|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 12th, 2007, 10:31 PM
|
#16 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,669
|
...but you are nevertheless doing a heck of a lot better than "1/4 HD"!
|
|
|
|
February 12th, 2007, 10:57 PM
|
#17 |
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
|
You can achieve this with several desktop monitors, just gotta have the $$. :-)
We have a bunch of Sony 234b monitors (discontinued) that we picked up cheap from a dealer a year or so ago; 1900 x 1200, and with the Vegas secondary monitor, it's full rez, full screen, looks great.
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com |
|
|
|
|
February 13th, 2007, 02:21 AM
|
#18 | |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,222
|
Quote:
1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels (HD resolution for 1080p) This is what you can display on a 1024x768 monitor with 16:9 aspect ratio video window: 1024x 576 = 589,824 pixels 589824/2073600 = 0.284 HD This is what you can display on a 1280x1024 monitor with 16:9 aspect ratio video window: 1280x 720 = 921,600 pixels 921600/2073600 = 0.452 HD This is what you can display on a 1600x1200 monitor with 16:9 aspect ratio video window: 1600x 900 = 1,440,000pixels 1440000/2073600 = 0.707 HD Thus, a 1024x768 monitor is doing slightly more than 1/4 HD . Today, it's hard to find a graphics card at a reasonable price that will drive more than 1600x1200 with DVI output. I just bought a GeForce 7800 GS that maxes out at 1600x1200. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
