was getting when I first wrote to PF1 in desperation with a screen I could hardly read. It has now settled down to rock steady and there is no indication that anything was ever wrong. The monitor colours are still very accurate (as measured against actual photographic prints of the images) and I check colour balance regularly with Adobe Gamma to try to keep colour consistent. |
Blue Druid (4480) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||