sprockets The Snowman is coming! Realistic head model by Dan Skelton Vintage character and mo-cap animation by Joe Williamsen Character animation exercise by Steve Shelton an Animated Puppet Parody by Mark R. Largent Sprite Explosion Effect with PRJ included from johnL3D New Radiosity render of 2004 animation with PRJ. Will Sutton's TAR knocks some heads!
sprockets
Recent Posts | Unread Content
Jump to content
Hash, Inc. - Animation:Master

Smallest screen you would work on?


Roger

Recommended Posts

  • *A:M User*

So I have been waiting to upgrade my laptop as it was not a critical purchase - I have more or less settled on brand, but am looking at either a 14" 1400x900, 15" 1920 x 1080 or 12" 1366x768.

 

I would probably be better able to animate on one of the larger screens, I would love the smaller screen for for the portability factor but am afraid it would be too small to do useful animation work on unless hooking to a larger monitor.

 

Any thoughts? If you only had access to one screen, what do you figure you would prefer to work on?

 

For practicality's sake, I am thinking the full HD 15" screen on the desktop replacement laptop would be best - high enough resolution to display everything, not so small I would go squinty eyed. And with the new Sandybridge cpus I am thinking I could get 4 to 5 hours even on a DTR type notebook, with an extended battery.

 

I am looking at both Lenovo and Macbooks at this point, but so far am leaning more towards Lenovo. I'm not sure I feel like getting used to a completely new interface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hash Fellow

I used A:M for a long time on a 1024x768 monitor. That's the smallest I would go.

 

If you are quite handy at using the keyboard shortcuts to turn needed windows on and off you might get by with that.

 

Smallest screen inches depends on your eyesight I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • *A:M User*
I used A:M for a long time on a 1024x768 monitor. That's the smallest I would go.

 

If you are quite handy at using the keyboard shortcuts to turn needed windows on and off you might get by with that.

 

Smallest screen inches depends on your eyesight I think.

 

I'm horribly nearsighted, but with glasses I am ok - I would have a hard time reading this text with them off, though.

I tried using AM on my netbook, it has a 1024x768 screen, but at only 10" made it very difficult to use. Not sure how much better the 1366x768 would be - I had a 15" laptop w/ that res hooked up to a full HD monitor, definitely prefer the higher res. I think 14" 1400x900 would be the lowest I would be comfortable with. The cost of the bump to the full HD screen and higher-end gpu is going to determine my decision somewhat - I really am not sure I want to spend close to $2000 on a laptop. I would feel more comfortable at $999 to $1200. Would be hard to get the 15" full hd quad core with quadro 2000 to come in at that price point, though. I think the lowest I could get it would be $1600 and that would be with one heck of a coupon/discount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My vote's on the 14" 1440x900 and here's why. One, it's widescreen, I find AM and widescreen work much better because your windows are to the side and more out of the way and still leaves a sizable amount of space for your primary window. Two, going up to HD is pretty much a wasted expense because 1440x900 is already a better resolution than a 720p screen and 1080i only becomes noticeable if you're using a 50" screen, so it's kinda redundant to spend money on a 1080i screen that's tops 15". I personally use a 13" laptop that has a resolution of 1280x800 (again still slightly better than a 720 resolution and HD content plays quite clearly on it) of course my eyes are still quite young however, it is a bit aggravating working on a smaller scale with windows crammed together

 

@Holmes: I think carrying around 2 19" monitors in your laptop case might be a bit troublesome

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My vote's on the 14" 1440x900 and here's why. One, it's widescreen, I find AM and widescreen work much better because your windows are to the side and more out of the way and still leaves a sizable amount of space for your primary window. Two, going up to HD is pretty much a wasted expense because 1440x900 is already a better resolution than a 720p screen and 1080i only becomes noticeable if you're using a 50" screen, so it's kinda redundant to spend money on a 1080i screen that's tops 15". I personally use a 13" laptop that has a resolution of 1280x800 (again still slightly better than a 720 resolution and HD content plays quite clearly on it) of course my eyes are still quite young however, it is a bit aggravating working on a smaller scale with windows crammed together

 

@Holmes: I think carrying around 2 19" monitors in your laptop case might be a bit troublesome

 

Keep in mind that netbooks are very slow compared to desktops. Get at least a i5 with enough Ram. It is just not fun to wait on anything you do.

 

*Fuchur*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really am not sure I want to spend close to $2000 on a laptop. I would feel more comfortable at $999 to $1200. Would be hard to get the 15" full hd quad core with quadro 2000 to come in at that price point, though. I think the lowest I could get it would be $1600 and that would be with one heck of a coupon/discount.

 

I know nothing about laptops - Have you checked out HP? HP Pavillion dv7t 17" starts at $650 with i3 4GB memory - HP G72t (17") starts at $580 (special deals section) go to HP site,

 

HPG27t

 

HPdv7t

 

They are configurable, and I am not familiar with their performance compared to desktops

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • *A:M User*

I've heard good and bad things about the HP laptops. It is an option, but I am leaning toward Lenovo. We use them at my job, and they take quite a beating and hold up very well.

 

Ideally, I'd like a quad core i7 with 8gb ram, 320gb or 500gb 7200rpm HD, 9 cell battery, usb 3.0, full HD display, and a quadro 2000. Would be nice to get it for about $1500 (I can dream). The w520 sounds nice and would have most of those specs, not sure I can get it at that price point.

 

I could do a t420 or 520 in a pinch, might get better battery life that way. I think the quad core would only be an option in the t520 though. The nice thing about the w520 is it supports up to 32gb of ram, but I don't expect to need that much anytime soon.

 

The HP laptops look nice, I just don't have any hands-on experience with them and would rather get something I have direct experience with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard good and bad things about the HP laptops. It is an option, but I am leaning toward Lenovo. We use them at my job, and they take quite a beating and hold up very well.

 

Ideally, I'd like a quad core i7 with 8gb ram, 320gb or 500gb 7200rpm HD, 9 cell battery, usb 3.0, full HD display, and a quadro 2000. Would be nice to get it for about $1500 (I can dream). The w520 sounds nice and would have most of those specs, not sure I can get it at that price point.

 

I could do a t420 or 520 in a pinch, might get better battery life that way. I think the quad core would only be an option in the t520 though. The nice thing about the w520 is it supports up to 32gb of ram, but I don't expect to need that much anytime soon.

 

The HP laptops look nice, I just don't have any hands-on experience with them and would rather get something I have direct experience with.

mine is HP and very happy

dv7-1285dx beefed up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 17.3" Full HD (1920x1080). I have really good vision. I love the resolution, but I'd worry about Full HD on a 15.x" monitor size; it might be too small even for me. Although I haven't seen one yet.

 

I have an ASUS G73JW-A2 laptop; I can't really say how rugged it is, although the backpack that came with it makes it easier to carry around and less prone to getting borked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may want to choose a geforce or radeon based graphics card instead of a quadro. Most video card issues on the forum seem to stem either from Vista/Win 7 desktop composition mode or from running A:M with a Quadro based video card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And with the new Sandybridge cpus

 

Wasn't that the chipset that had a recall? Not sure it has impact on laptop, nor if you can tell if your purchase has/had/will have the problem:

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2379241,00.asp

 

From what I read, the problem only affects the 3 GB/s sata ports. It doesn't affect the first two sata ports which are 6GB/s. I'm not sure if a laptop would use more than the first 2 sata ports?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • *A:M User*

I don't think it will be an issue - I imagine a large company like Lenovo is receiving the udpated chips. I'll check before I pull the trigger on the purchase, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • *A:M User*
You may want to choose a geforce or radeon based graphics card instead of a quadro. Most video card issues on the forum seem to stem either from Vista/Win 7 desktop composition mode or from running A:M with a Quadro based video card.

 

 

I thought the Quadro was a geforce card? At any rate, its based on the nvidia Fermi chip.

I have noticed sometimes when I'm working in AM in Vista that the display will "freeze" (like the buffer gets stuck and doesn't update properly) if I leave it for long enough for the screensaver to come on. Is this the type of thing you're talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • *A:M User*
I think freezing after screensaver comes on is something different. I just leave my screensaver turned off permanently. I don't think image burn is much of an issue on modern monitors anyway.

 

Well, as far as this Quadro issue goes, are we talking minor annoyance, or show stopper? If I disable hardware acceleration in AM, will I be ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think freezing after screensaver comes on is something different. I just leave my screensaver turned off permanently. I don't think image burn is much of an issue on modern monitors anyway.
While image burn is not, energy usage may be. Many screen savers use a bit of CPU power (and therefore electricity).

 

I usually set my screen saver to blank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • *A:M User*

You know, if that has bluetooth (for mouse and keyboard) and an HDMI output, you could almost use that like a regular workstation.

 

Connect it to a monitor with HDMI input so the screen is no longer an issue, and use a bluetooth keyboard and mouse and away you go. Not sure you could do that, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't support blue tooth since I only got it up to windows 2000. The problem was its speed it just couldn't keep up with the graphics. And the phone is a very old model so it doesn't have any video output ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...