Multiple monitors

I've done it to scans of old equipment manuals that are several hundred pages. In some cases you can try to save a PDF as a text file and extract a lot of information. You will lose all formatting, especially when you have multiple columns but it still saves a lot of work.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to 
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
Reply to
Michael A. Terrell
Loading thread data ...

The cheapest 2560x1440 I could find on the Best Buy web pile is: The cost per megapixel is: $616 / 3.69 mpix = $167/mpix

In a previous rant, I worked out the costs for other monitors at:

LG 29UM65-P 29" 2560x1080 $380 / 2.76 mpix = $141/mpix

An ordinary commodity 21.5" 1920x1080 monitor would be: $130 / 2.07 mpix = $62.90/mpix

A larger 27" 1920x1080 model: $243 / 2.07 mpix = $117/mpix

Looks like the super-resolution monitor is the most expensive if you're counting pixels. Of course, there's a benefit to having all your pixels on one screen. I just don't like paying for it.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Hint: I've abandoned Adobe Acrobat Reader and switched to PDF-Xchange Viewer (free): One of the features of this viewer is a built in OCR reader, that converts a scanned PDF into a searchable PDF. From the feature list: New - OCR options included - OCR your image based/scanned PDF's to make fully text searchable PDF files

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

I am perpetually tight, but when it comes to ergonomic factors I have learned it is no place to pinch pennies and these days a $600 monitor is nearly a no-thought expense. When I was in college I once tried "Eat-Well" tuna because it was $0.10 cheaper. Now I eat $20 a pound smoked salmon. I have no reason to sweat buying a $600 monitor if it helps me use my computer any better.

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

+42 I *really* don't like "looking up" when it comes to working on a computer. I prefer my gaze "at eye level" and lower. As such, a 24" 4:3 monitor is about the "tallest" I am comfortable with (in landscape orientation). If I move to 21" portrait mode displays, that's *almost* a wash (in terms of height). It's REALLY easy to end up with a "stiff neck" if your workstation layout has you regularly stressing your neck in that way hours at a time, day after day.

Like sitting in the first row of a movie theatre... and that's just a TWO HOUR show!

Very few applications (IME) really benefit from a "large" monolithic workspace. The problem (*my* problem) is that I need several apps to be active (i.e., "engaged", not just "running") at any given time in order to be effective in my efforts.

Think about how often you are concerned *solely* with a single application:

- reviewing a schematic (but not consulting any datasheets)

- checking a PCB (without regard for the associated schematic)

- writing code (without concern for the hardware on which it runs)

- preparing documentation (without having to reference anything!) etc.

In each of those cases, a traditional 4:3 monitor is "about the right shape" and 24" is typically "more than large enough" (17 would be too small; 19 may *feel* tight; 21 is probably "acceptable"). A wider/bigger (dots) screen may show you more of the schematic (at a given level of detail) but that's not usually "necessary". Ditto for a PCB (you're seldom focused on "fine details" while looking at the entire board, etc.)

Any "writing" activities usually leave much of the display area "wasted" (OK, a debugger can exploit extra real estate for status displays, etc.)

The only folks I've seen use a large/wide desktop for a single (non-multimedia) application are folks who deal with spreadsheets. The "I-need-to-see-all-the-data-on-the-screen-at-the-same-time" mentality. And, if you gave them an "extra" monitor, they wouldn't want it for email, web browser, etc. -- instead, they would want to view even MORE rows or columns!! :-/

Different set of rules for multimedia and, esp, gaming. Money's no object when it comes to fun! :>

Reply to
Don Y

More *smaller* dots isn't going to really help me -- I'll just use more of them to display the same material (fine curves will be smoother but the same amount of information will still be present on the display).

My problem is getting more "area" (assuming you can always get sufficient resolution within that area) in which to display stuff. And, still address the ergonomic issues so I can use that area effectively without "a stiff neck" or "tennis match syndrome".

With better eyes, the ideal solution would be a curved display that I could locate a bit farther away (perhaps 36-40" instead of the ~28 that I now prefer) and, thus, not need to span as great an arc.

In addition to being better able to see the detail present *at* that distance, "better eyes" would be able to quickly make the adjustments to "near viewing" when I have to consult a printed document on my physical desktop (i.e., that is NOT 36" away from me) or a real circuit board as I go in search of the corresponding area of interest "on screen".

I mocked up Theo's 40 inch and it's definitely a non-starter, here. Maybe if I was younger or born with different eyes... :-/

Reply to
Don Y

Ditto. You *don't* want to know what I've spent on kit over the course of my career! :( (actually, *I* don't, either!)

But, throwing money at a problem doesn't always give you better results. Knowing what your *real* needs are (vs. the glitz appeal) and what your real usage patterns are makes it easier to find the "right fit" -- if there *is* a "right fit"! :-/

I'm not keen on rearranging my workspace only to discover some aspect of its plan that isn't practical 24/7/365 -- "Gee, it looked good on paper...". Too much "grunt work" involved for anything less than a "sure thing"! :>

Reply to
Don Y

Wade through AEK's archive if you want to see what "obsessive scanning" can yield! Perhaps a few HUNDRED thousand pages?? :-O

[I'm personally dreading finishing the scans on my MULTICS archive...]
Reply to
Don Y

Working with classical organs a while ago, it occurred to us that we could replace the music rack with a 24" 16x9 monitor. Then we could download organ scores on request from imslp.org as PDFs and display them

2 pages across on the music rack. Possibility of superimposing SVG for local markup. The guy who signed the cheques wasn't as enthused as we were.

Mel.

Reply to
Mel Wilson

Yeah -- though you could also have used two smaller portrait mode displays, side by side. The modern format (for single apps) really only has merit for things like B size prints (or spreadsheets). And, typically, there is enough other cruft associated with the presentation (menu bars, controls, sliders, etc.) that even that "native" form factor is bastardized (17:11)

Amazing how attitudes vary with financial responsibility! :>

I'd be more respectful of him objecting due to "stylistic" issues (i.e., classic organ vs. modern tech). :-/

Reply to
Don Y

My use case was that we had a third-party box in our system that had a

200+ page PDF datasheet. I was discussing some points of its operation over email, and I knew that some people wouldn't bother to open and flip to the right page in the full datasheet. There was enough formatting in the stuff that I wanted to talk about that just pasting the text would have been illegible. So I would print the 3 or 4 relevant pages out of the big datasheet to a new PDF and attach that to the email, which did get read.

There seems to be a couple of levels to this, in my experience:

First, companies started setting the "no copying text" bit on their PDFs. I noticed this a lot starting around 2011; I don't know whether they all decided it was a good idea at the same time, or if there was a new release of full Acrobat or FrameMaker or something around that time that defaulted to having that bit turned on.

The initial workaround I used has already been posted: install a "print to PDF" printer driver, print the locked PDF to that "printer", get an unlocked PDF. This worked, until...

Second, Acrobat Reader was modified to close this loophole. It grew the ability to ask Windows whether a printer was a "real" hardcopy printer or some software emulation, and it would then refuse to print locked PDFs to anything other than a "real" hardcopy printer.

I don't remember if I got around this one. I might have used Foxit or some other alternative PDF viewer that didn't care what kind of printer you have.

If you can compile code, get the xpdf source code. It's not too hard to figure out which trace to cut and tie high, so to speak. It is probably easier to compile it on Linux, but the command-line tools should also be compilable on Windows. Download at

formatting link
- but don't ask xpdf's author about it, see
formatting link
.

Standard disclaimers apply; I don't get money or other consideration from any companies mentioned.

Matt Roberds

Reply to
mroberds

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:18:28 -0700, Don Y wrote: [ ... ]

That was much less of a problem. Big organs have been computerized for years. In fact the internal controller was a Mini-ITX PC running Linux. Internet connection for, at the least, remote diagnostics. Touch screen to manage the really hairy custom setups that performing organists have come to expect. Making a system that would be acquainted with http:// imslp.org/ was no idle threat.

Mel.

Reply to
Mel Wilson

I beg to differ. Please recall that I suggested that you drag yourself to Best Buy and look at the Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro laptop with a

13.3" 3200x1800 display. You can cram the same amount of information on that small screen as you can on a much larger display. That's because you can visually resolve the detail much better with smaller pixels. I know because I did battle with Windoze 8 on one of these small screen laptops for about 2 weeks. The smaller pixels were wonderful. Characters sizes and contract fine print that would be an illegible blur on a display with fewer pixels were easily readable on this display. I suggest you reconsider and certainly give it a try.

I beg to differ (again). I had the displeasure of attempting to use a projection display for mechanical drawing. According to my pet theory of the day, a large projection display should be easier to use even though the pixel count was only 1280x800 because it was easier to separate the details. I soon learned otherwise. I couldn't read the fine print, I couldn't see if two lines intersected, I couldn't resolve subtle differences in shading, and I had problems dealing with parallax on a large screen. My eyes also became rather tired having to constantly change focus from dead ahead (about 3ft) to the screen edges (about 6ft).

The worst problem was the parallax. Both my head and the projector wanted to be in exactly the same location. Putting my head behind the projector wasn't going to work. Putting my head in front of the projector produced a shadow. Putting my head to the side produced parallax problems.

So, my pet theory of the day is now lots of pixels, and never mind the size of the screen.

Cinerama? Immerse yourself in the CAD drawing. Every direction you look, all you see is monitor. How about 360 degrees of monitors and a swivel chair? Or maybe one of these? Ok, I'm not being very fair by dragging a good idea to its logical extreme. Still, it gives a good impression of the direction that you're heading.

As usual, the real problems are obscure. To make a wrap around monitor work, the various panels or curved display must be perpendicular to your line of sight and perpendicular to the table. In other words, straight up and down. When I tried it with one customer that had 3 monitors, he almost immediately put the stands back to in-line because he wanted his desk space back and he preferred a low and tilted display, which was difficult (or impossible) with a 3 panel system.

However, I had a problem even with 3 panels in-line. My "computer glasses" (+1.5 diopters) are optimized for about 28-30 inches viewing distance. With the wrap around panels (or curved display), the distance is the same wherever I look on the screens, and produces no eye strain while working. With the panels in-line, the outer distance changed to about 36-40", which required refocusing. I found myself moving my head closer to the screen when working near the ends, and back when working near the middle. My eyes and/or back began to hurt fairly quickly.

Never mind a bigger monitor. I need a bigger desk. No matter how hard I try, things just disappear under the mess. I sometimes find it easier to work from a JPG of the PCB, rather than risk my sanity trying to find the actual PCB.

I believe I mentioned it here in the past, but I'll repeat it again. My astigmatism magically fixed itself about 5 months ago. I previously needed astigmatism corrected glasses in order to drive. Now, I don't. What happened was that my blood pressure was lowered with drugs starting in about 2001. The blood vessels in the eye are not uniformly distributed around the eye. High blood pressure causes the eye to change shape, causing astigmatism. When the blood pressure dropped, the eye returned to its normal shape. However, it took 13 years for it to happen, so don't expect overnight miracles. Unfortunately, it did nothing for my closeup vision, which still requires glasses.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Ah, I read "classical organ" as "big, stately pipe organ"... lots of polished brass, wood and ivory. "Classy" vs. "techy".

Reply to
Don Y

And you're not wrong. On the outside, they generally are. The thing is that the old pneumatic/mechanical organs were the monster high-tech of the 18th century. And organ builders since then have never, ultimately, turned down new contrivances. Wished they had, sometimes, when it came time to emulate some of those contrivances in firmware.

Mel.

Reply to
Mel Wilson

The point of copyright is that *you* don't get to choose. If the owner has protected it, you have no legal right to hack into it. You can ask nicely, you can refuse to read it, or you can buy from someone else but you don't get to choose how that intellectual property is used (other than the rights given).

You would be "well served" by stealing wholesale?

You're the owner - your choice.

Depending on what rights you want to give, sure, but if you want to make the document unreadable, why publish it?

Yes, and people who crack locks get arrested.

Reply to
krw

No. Moving the laptop's screen to 28" from my nose means I'll just see "very finely formed BLURS". I can print something at 1200dpi and hold it 28 inches away and still not be able to read it effectively! And, I doubt ANY commercial display has that sort of resolution!

You've erred by opting for more *area* and ignoring my comment regarding "sufficient resolution". Try watching a large TV up close.

I only use my projectors for presentations. I project the image onto a whiteboard (in whomever's conference room). I have a gizmo (name escapes me at the moment) that adheres to the whiteboard with suction cups and "watches" what you draw on the whiteboard (4 different felt tip markers plus an "eraser") so it can annotate your presentation. Typically, very LITTLE detail involved.

This doesn't work because a very large screen is impractical to view. You want to figure out your ideal "viewspace". This is defined by the geometry of your environment and the capabilities of your (particular) vision system. Then, you want to put as many dots in that viewspace as is practical/economical.

E.g., having 1200dpi resolution would be wasteful. Your brain wouldn't use it (your vision system only looks for as much detail as it needs in a particular situation -- and, is reasonably adept at filling in missing detail from context, where possible).

I already have 270 degrees of monitors and a swivel chair... :>

Wrap around displays don't work because you have to *move* to take in their content (that's what I have currently).

It is ~28" to every spot on my screens, currently. And, roughly the same down to my worksurface (e.g., if I have printed materials to consult).

Keeping this same 28" distance means a wider "display arc" starts to impose upon my ability to take in any point on the display surface without having to twist my neck/torso/chair much. The only solution is to go "a bit taller" (e.g., rotate the displays to portrait orientation so they consume less total "width"). But, there are limits on how tall I can go without finding that uncomfortable (lifting and lowering head)

I have about 50 sq ft of worksurface. A good bit of that is taken up with bits of kit that aren't comfortable *under* the worksurface (which is where all my machines reside). E.g., A, B and photo-sized scanners, six monitors, three keyboards, pointing devices, motion controllers, tablet, stereomicroscope, etc. I have just enough room for "what I am working on" and, thus, a strong incentive NOT to let stuff pile up, there.

I have had the same Rx since I was a teenager. Each eye exam leaves me with essentially the same Rx. I.e., I can still wear my *original* eyeglasses from a couple score years ago!

As I've aged, I have noticed my *very* near vision suffering. I.e., anything closer than ~12-14" appears doubled.

AFAICT, my distance vision is largely unchanged. Legally required to wear corrective lenses to drive, but the only practical issues with driving without them are sorting out street signs (I count the number of letters -- instead of "reading" what they say).

The most annoying aspect is the "slightly far" vision where I lose the crisp edge detection required for text, etc. E.g., at 6 ft, I can see that you have eyelashes -- but can't individually resolve them (i.e., well enough to count them!) until you're at ~3ft.

Reply to
Don Y

What's more amazing is how clueless management often is about the real cost of crappy facilities. A few years back, I was working as a contractor for a defense contractor. For the first six months my workstation had a single 1280x1024 display. A pair of 1600x1200s had a "cost" of about eight hours of my time (not including overhead). I pointed that out to the boss but he wasn't impressed (though I did get the monitors a couple of months later).

Reply to
krw

Maybe this will help:

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

It depends on the circumstances. If you get arrested with lock picking tools while committing a different crime, there might be additional charges added. However, lock picking as a sport is becoming quite popular in the USA:

Access to tools used to be a problem. Not any more. For example: Incidentally, I bought the above set when it was on sale. The quality sucks, but is good enough for easy locks. I made my own set out of hack saw blades and spring steel, which work much better. You can also buy practice locks on eBay:

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.