I feel almost silly posting this poll, but the recent interest in calibration and a similar question on usenet made me think this might be relevant.

I dont work that much with color so I dont know how much good if any a high setting is. My reasoning goes something like: The card I bought says 32 bit color, so since I paid for it, I,m going to use it. Not very scientific but very human. Tom

Ditto

1024 by 768

I brought up desktop properties box to check and it said 32 bit so I guess that's what it is.
DJ

Mine says 800 X 600 True Color 24 bit. I'm using a 17" monitor. Along those same lines, I was wondering (out of curiosity) what resolution everyone else is using.

Ed

Mine is at 1024 x 768 resolution with 32 bit color, but I have a 19" monitor.

-T

24-bit, 1024x768 on a 21" monitor (not mine - on homeloan from my husband's place of work). Don't know why I don't have it set at 32-bit. I think remember trying it once and it seemed that my video card wouldn't support it. Maybe I should try it again...
Jeanie

I use the 1024 x 768 resolution on a 17 inch monitor. Tom

I use 1024 x 768 resolution with 32 bit color on a 19" monitor.

George

Can anyone expand on the difference between 32bit and 24bit display? Same number of colors, what's the difference?

1024x768 32bit color.

When 32 bits are used, there are 8 bits for red, 8 bits for green, 8 bits for blue, and 8 bits left over that may be used as an alpha channel for transparency.

HTH

Paul Rupp :wavey:

How is transparency relevant to a monitor that refreshes 75 times a second?

This discussion prompted me to check my site stats to see what settings people are using. (The tracker can pick up most system colors used, unless it is an unknown browser type).
Over the past two months, and 1535 visitors, a surprising 31% are in 16 bit mode!
Top numbers are 49.9% at 32 bit, and 41.6% at 1024 x 768 (800 x 600 second) at 31%.
Interesting. I may put a "optimal" type of notice on my site now that I see the numbers.

OK, I've done a little research. 32-bit does, indeed, represent the added 8 bits of an alpha (transparency) channel. We almost never see this in use, but it is getting more prevalent. One good example is in Windows XP all the icons are 32bit. I've enjoyed some menu transparency effects in my Windows2000 setup without realizing that's a benefit of 32bit color.

The extra 8 bits don't seem to play a roll in photographs (since there'd never be any transparency there). They are also unneccessary for most web browsing (since transparent GIFs use a 1-bit scheme built into the file) unless the site is using 32bit PNG files, which are very, very rare.

I'm running XP. You mean all that for just some icons? :D Seems like a waste if there's not much noticable difference. So someone running on 24 bits and Windows XP wouldn't see any icons?
DJ

They'll see the icons, but they'll be dithered.

I'm running 8 bit 256 colors, so if you see me post anything out here and the color stinks you'll know why.

...Nah, just kidding, I have no excuse. I'm set to 1024 x 768 resolution, running a 32 bit color setting and a 17" monitor.

Oh, but, did I mention I'm color blind? Yeah, that's it...I'm color blind.

19 inch monitor, 32 bit color, 1024x768.
very typical it seems:)

21-inch flat-screen Mitsubishi
32-bit color (makes gradations smoother)
1280x1024

I don't know how you all survive on 1024x768---I go back and forth between the above setting and 1600x1200.

Originally posted by Doug Nelson
The extra 8 bits don't seem to play a roll in photographs (since there'd never be any transparency there). They are also unneccessary for most web browsing (since transparent GIFs use a 1-bit scheme built into the file) unless the site is using 32bit PNG files, which are very, very rare.

Depends. I often "cut out" a chunk of an image (like the center of that funny dollar bill engraving thing in another thread I did) and when you do that, the image data is 32-bit - the edge, which was not square, is defined by those extra 8 bits.

When moving just that section of the image, if the screen display mode is 32-bit, the software can send the clip directly to the disply card to move it, and it'll move with transparent edges. If the display is not 32-bit, but 24 (or less), then the image has to be clipped in software before it is drawn as it is dragged or moved. So a 32-bit display can add quite a bit of efficiency from the viewpoint of the application software. From the end-user's perspective, it buys you speed, which you may or may not notice, depending on how loaded your system is when you're moving clips like that.

And, yeah, on Windows 2000 or XP, it'll get you some cute icons and fade-in/out effects, too. :)

I'm using a 19" monitor at 1280 X 1024 32 Bit color
- David

At work 17" 1024x768 16-bit
At home (where the restoration gets done) 17" 1024x768 32-bit

Another interesting point is the screen geometry. I have a LG Flatron (flat screen) at home. Really great as you get an absolute minimum of reflection to the eye. The screen at work is a standard curved screen and with all the reflections, I'd hate to do restoration work with it.

Dual monitors
21" Barco 1600X1200 32 Bit
21" Mitsubishi 1600X1200 32 Bit (flat screen)

dual monitors
19" 1024x768 32 bit
17" 1024x768 32 bit