2 monitors

I would like to start working with 2 monitors. 1 to display my graphic and the second for tools or tutorial.
Whay video card is recommended ??

Matrox. The new 650 and 750 are excellent.

http://www.madmousergraphics.com
web design, print design, photography

(LauraK) posted:

I would like to start working with 2 monitors. 1 to display my graphic and the second for tools or tutorial.
Whay video card is recommended ??

Matrox. The new 650 and 750 are excellent.

The Matrox G550 works fine too.
– Max

—
MisterMax
Slideshows of Angkor Wat, Bali, Crete, France, Malaysia, Maui, Morocco, Mt Holly, Sicily, St Tropez, Singapore, Thailand, Tour de France: http://buten.net/max/
(Yes,RemoveDoubles is part of my email address. The double letters in my last name are not.)

Mister Max wrote:

(LauraK) posted:

I would like to start working with 2 monitors. 1 to display my graphic and the second for tools or tutorial.
Whay video card is recommended ??

Matrox. The new 650 and 750 are excellent.

The Matrox G550 works fine too.

I have a G550 and I do not recommend it, since it is not possible to calibrate the two monitors independently. IMO this is a serious drawback for graphic work, especially if one has two monitors of different brand, as I do.
Peter

Peter Wollenberg wrote:

I have a G550 and I do not recommend it, since it is not possible to calibrate the two monitors independently. IMO this is a serious drawback for graphic work, especially if one has two monitors of different brand, as I do.

I agree and I have the exact same problem with a Matrox Parhelia. Some say that it’s possible with the Matrox P650 and P750 though.

—
Regards
Madsen.

I agree and I have the exact same problem with a Matrox Parhelia. Some say that it’s possible with the Matrox P650 and P750 though

The P650 and P750, particularly the P750, are major advancements. Comparisons here:
http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/comp_chart/gseries_pserie s_parhelia.cfm Prices are still decent, with Matrox selling the 640 for $170 and the 750 for $235. Can probably find them for less.
I’ve got a G550. If I was buying today, I’d get the P750.

http://www.madmousergraphics.com
web design, print design, photography

LauraK wrote:

The P650 and P750, particularly the P750, are major advancements.

According to the comparison chart, the Parhelia card seems better than the P750 in everything. They both have ‘Multi-Display Color Calibration’, according to the chart, but if the ‘Multi-Display Color Calibration’ on P750 is the same as the Parhelia, I’m not impressed. The only way to get something that reminds a little of color calibration on the Parhelia is to install a program called Coloreal but I hate that crap.

It would be better if one could choose it directly at system level, but see what happens with the Parhelia and WinXP:
<http://home18.inet.tele.dk/madsen/matrox/parhelia/dual>. There’s no way to tell WinXP that output 1 shall use the color profile for my Viewsonic monitor and that output 2 shall use the profile for my Sony FW900. WinXP actually thinks that the FW900 is my primary display and I don’t know where it get that idea from. (Matrox can’t help me on that point either. I have already tried their support forum).

If I knew that before I bought the Parhelia, I wouldn’t have bought it. I would have bought two graphic cards instead because then it would probably be possible to choose different monitor profiles for each display at system level, so that a program like Photoshop would show me the right colors on both displays. Today I can either have correct colors on display 1 or on display 2 but never on both at the same time.

—
Regards
Madsen.

I am glad I sold my Matrox, maybe the hardware is allright, but their drivers are lacking functionality and aren’t updated frequently 🙁

I am using two nVidia cards now, that allow me to do everything I want (I had mainly troubles with the color profiles and different refresh rates for both screens, resolutions were allright). The unique selling point of Matrox ("ultrasharp, crystal clear display") doesn’t hold any longer with the new chips of both ATI and nVidia. Those chips do also support dual display (need to test my dual display, but as I said, I’ve two cards). I am using a 22" CRT and a 17" TFT with Windows 2000 Pro.

What I don’t understand is your problem with primary display, in the Windows Display properties, you can select the other monitor and check "Use this device as the primary monitor", than drag one of the monitors to give it the correct position (left, right, up, down). That worked for my old card (G550).

Waldo

"Thomas Madsen" wrote in message

LauraK wrote:

The P650 and P750, particularly the P750, are major advancements.

According to the comparison chart, the Parhelia card seems better than the P750 in everything. They both have ‘Multi-Display Color Calibration’, according to the chart, but if the ‘Multi-Display Color Calibration’ on P750 is the same as the Parhelia, I’m not impressed. The only way to get something that reminds a little of color calibration on the Parhelia is to install a program called Coloreal but I hate that crap.

It would be better if one could choose it directly at system level, but see what happens with the Parhelia and WinXP:
<http://home18.inet.tele.dk/madsen/matrox/parhelia/dual>. There’s no way to tell WinXP that output 1 shall use the color profile for my Viewsonic monitor and that output 2 shall use the profile for my Sony FW900. WinXP actually thinks that the FW900 is my primary display and I don’t know where it get that idea from. (Matrox can’t help me on that point either. I have already tried their support forum).

If I knew that before I bought the Parhelia, I wouldn’t have bought it. I would have bought two graphic cards instead because then it would probably be possible to choose different monitor profiles for each display at system level, so that a program like Photoshop would show me the right colors on both displays. Today I can either have correct colors on display 1 or on display 2 but never on both at the same time.

—
Regards
Madsen.

Waldo wrote:

I am glad I sold my Matrox, maybe the hardware is allright, but their drivers are lacking functionality and aren’t updated frequently 🙁

As for functionality, I’m not missing anything besides the problem with the color profiles. Matrox says more or less that the color profile problem is a Windows problem.

The unique selling point of Matrox ("ultrasharp, crystal clear display") doesn’t hold any longer with the new chips of both ATI and nVidia. Those chips do also support dual display (need to test my dual display, but as I said, I’ve two cards). I am using a 22" CRT and a 17" TFT with Windows 2000 Pro.

I’ve always used Matrox cards. A couple of years back, I tried an ATI Radeon 8500 for at short period of time, but I wasn’t satisfied with the image quality in 1920 x 1200 on my FW900. On that point, my former G400 Max did a better job and the ATI driver wasn’t very stable either. That may have changed since, but I don’t know. Later I bought the Parhelia card and is more than satisfied with the image quality and the driver functionality and stability. It’s just the darn color profile thing that irritates me.

What I don’t understand is your problem with primary display, in the Windows Display properties, you can select the other monitor and check "Use this device as the primary monitor", than drag one of the monitors to give it the correct position (left, right, up, down). That worked for my old card (G550).

I can easily change the primary display to be a secondary display instead, or vice versa.
The problem is that if I change the color profile for output 1, the color profile for output 2 changes accordingly. I can’t choose that output 1 shall use VP201s.icm and that output 2 shall use FW900.icm for instance.

—
Regards
Madsen.

As for functionality, I’m not missing anything besides the problem with the color profiles. Matrox says more or less that the color profile problem is a Windows problem.

It is easy to accuse Microsoft 😉

I’ve always used Matrox cards. A couple of years back, I tried an ATI Radeon 8500 for at short period of time, but I wasn’t satisfied with the image quality in 1920 x 1200 on my FW900. On that point, my former G400 Max did a better job and the ATI driver wasn’t very stable either. That may have changed since, but I don’t know. Later I bought the Parhelia card and is more than satisfied with the image quality and the driver functionality and stability. It’s just the darn color profile thing that irritates me.

Well, I don’t see any difference between my GeForce FX5600 and the G550 (except that I need additional tools (PowerStrip) to get the proper refresh rates on the G550) at 2048×1536 and 1600×1200. I agree that the ATI drivers haven’t always been stable, but the nVidia drivers are much better.

Having my TFT running in 1280×1024 @ 60Hz and the CRT in 1600×1200 @ 100Hz was impossible with the G550 (actually, it allowed me to set the CRT to maximum 75 Hz and push it manually after each reboot to 85 Hz with the tweak tooling). After nearly a year of wars with new drivers of both the G550 and monitors, I bought a second videocard -> problem solved. My conclusion is that the resolutions and refresh rates should be nearly equal (at least the refresh rates) to work properly with two screens.

I can easily change the primary display to be a secondary display instead, or vice versa.
The problem is that if I change the color profile for output 1, the color profile for output 2 changes accordingly. I can’t choose that output 1 shall use VP201s.icm and that output 2 shall use FW900.icm for instance.

Yeah, I’ve had that problem too, just didn’t understand you correctly. Dunno if Matrox solved that with their newer cards, can’t imagine that they didn’t had any complaints about that issue. I really like two different screens, one TFT and CRT is perfect (except the huge amount of useless space behind the TFT….).

Waldo

Waldo wrote:

It is easy to accuse Microsoft 😉

Yep and if you ask Microsoft, they accuse Matrox.

Well, I don’t see any difference between my GeForce FX5600 and the G550 (except that I need additional tools (PowerStrip) to get the proper refresh rates on the G550) at 2048×1536 and 1600×1200. I agree that the ATI drivers haven’t always been stable, but the nVidia drivers are much better.

Okay.

After nearly a year of wars with new drivers of both the G550 and monitors, I bought a second videocard -> problem solved.

If I haven’t bought the expensive Parhelia card for about eight months ago, I would have bought two cards today too because of the color profile problem, but I didn’t knew anything about it then, and didn’t care either, because I was only using one monitor at that moment. Actually i’m curious to know if the dual-cards from nVidia and ATI has the same problem.

My conclusion is that the resolutions and refresh rates should be nearly equal (at least the refresh rates) to work properly with two screens.

At the moment I’m running in 1600 x 1200, 60 Hz (DVI) on my primary monitor (Viewsonic VP201s, LCD) and 1920 x 1200, 85 Hz (BNC) on my secondary monitor (Sony GDM-FW900, CRT). On that point, the Parhelia card is very versatile.

Yeah, I’ve had that problem too, just didn’t understand you correctly. Dunno if Matrox solved that with their newer cards, can’t imagine that they didn’t had any complaints about that issue.

Maybe it’s solved with the P650 and P750 but I’m not sure. I’ll have to see it with my own eyes to believe it.

I really like two different screens, one TFT and CRT is
perfect (except the huge amount of useless space behind the TFT….).

Yes and all the wasted space where the CRT is placed. 🙂

—
Regards
Madsen.

On 15 Dec 2003 18:15:18 GMT, (LauraK) wrote:

I would like to start working with 2 monitors. 1 to display my graphic and the second for tools or tutorial.
Whay video card is recommended ??

Matrox. The new 650 and 750 are excellent.

http://www.madmousergraphics.com
web design, print design, photography

I also like the Matrox dual head cards. They are stable (unlike most ATI cards) and so are well suited to high-res LCD displays.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:34:41 +0100, Thomas Madsen
wrote:

Waldo wrote:

I am glad I sold my Matrox, maybe the hardware is allright, but their drivers are lacking functionality and aren’t updated frequently 🙁

As for functionality, I’m not missing anything besides the problem with the color profiles. Matrox says more or less that the color profile problem is a Windows problem.

The unique selling point of Matrox ("ultrasharp, crystal clear display") doesn’t hold any longer with the new chips of both ATI and nVidia. Those chips do also support dual display (need to test my dual display, but as I said, I’ve two cards). I am using a 22" CRT and a 17" TFT with Windows 2000 Pro.

I’ve always used Matrox cards. A couple of years back, I tried an ATI Radeon 8500 for at short period of time, but I wasn’t satisfied with the image quality in 1920 x 1200 on my FW900. On that point, my former G400 Max did a better job and the ATI driver wasn’t very stable either. That may have changed since, but I don’t know. Later I bought the Parhelia card and is more than satisfied with the image quality and the driver functionality and stability. It’s just the darn color profile thing that irritates me.

What I don’t understand is your problem with primary display, in the Windows Display properties, you can select the other monitor and check "Use this device as the primary monitor", than drag one of the monitors to give it the correct position (left, right, up, down). That worked for my old card (G550).

I can easily change the primary display to be a secondary display instead, or vice versa.
The problem is that if I change the color profile for output 1, the color profile for output 2 changes accordingly. I can’t choose that output 1 shall use VP201s.icm and that output 2 shall use FW900.icm for instance.

I had nearly the same experience with ATI cards, both a Radon 8500 and another. Neither were sufficiently stable to use with LCD displays, so when you turned your computer on in the morning, you never knew whether the screen would come up properly adjusted or not. Also the font set sucked, especially with LCDs. They were a little better with CRTs, however. Am still using an "old" Matrox 550 with excellent results.