Is 1920×1080 the new 1366×768?

One of the stories that came out of this year’s CES is a classic good news/bad news sort of scenario for PC users.

The good news is that PC displays are finally shedding the bonds of the nearly ubiquitous 1366×768 resolution and lousy TN panels that have plagued them for several years now. We saw a host of new Windows 8-based laptops, tablets, and all-in-one PCs in various locations across Vegas last week, and the vast majority of them sported 1920×1080 displays based on IPS panels. They were sharper, bolder, and brighter than the displays they replace—and a great many of them support multitouch input, as well.

I couldn’t be happier about that part of this tale. After years of folks like us grumping about the awful state of PC displays, it seems the industry has decided to shift en masse to a much better standard, and one can’t help but root for these superior displays to infiltrate as much of the PC market as possible.

And yet… there’s bad news here, too. The problem is that 1080p displays appear to be settling in as the new standard across a broad swath of systems of different types and sizes. For instance, we saw 1080p displays on an 11.6" AMD-based tablet, on a 13.3" Samsung laptop, and on a larger 15.6" Samsung laptop.

Uh oh.

On the 11.6" tablet, a 1080p display looks to be quite interesting. The pixel density doesn’t quite rival the iPad, but text crispness and clarity does, thanks to an assist from Microsoft’s ClearType sub-pixel anti-aliasing tech. As the display size rises, though, the pixel density of a 1080p display drops, to the point where it’s not nearly as impressive in a 15.6" laptop.

If, indeed, PC makers are simply trading 1366×768 for 1080p, as we fear, then this trend is a decidedly mixed blessing. Yes, it’s positive progress, but it’s not exactly what you’d want to see. We’d be much better off if PC makers were targeting a common—and relatively high—pixel density, or something close to it, instead of the same resolution regardless of display size.

That need is especially strongly felt since Windows 8’s support for high-PPI displays is pretty limited and seems to target ultra-dense panels almost exclusively. Sadly, Win8 doesn’t offer the sort of flexibility and near-independence from display PPI that Apple built into OS X to support its Retina MacBooks. That failure will be compounded if 1080p becomes the de facto standard and PPI is dictated on a sliding scale by display size, as it has been during the 1366×768 years.

Yes, price constraints will play a factor in these things, as they always do. Still, ultimately, it only makes sense for larger systems to adopt higher resolution displays, since larger systems and enclosures tend to offer larger thermal envelopes and more room for GPU power under the hood. We’d sure like to see PC makers operate with an awareness that 1080p in an 11.6" tablet is nice but in a 15.6" laptop is an iffy compromise. If they simply settle on 1080p and go back to sleep for three or four more years, they’re likely to see laptop sales continue to decline as cheaper laptops and tablets with higher PPIs soak up consumers’ dollars instead.

Comments closed
    • wintermane666
    • 7 years ago

    The reason they dont jump way hig in res is because most people dont care. Its good eniouh for what people are using ther computers for.

    Also raising the res any more would simply lower the fps of the games people played at native res. o they dont exactly want all thier systems with high res now do they?

    • My Johnson
    • 7 years ago

    And another cheap laptop of mine died again. Goodbye 1280×800. Hello 1366×768.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 7 years ago

    Some progress is better than none. It’s funny you say, “go back to sleep for three or four more years,” but I think it’s been a lot longer than that to get them to even do this. Before that, it was the 720p resolution. That they’d do more of the same, but now with 1080p is no real surprise.

    You’re upset and I get that. In a perfect world, they’d do what would be best for everyone and charge a reasonable price. Instead, we get 1080p.

    And IPS.

    That’s the point I think you’re glossing over.

    IPS. Let me say that again. IPS. IPS.

    When the majority of laptops are all TN right now and for as long as I’ve known and IPS in laptops was next to impossible to find for what… a decade? I think that’s much bigger advancement in displays for laptops than you’re letting on. We have Steve Jobs to thank for that. I disagreed with a lot of the things he did with computers, but the one thing he really, really did right was putting a great display into the iPad and forcing that to become a big ticket item for tablets. In doing that, he forced the issue across all tablets regardless of Apple making them or not. Which pushed the issue out to laptops.

    And that leads to today. When you, complaining about your excess, gloss right over the insanity that the majority of laptops will likely soon have IPS or equivalent technologies. That you can gloss over it, well it’s an amazing thing in and of itself. It means there’s real progress.

    • ET3D
    • 7 years ago

    As a desktop user I have to say I really don’t care. Sure, 1080p is a great improvement over 1366×768, and if it was even higher, it would be even more of an improvement. But I don’t really want an ultra high resolution laptop. I want a 20″-24″ monitor that’s better than 1080p. I want a reasonably priced, good view angle high resolution monitor on my desk. That’s what I care about.

    Until now I could at least make fun at laptop users and their low resolution, but even that pleasure will be gone, and I’ll be stuck with a resolution that people at 15.6″, 11.6″, 8.9″ and even 5″ have.

      • bwcbiz
      • 7 years ago

      Well there’s a lot of jibber-jabber about 4k displays as the next gen for TV, since 3-d and smart TVs didn’t take off. The “standard” PC display tends to be driven by the TV standard, simply because they can piggy-back on the higher volume of TV sales to reduce cost.

    • Jigar
    • 7 years ago

    Is it bad to buy a 1080P 42″ IPS LED and use it as a monitor ?

      • xeridea
      • 7 years ago

      Yes, having a huge computer display with the same or lesser resolution is dumb. You don’t get any more real estate and its more clunky to use. Also, it costs about 4 times as much.

        • bwcbiz
        • 7 years ago

        It depends. It’s definitely a waste to do it on a desktop. But in a living-room or other entertainment center setup, it’s pretty reasonable. You’ll need something like Steam’s “Big Picture” feature though. Reading the text on desktop icons is a real pain from a distance. (A use-case for Windows 8???)

          • xeridea
          • 7 years ago

          Big picture is clunky. If you can’t see your tv you want to use as a monitor whats the point in having it? Windows 8, serously?

    • christianlez001a
    • 7 years ago
    • DragonDaddyBear
    • 7 years ago

    Using Apple’s PPD concept, at 2ft with a 24″ display and a UHD display results in a 76.9 PPD. A 24″ pannel with 1920×1080 at 2ft would have a PPD of 38.45. If Apple is correct (I’m not saying they are), then the point of diminishing returns is 53.

    [quote<]...the pixel structure is usually noticeable when the PPD is under 30, and it is usually not noticeable when the PPD is over 35. A PPD between 30 and 35 is borderline in that the pixel structure may or may not be noticeable. When other types of displays are used, the pixel structure may be more noticeable if they have larger gaps between pixels, or less noticeable if they have smaller gaps between pixels[/quote<] [url<]http://home.roadrunner.com/~res18h39/calculator.htm[/url<] Mini rant: why go with UHD? I've read a lot about home theater and something that struck me was (warning, fuzzy math/memory ahead) it woud take an 80" TV at 10ft to tell the difference between 720p vs 1080p, or something craxy like that. Sure, passive 3D would be good with UHD (cuts the number of pixels each eye sees in 1/2), but beyond that I don't get it. EDIT2: I was reading the CVD in the link above, and it's a PPD of 60. A 50" TV at 10' with a 720p has a PPD of 61. As the CVD is a PPD of 60, the numbers used above in my rant are close. The value of 1080p at 10ft takes an 80" screen to hit 57 PPD. All of this assumes 20/20 vision, though. YMMV. But we'll get there, right? 480x640, 800x600..., 1920x1080. I'm just happy that it's improving, even if it's slowly. I just question at what point will it no longer be worth it. Maybe peeps here can better answer that. I dont' have "perfect" vision, so, without my glasses, a 20" 1080p is at the limit of my eyes. EDIT: The link below has the actual formula in it. [url<]http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12593936/what-is-the-formula-to-determine-if-a-screen-is-retina-resolution[/url<]

      • DragonDaddyBear
      • 7 years ago

      As a side note, there is one down side to more PPI. The higher the density the more backlight it takes, right? Isn’t this a big reason the iPad 3rd gen grew is weight and thickness, to accomadate the battery? Maybe the researchers doing this screen stuff should research better batteries or a better method of back light. CCFL have better color but LED’s are more efficient. Though, if you’re using OELD or plasma this isn’t an issue, but I degress *sigh*

      • mcnabney
      • 7 years ago

      You are correct that it is all a trade-off between resolution, screen size, and viewing distance.

      I would also like to interject something that is not mentioned – what the desirable effective image size is. Anything over 30 degrees horizontal becomes unpleasant since the viewer won’t have enough of the image in focus to fully enjoy the picture. Too much searching the image and turning the head – think about sitting in the front row of a movie theater – not a pleasant experience. Currently, 1080p when viewed at any matching screen size + viewing distance will deliver a sharp image at up to 32 degrees of vision. That is actually really good and in many ways ideal for non-immersive viewing. 2560×1600 and 4K allow a much larger viewing image when fully resolved – over 60 degrees – which is pretty wide. That would mean that viewing a 120″ diagonal screen would have an ideal viewing distance of 10′ (twice the diagonal) for that 4K image and end up with a very large 64 degree field of view. Very immersive, but also difficult to keep track of everything.

        • DragonDaddyBear
        • 7 years ago

        Very good point. And I fully understand what you are talking about when you mention keeping track of everything. Star Trek in Imax was awesome, until the “big sceen.” I couldn’t follow everything going on.

        So, ideally, you want 60 degrees of viewing with a PPD of around 60?

    • diesavagenation
    • 7 years ago
      • rwburnham
      • 7 years ago

      Once we get past about 24 inches, 1080p starts to look lousy on a computer monitor. I had a 27 inch 1080p monitor and the thing was washed out and just looked weird.

    • Krogoth
    • 7 years ago

    Not surprising at all.

    I think it is more accurate to say that 1920×1080 is the new 1280×1024 and 1680×1050.

    16:9 only exists because of the HDTV standard. 1920×1080 will also be around for a long time, until 4K HD finally hits critical mass. That will not happen for at least five years.

    • Pax-UX
    • 7 years ago

    > Sadly, Win8 doesn’t offer the sort of flexibility and near-independence
    > from display PPI that Apple built into OS X to support its Retina MacBooks.

    You say in the article the problem is with Windows, so why bash the Hardware people if anything this will force Microsoft to flesh out their limited Screen DPI setup options.

      • Spunjji
      • 7 years ago

      The answer to that is obvious in the article… they’re creating another moving target for MS to hit.

        • Pax-UX
        • 7 years ago

        Not really the monitor ini file for the device just needs to include the physical size of the display. MS can then auto-scale to work best. Plus I’d say all of these devices are pre-installed so can be configured by OEM at source. This isn’t a build it yourself system and if it was those people know what there doing.

    • xeridea
    • 7 years ago

    Why so much sadness about 1080p standard on 15.6″ screen? High res display on laptop/tablet to make text supposedly clearer is stupid. The reason for higher density display is so you can actually have pixel real estate so you can see more than 1 thing on screen at one time, and don’t have to scroll like mad to see a webpage, view/edit pictures, type a document, write code, or whatever you do. Text crispness is fine, I think extreme high res tablets are stupid. 2560×1600 on a 10″ screen is extreme overkill.

    If you was to have a say 1600p 15″ screen, the text and interface would be way to small, so most would lower resolution anyway, making it the non optimal LCD res, making text look worse. My uncle got a 30″ 1600p screen, but he runs @ 1200p since it sits about 3 feet back and he can’t read the tiny text. Text scaling is hit or miss, and often messes up the rest of the UI anyway making things look ugly.

    If 1080p @ 15″ is standard, I would be so ecstatic I wouldn’t know what to think.

    There is a way to fix your fears though, make it so you can actually customize laptops like you could 6-12 years ago, then you could get whatever screen you wanted.

      • BlackStar
      • 7 years ago

      If you need more space get a second monitor. It’s that simple.

      The article is 100% correct: 1920×1080 at 15.6” is 141.21 PPI, which is better than the 96 PPI plague but simply not enough for high-quality type. You need at least 300 PPI, or 200 PPI with subpixel rendering (cleartype), for that. Unless PC makers heed the wake up call, I’m afraid they will be left in the dust.

        • xeridea
        • 7 years ago

        If I had a second monitor hooked up to laptop I wouldn’t care about the laptop screen anyway, thats not the point. 99% of the time I am on my desktop with 2048×1152, or at work with 1080p and second monitor I use on occasion. I don’t use my laptop often because it is nigh impossible to do anything useful with such a low resolution, not because text is ugly.

        Since when did nitpicking over text clarity become more important that usefulness of a screen? I have an eye for detail and like things to look good, but if no one whined about text clarity I would never think of it, I don’t read my screen with a magnifying glass.

      • Spunjji
      • 7 years ago

      You seem to have missed the point of the article, which is that it would be simpler to design a UI that worked properly and readably if the PC industry got behind a single pixel-density target. That would render your “difficult to read” criticism entirely moot.

      As for higher-density screens being pointless, you’re entitled to your opinion, but that’s not a fact. There are plenty of good uses for them, photographic editing being one. Also, to many of us, they just plain look nicer.

        • xeridea
        • 7 years ago

        UI would be simpler with a common resolution, not a common PPI.

        1080p on a 15″ screen is fine for photo editing, anything serious is going to be done on a larger, higher quality screen anyway.

    • Inverter
    • 7 years ago

    As much as I like and use OS X, it has to be noted that, in my book, optional pixel-doubling is nowhere close to being flexible and independent of PPI; I would like to see true resolution independence where you can choose the size of fonts and GUI elements, even the Amiga was further in that respect; and yes, I am ignoring the “render indirectly in higher resolution and then scale back down again”, because that’s just a kludge.

      • adisor19
      • 7 years ago

      OS X does offer multiple scaling options on the Retina models and the results are better than anything I’ve seen. I’m aware it’s not true RI but it looks like even Apple took the easy way out and kind of gave up on it.. at least for the time being.

      Adi

    • Antias
    • 7 years ago

    3 x 22″ running 5040×1050 seems about right for me… 😉

    I have a 25.5″ Acer 1920×1200 sitting in the cupboard doing nothing but I miss the vertical resolution.

    Although I have been looking at the new 29″ 21:9 ratio screens thinking they may be awesome if they’d up it to say 32″ and up the PPI even more.
    Then i’d only need 1 monitor really… for my gaming…

    “Can someone think of the trees…”

    • moog
    • 7 years ago

    Do we need super high PPI displays for viewing blurry facebook images, playing angry birds etc.?

    There is a performance tradeoff in having to push more pixels (recall iPad 3 render lag vs iPad 2). As the Surface has shown, sometimes tricks like ClearType can be effective at making things appear to have higher resolution than it does.

    • Arag0n
    • 7 years ago

    As long as 2560×1440 replaces the new standard in 2 years from now, I don´t see the evolution a problem. I think it´s easier for everyone to keep industry going forward every 2/3 years rather than support a wide range of resolutions/sizes. The article mentions the Macbook retina as good example, but do not forget what Apple did here is just x2 with/height resolution and create assets according. You can´t do that in wide used platforms with variety such as Windows or Android. The only platform that handles that is WinRT and Windows Phone, but that also means the platform is more restricted to what apps can/cant do.

    • kathyx039x
    • 7 years ago
    • superjawes
    • 7 years ago

    At least 1080p is a “standard” size. 1366×768 is just…a weird pair of dimensions.

    Let’s choose a set of numbers and aspect ratios to everything’s even. 1200p 16:10 for my desktop monitor, please.

      • willyolio
      • 7 years ago

      they chose it because it’s close to 1 megapixel. 1920*1080 was chosen to be 2 MP.

        • superjawes
        • 7 years ago

        I can see that (and that Airmantharm pointed out that it is 16:9), but TVs and their corresponding video outputs were targeted for 480, 720, and 1080. 768 is just a little bit higher than 720, which is why it seems odd.

        And we really shouldn’t be targeting megapixel resolutions (or how many megapixels are on the screen). I prefer 16:10 on my desktop not because it has a higher pixel count than an equivalent 16:9, but because things I work on are laid out to be taller than wide, and having more vertical room works out better. On the other hand, movies tend to be wider, so 16:9 and other wide aspect ratios are better for the medium.

        • willmore
        • 7 years ago

        Oww, like 1152×900 Sun monitors? And 800×600 so that it would fit in a 2M of VRAM at 32 bit color or 1M of VRAM at 16/15 bit?

        Lots of history of funky resolutions for silly practical reasons.

          • Firestarter
          • 7 years ago

          don’t forget 320×200 with 256 colours, fits inside a 64kb memory page

            • willmore
            • 7 years ago

            I’m trying to. 🙂

      • Airmantharp
      • 7 years ago

      They’re both 16:9 :).

      Though I find myself preferring 16:10 as well, regardless of panel size and resolution.

    • alienstorexxx
    • 7 years ago

    it’s about time to change that prehistoric pixel density.

    • HunterZ
    • 7 years ago

    Ubiquitous 1080p doesn’t bother me. I recently had to “downgrade” from a Hyundai 24″ 1920×1200 TN LCD monitor to a Samsung 32″ 1920×1080 HDTV after the former died. The larger pixels don’t quite bother me at the closer-than-intended viewing distance.

    What *does* bother me is that 90%+ of laptops on the market don’t have 1920×1080 or better built-in displays, which makes them unacceptable for gaming. I’d be ecstatic to see a drastic increase in sub-$2k laptops with 15.6-17″ 1080p displays.

    My current laptop is an old Dell M1730 with a 17″ 1920×1200, and there’s no way that it’s anywhere close to having pixels that look too big when it’s sitting on my lap. I have a hard time believing that 1080p on a 15.6″ display is really a big deal.

      • Deanjo
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]What *does* bother me is that 90%+ of laptops on the market don't have 1920x1080 or better built-in displays, which makes them unacceptable for gaming.[/quote<] Most of those don't have discreet graphics and the ones that do are not really up to any real serious gaming at those resolutions anyways. Bit of a moot point from a gaming perspective if the display is at least 1080.

      • Spunjji
      • 7 years ago

      1080p at 15.6″ is very close to being a good resolution in terms of apparent detail and smoothness of text/images. Unfortunately you’re battling at the edge of it being happily usable at 1:1 pixel rendering, and the 120dpi option in Windows ruins everything. Thus, it would be nicer to have a higher resolution and better scaling at said resolution. Apple’s approach here does make a lot of sense even if it is a kludge.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 7 years ago

    1080p at default Windows font sizes is nigh-on unreadable for me on a 15″ display. I hope Windows 8’s scaling really is as good as they say, though [url=https://techreport.com/review/23631/how-windows-8-scaling-fails-on-high-ppi-displays<]Cyril's article[/url<] on the matter seemed to indicate it's hit-and-miss.

    • not@home
    • 7 years ago

    I used to have 21 inch Mitsubishi CRT Monitors at 1600×1200. I replaced them with 21 inch Samsung 214t’s (IPS) at 1600×1200. I do not think I could ever go to anything with a lower PPI. I was contemplating the Auria EQ276W’s, but I did not like the aspect ratio and I did not feel like dropping $800. I also would never go to a regular TN panel. I have a 20 inch TN panel that someone gave me. It just had some bad caps in its power supply, easy to replace. I use it when working other peoples machines. I cannot stand it. Terrible colors and terrible viewing angles and it is only 1400×1050. POO

    • WasabiVengeance
    • 7 years ago

    While there’s no doubt that 1920×1080 is MUCH better than 1366×768, I’m still bitter about the move to 16:9. We need to bring back 16:10, and quick. Hopefully apple’s 15″ retina screen will see some wider availability this year. If dell or HP puts out a Latitude or Elitebook with it, they might have a sale from me, same day.

    The situation seems even worse to me on tablets. On my recently obtained ipad in portrait orientation (3:4), the ratio is just about right. Another family member’s Transformer (16:10) seems MUCH too narrow. I have to imagine that a 16:9 tablet is just about useless except in landscape. 4:3 seems like the best compromise for rotating, and netflix widescreen content is perfectly watchable on the 4:3, so even media consumption seems to be at a minimum not hindered by a non-16:9 screen, and all other forms of productivity seem to benefit.

      • Spunjji
      • 7 years ago

      I feel like 4:3 is too fat and 16:10 is a little better, then 16:9 is too narrow – YMMV! 🙂

        • xeridea
        • 7 years ago

        16:9 is more popular because the manufactures can save a few pennies. It is a lot easier to add pixels in only one direction. 16:9 is better for TVs, 16:10 is better for computer monitor.

      • Krogoth
      • 7 years ago

      16:10 is still around. You just have to play a premium for it.

      16:9 is widespread because of economics. It makes more economical sense for displays manufacturers to adapt both HDTV and comptuer displays with the same aspect ratio then trying to create two dedicated lines.

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]We need to bring back 16:10, and quick. [/quote<] When will the waambulance gather all you 16:10 whiners and drive off the cliff..? 1080p is THE resolution now. It's time to let the hate go and accept the inevitable.

        • Beelzebubba9
        • 7 years ago

        [quote=”NeelyCam”<] 1080p is THE resolution now. It's time to let the hate go and accept the inevitable. [/quote<] Naw, I'll just stick to buying my laptops from the one company that knows how to build a proper screen. 🙂

        • superjawes
        • 7 years ago

        I will continue to fight for my 230,400 pixels!

      • rwburnham
      • 7 years ago

      On a tablet, the 16:10 works in portrait mode for reading. In fact, it could even go a little fatter, like 16:12 to really feel like a book. I have a 16:9 Samsung tablet and reading in portrait mode is odd. It works and I am ok with it, but the Nook app likes to stretch the magazines out to fill the screen, which is jarring at first. 16:9 works just fine, but it’s not an ideal solution for portrait-mode viewing.

      • PerfectCr
      • 7 years ago

      Dell still makes some really good UltraSharp 16:10 displays. I bought the Dell U2412M for my build last year for example.

      • Axiomatic
      • 7 years ago

      I have to agree. I will use 16:10 until I can’t get it anymore. Thankfully all 30″ displays are 16:10 (2560×1600) still. I have an HP LP3065 that is doing me just fine still.

    • TaBoVilla
    • 7 years ago

    someday in the future, people will find all this talk about “resolution” funny

      • chuckula
      • 7 years ago

      Indeed, in my dystopian beyond-thunderdome made up future I see a complete lack of warez to make it worth having a monitor in the first place.

    • bthylafh
    • 7 years ago

    Meh. Those of us sticking with Win7 might not want super-high resolution displays. For my part, I generally order 15.6″ laptops with 1600×900 displays because that way my users don’t complain about text being too small, but also isn’t stupid big like 1366×768.

    This will probably be different with the people going Win8 with plenty of Metro apps, but since we’re not doing that I’m just not interested.

      • 5150
      • 7 years ago

      That’s how I order my 15’s for my people too. It’s the sweet spot right now for 90% of normal users. Personally I like 1080 on 15″.

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    Aye… Sounds like what I fear of the Steambox…

    Text anti-aliasing sounds cool though.

    • Nutmeg
    • 7 years ago

    Settling for 1920×1080 particularly doesn’t make sense for tablets, since the whole reason 1080p ever became a standard was because they could just run their tvs and monitors off the same production line and save money that way. But I don’t see a whole lot of tvs at 13 inches since those little combo tv/vcr things went the way of the dodo.

    I dunno, is your average tablet consumer as stupid as your average tv consumer and willing to believe that “full HD” is the be all and end all? I guess probably, and it’s just going to be people like us who pay attention to detail griping in the background.

      • ludi
      • 7 years ago

      Considering that a primary use of tablets seems to be media consumption, why not?

        • TakinYourPoints
        • 7 years ago

        A primary use of tablets is also web browsing and applications. 16:9 is lousy for either in landscape mode. I don’t like 16:9 on my laptops or desktop monitors, the loss in vertical space sucks, so why should it be ok on an even smaller tablet?

          • ludi
          • 7 years ago

          Tablets rotate easily, most monitors not so much.

            • TakinYourPoints
            • 7 years ago

            16:9 tablets in portrait mode are too tall for A4 paper size when reading PDFs, and they don’t balance as well when held from the bottom.

            They are a lose-lose situation in either orientation. It doesn’t make logical sense from a case-use or ergonomics standpoint.

            • ludi
            • 7 years ago

            But why should it fit EXACTLY ONE sheet of A4 paper in portrait mode? Some types of documents are presented in longer formats, and most applications have additional control features that can be displayed concurrently without harming the page view. If what you really want is a pure e-reader, get a Kindle.

            • TakinYourPoints
            • 7 years ago

            Kindles suck for reading PDFs. Otherwise, does 16:9 really buy you a useful amount of additional view for the following page? It wouldn’t be enough to get past the next vertical margin.

            Again, useless.

            • Firestarter
            • 7 years ago

            With the same reasoning, anything other than 16:9 would be useless for watching HD video. It’s a compromise as always!

      • bthylafh
      • 7 years ago

      Getting a 1080p panel on your tablet means that 1080p content (generally the standard) looks better.

        • Ari Atari
        • 7 years ago

        Only because you won’t need to scale it. A one to one scaling on a 1440p monitor with the same PPI, let’s say, will look equally good and will be the same physical size, it will just have a black border around it.

      • Stargazer
      • 7 years ago

      Yeah, I don’t particularly care for 16:9 on a tablet. It’s too narrow, which leaves you with limited vertical space in landscape mode (works well for some things though), and it’s just plain awkward in portrait mode.

      Sure, it’s great if you want to watch movies, but that’s not something I do very often on my tablet. Heck, that’s not something I do at all on my tablet.

      • phez
      • 7 years ago

      24″ lcds and 55″ 3d led tvs coming off the same line because … they run the same resolution? what?

        • SonicSilicon
        • 7 years ago

        Same size monitors as televisions, mostly. I think the 13″ combo unit was meant as thinking-while-typing about some sizes not being widely available.

      • rwburnham
      • 7 years ago

      I am not sure if this comparison works, but in printing, high res pictures are better on small things, like magazines, where low res pictures do just fine on big things, like 38″x84″ boards. It’s really just a matter of intended viewing distance. A person using a tablet is looking very close, therefore they will notice the resolution. This is why high res displays, like what the iPads have now, make sense on small screens.

      • demani
      • 7 years ago

      Wouldn’t there be other hardware, like controllers that would be the same regardless of the panel size? That’s my guess (and it is a complete, uneducated guess). But if whatever needs to be used to address individual pixels can be used across multiple size screens, then that is a cost savings for the manufacturer.

    • RtFusion
    • 7 years ago

    Forget 1080p monitors, when the hell are we going to get more affordable 2560 x 1600 30″ monitors? I think it has been almost a decade since then.

    But then again, there isn’t a massive demand for them . . . curse you free market!!

    EDIT: Anyway, I still find 16:10 much more pleasing to my eyes rather than 16:9 displays for desktop use.

      • sjl
      • 7 years ago

      Agreed. I’m still using a 1680×1050 22″ Dell that I bought some years ago for just this reason. Sadly, the only option to replace it is 1080p – wider, but not much taller resolution-wise. If they were all 1920×1200, I’d be a lot happier; it doesn’t sound like much, but those extra 120 pixels are significant, damnit!

      With a little luck, I may manage to swing for a new 30″ monitor in a month or two. Waiting for the inevitable specials, hopefully early in February after I get paid …

        • RtFusion
        • 7 years ago

        Still rocking an Acer x233w 1680×1050 22.3″ monitor for a few years now. Sure, not the best screen or panel quality but I LOOOOVE it over anything else though that scream 16:9. When I went to a friend’s place he had a 24″ 1080p monitor and I thought it just looked smaller to me. Also was awkward to me to use.

      • cynan
      • 7 years ago

      Ummm, Korea called…

      I know these are mostly 27″ 2560×1440 varieties, but you can find a couple of [url=http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/YAMAKASI-300-Sparta-Tempered-Glass-30-Monitor-S-IPS-2560×1600-16-10-DVI-D-Dual-/320986412160?pt=AU_comp_monitor&hash=item4abc47f480&_uhb=1<]30" versions[/url<] if you look for about a couple hundred more.

      • mnecaise
      • 7 years ago

      I’d rather use a pair of 20″ to 23″ 1080p monitors than a 30″ 2560 x 1600 monitor. That’s what I have on both my desks.

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 7 years ago

        I’ve got a 1200×1600 UltraSharp 2001FP (portrait mode) just to the left of my 2560×1600 UltraSharp 3007WFP. It’s a much more satisfactory arrangement than a pair of 1080p monitors.

          • dpaus
          • 7 years ago

          😛 I’ve got two UltraSharps to the right of my HP ZR30W, which is just to the right of laptop screen (just for Outlook).

          Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]But then again, there isn't a massive demand for them . . .[/quote<] Compounding that is where the limited demand comes from, which is professional applications that require them to stick to the old CCFL designs. The 27" 2560x1440 monitors are pretty reasonable, though, and they'll undoubtedly have a successor. Will it be 30"? Probably not, but certainly higher resolution.

      • Pancake
      • 7 years ago

      They’re pretty cheap right now. I’ve got 2 Ultrasharp U3011 monitors on my desk. Thinking of a third but I’m gonna see how Windows 8 on my new rig shapes up first – may wait for a touch screen. Dell often have specials where you can get about a third off the price. Seriously, it’s chump change to get these two puppies compared to, say, 20 years ago when a 21″ Sony Trinitron tube monitor would cost as much.

      • designerfx
      • 7 years ago

      there would be demand if the prices weren’t extortionary.

      2560×1600 30″ monitors should be in the ~300 range by now, and we’re at double to triple that.

      • Generic
      • 7 years ago

      2005 called… 19″ – 2048×1536@75Hz

      Honestly though, my lil’ space heater stays at 1600×1200@85Hz and still looks better than most.

      😉

    • Firestarter
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]We'd be much better off if PC makers were targeting a common—and relatively high—pixel density, or something close to it, instead of the same resolution regardless of display size.[/quote<] From what I've read around the internets, it's just too expensive. Apparently, it's relatively easy to make small high density screens, because even though the number of faulty pixels go up as the pixels shrink, you can still get enough good, small screens to make it worth it. Make the screen bigger and it becomes nearly impossible without a prohibitive number of borked pixels.

      • Parallax
      • 7 years ago

      But if you make the pixels small enough, dead ones become effectively invisible.

        • Ari Atari
        • 7 years ago

        Yes, but a bigger screen means more of them. A tiny screen like the one on the Droid DNA only has 1080p to get to 440PPI and it has about a megapixel. A twenty inch screen with 1080p has fairly large pixels comparatively, still with about a megapixel. If you wanted to make the pixels smaller and increase that screen to 440PPI, you might get something like 50 megapixel. It’s like 50 times easier to not have a broken pixel on the Droid DNA then that 20 inch screen. Then think of the 50 inch TVs…

          • Visigoth
          • 7 years ago

          Agreed. Also, you run the risk of not being able to even drive such a massive display…think about it, what kind of GPU would you need to run a 50 megapixel screen smoothly? It sure as hell ain’t no Quad-SLI! You’d need something closer to a small supercomputer to power it, not to mention all the connectivity problems (no, dual DisplayPorts won’t help, not even if if you could somehow fit a Thunderbolt cable, it just won’t work).

          So, if anyone has any better, financially feasible ideas, I think I speak for everyone when I say “we’re all ears”.

            • grantmeaname
            • 7 years ago

            One eyefinity radeon can do 24 megapixels. A small supercomputer my arse.

          • Parallax
          • 7 years ago

          The effect of many small dead pixels would still be less than that one large dead one.

          Let’s assume we have 2 displays: A 22″ 1080p at 100ppi, and a 22″ panel at 400ppi. Let’s also assume on average we are likely to get one dead pixel in every 2 million, meaning we are likely to get one on the 100ppi display, and sixteen on the 400ppi display. I would argue that when viewed at the same distance the dead pixels on the 400ppi display would be less distracting than the single one on the 100ppi display, assuming they are not adjacent to each other.

          It is most definitely harder to produce the 400ppi display without defects than the 100ppi display, but having dead pixels that are effectively invisible on the 400ppi display should be acceptable for most applications and look much better.

          Personally, I’d accept a 400ppi display with several invisible dead pixels over a 100ppi display with one visible dead pixel.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            BTBAM’s “Parallax II” is fantastic

          • Spunjji
          • 7 years ago

          This is technically true, but manufacturing a 440ppi 50″ screen would be absurd anyway. 200ppi is very nice indeed at about 50-60cm distance, as the distance increases you can drop that off fairly smoothly.

          • Wirko
          • 7 years ago

          Most ~100 dpi desktop screens come with no dead subpixels at all. I suppose that manufacturers could achieve 150 dpi without sacrificing the yield rate by much, or the quality in terms of dead pixels. And that would be a large step towards 440, wouldn’t it?

    • dpaus
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]Is 1920x1080 is the new 1366x768?[/quote<] Is this title is making me look fat?

    • LostCat
    • 7 years ago

    Considering most monitors are 1080p too even up to 24″, I don’t see the point of complaining about it on a 15.6″…whatever floats your boat I guess.

      • rae
      • 7 years ago

      I can’t hear you through my 1920×1200 Dell monitor.

        • LostCat
        • 7 years ago

        That’s probably a good thing.

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      yeah, i don’t get it either. 16 inches at 1080p is tons. is it 40000ppi? no, but seriously, it’s pretty damn good.

        • cegras
        • 7 years ago

        I sit about as far from my 22″ 1080 monitor as I would from a hypothetical 15″ 1080 laptop, I’m sure the laptop’s display might even feel cramped (fonts too small) to me.

          • A_Pickle
          • 7 years ago

          Shit, man, I had a 17.1″ Alienware back in the day that had a 1920×1200 display. Everything was tiny on that laptop, but it was so goddamn good looking.

            • Beelzebubba9
            • 7 years ago

            Have you ever spend some quality time with the Retina MacBook Pros?

            I have a deep brotherly love for my Dell 2007FPs, but I was setting up a co-worker’s rMBP and the massive gap in apparently screen quality was enough to make a monitor snob like me weep.

        • cynan
        • 7 years ago

        The thing to keep in mind is that a 12″ tablet, 16″ laptop display and 22″ desktop monitor at a common resolution may all offer effectively similar “PPI” given the viewing distances at which they are most commonly used.

        That said, we all know that making all devices within a given level of market segment (ie, a high end tablet, high end laptop, high end desktop monitor) with the same resolution is all too often not based on any sort of design logic, but rather on efficiency (read cost) of producing/procuring of these panels. But I guess this might help to keep the prices down a bit..

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          yeah, you’re right. But i think we hit the wall of diminishing returns. 1080p is a pretty high resolution for almost anything. i’ve never been sitting there and thought “damn, if only the pixels were smaller”. if you had work or something that needed it, sure. and some guys like additional height, but i really don’t see why i’d be sad if 1080p was the new standard.

            • cynan
            • 7 years ago

            Yeah. I more or less agree. The exception, as you say, is mostly niche applications (either for fine graphics work on one end of the screen size scale, or, say, large home theater displays on the other).

            That said, what was once considered affordable only for those willing to invest the niche application cost has a funny way of becoming mainstream as soon as it can be marketed to be compelling enough and sold at a price (to a large enough market) to make enough profit for manufacturers to bother. It’s this gradual progression that causes at least some of the frustration being echoed here: We know it will probably come one day, we just require patience until it does and until then have to put up with some compromises (ie, ubiquitous 768p and now 1080p). I can’t wait until the mass adoption of 4K TVs by around 2020 means affordable 4K computer displays – and by that time people will probably be moaning about the inadequacy of that resolution too.

          • jensend
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<] 12" tablet, 16" laptop display and 22" desktop monitor at a common resolution may all offer effectively similar [s<]"PPI"[/s<][b<][i<]angular[/i<] resolution[/b<][/quote<]FTFY. You've got the right idea, but calling it "effective PPI" or something like that obscures the point. Once people get used to thinking about angular resolution (pixels per arcminute/ per milliradian) rather than just PPI, it doesn't seem at all strange that displays of vastly different size would nevertheless have similar resolutions. Having the same pixel density on a TV you look at from a dozen feet away as what you have on a cell phone screen you're holding less than a foot from your face would be absurd.

            • willmore
            • 7 years ago

            This needs more +1’s folds. Jensend is exactly right and this is why 4K doesn’t make much sense. There is only so much of the visual field movies are designed to cover and only so much resolving power in the human eye.

            • jensend
            • 7 years ago

            TY.

            To elaborate on what you said in hopes of assisting whatever misinformed soul thumbed you down:

            Just as a matter of the optics you learn in first-year physics (Rayleigh’s criterion), the resolving limit of the pupil is around half an arcminute in normal light (a bit better when it’s enlarged in darkness, a bit worse when it contracts in bright light). Our visual perception, with all the biological factors involved, can’t hit that theoretical limit but can get reasonably close- about an arcminute in ideal conditions.

            The fovea, where that kind of acuity happens, only covers about two degrees; the macula (“central vision” – the blind spot is at its edge) covers another dozen degrees or so from the center in each direction. As the viewing angle increases, more and more of the detail is lost to imprecise peripheral vision and more and more eye and head movement is required to take things in. The usual recommendation for HDTV etc is 30 degrees i.e. 1800 arcminutes.

            So increasing resolution beyond the 1920 horizontal pixels of 1080p has diminishing returns. 4K will still have some marginal benefits- reducing or eliminating aliasing type effects (things like vernier misalignment can be detected below our resolving limits) and helping with detail at extraordinarily wide viewing angles- but not anywhere near the kind of benefit we got from moving from SD to HD.

            4K is pretty much the end of the line. There never ever will be any point in having a 60″ television with 300 PPI as Damage’s “target a common pixel density” idea would entail. Humans are just not wired with that kind of optical hardware.

      • Forge
      • 7 years ago

      Just got a new LCD for one of the cube dwellers. I was specifically instructed to buy ‘the cheapest 27″ monitor they carry at Microcenter’. Guess who is unhappy with the size of their pixels? The new 27″ 1080p user!

        • sweatshopking
        • 7 years ago

        are they too small?

        • End User
        • 7 years ago

        A 27″ 1080p display has epic fail written all over it.

      • internetsandman
      • 7 years ago

      I think the complaint is that if manufacturers are able to make high quality 1080p panels in 11 inch screens efficiently and cheaply, then why can’t they put the same effort into an equally high PPI for a large laptop? Why are 24″ desktop monitors now sharing the same resolution as 11 inch tablets? The complaint relies less on 1080p being inadequate and more on higher resolutions feeling and looking sharper and nicer to use, as well as the fact that marketers are using resolution instead of PPI/DPI as a metric for screen quality

      • Spunjji
      • 7 years ago

      …you did read the article, right? Because it’s specifically arguing for a consistent angular resolution on new devices. So, that’s why the complaint about 1080p at 15.6″. It just happens to apply even more to the larger screens.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This