Why no high resolution Smaller monitors.

K

khitsicker

n00b
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28
This might be a dumb question but if I can buy a 17in widescreen laptop with a 1920x1080 resolution why can't i buy a 24 inch with a 2560x1600 resolution. or better yet why are they not made.

I wish I could afford and house 3 30 inch pannels but the max room I have would be for 24/23 inch lcds. and while 1920x1080 or 1200 is a nice resolution ive been spoiled by 2048 x 1536 at 85hz that i currently get with my 21in crt.

And while were on the topic.. what is a good 23/24 in lcd for someone who has always gamed on high end crts. Ive been dreading the switch for many years now but my beloved icrt is finally starting to fade. The brightness has significantly dropped over the last year or so and I fear it is on its way out.
 
Yeah, it's pretty annoying. Since you mentioned getting three, I'd go with 3 ZR24Ws. They are 24" 1920x1200 displays. Combined I don't think you'll be missing any workspace from your CRT days.

It's sad that the IBM T221 is still miles ahead as far as resolution/size goes, after all these years (3840x2400 in 22").

I think the next major bump will come when quad-HD starts to gain ground though, giving us 3840x2160 displays.
 
Either an U2311h, as it's one of the lowest input latency IPS panels around (so you're eyes won't suffer, lol :p). 1080p, at least. Or a 120Hz 3D Vision ready (whether you use that feature or not is not important :)) monitor to get back some of the response time you're used to.
 
It's simple: resolution independent scaling is simply not quite there yet. Win7/Vista supports it but OSX for example doesn't. In Win7 it is far from perfect. Programs using older rendering methods or custom UIs don't scale properly, usually they don't have higher res icons so those will end up looking blurry.

You need resolution independent scaling because otherwise a 24" @ 2560x1600 would have totally unreadably small text and icons.

I don't think we really need higher res displays, we just need better display tech. OLED will be it eventually, but it still has a long way to go. We also need less 16:9 computer displays, that's just useless for anything but games and movies.
 
That doesnt make much sense. if a 17 in widescreen at 1920x1080 has a ppi (pixels per inch) of about 150 then a 21 inch monitor should be able to handle 2560x1600 at the same ppi. If the text on the 17 inch is readable at that size then it should be just as readable on the 21 inch.
 
khitsicker said:
if a 17 in widescreen at 1920x1080 has a ppi (pixels per inch) of about 150 then a 21 inch monitor should be able to handle 2560x1600 at the same ppi.
Click to expand...

True, but keep in mind the average designer/buyer of LCDs is probably 30+ and would have trouble reading a denser screen (assuming they even used the maximum resolution).

That said, I completely agree with you.
 
I wish I could afford and house 3 30 inch pannels but the max room I have would be for 24/23 inch lcds. and while 1920x1080 or 1200 is a nice resolution ive been spoiled by 2048 x 1536 at 85hz that i currently get with my 21in crt.
Click to expand...
Your 21" CRT is a WW1 dreadnought, yeah it gets the job done, but if you're complaining about size for the LCDs, think about three of those lead monsters.... might have to reinforce your desk.

Most people don't use three monitors, and many that have used eyefinity like myself realize it, well, kinda sucks right now. And just as you are worried about price, its likely simple economics.

High resolution displays are expensive, and making them a bit larger probably doesn't add very much to the cost.

If people could pick a 2560x1600 24", 27", and 30" all at minimal price increase, most would go with the bigger monitor.... size matters.
 
Ducman69 said:
Your 21" CRT is a WW1 dreadnought, yeah it gets the job done, but if you're complaining about size for the LCDs, think about three of those lead monsters.... might have to reinforce your desk.

Most people don't use three monitors, and many that have used eyefinity like myself realize it, well, kinda sucks right now. And just as you are worried about price, its likely simple economics.

High resolution displays are expensive, and making them a bit larger probably doesn't add very much to the cost.

If people could pick a 2560x1600 24", 27", and 30" all at minimal price increase, most would go with the bigger monitor.... size matters.
Click to expand...
I would pick the 24" without question.
 
I would take the 30 inch if I had room. Hell if i had a titanium desk id take 3 sony fw900s without question. but I dont. And money is not unlimited unfortunetly. I just think its rediculous that you cant apply the same tech used in a laptop screen to a larger desktop panel..... dont even get me started on the huge bezels surrounding them...

if i am being forced to upgrade i figured i might as well do eye finity or nvsurround or some other multi monitor solution. personally i still dont think lcd/led/whatever tech has caught up to the clarity and speed of a crt .. unfortunetly they seem to have gone the way of the dodo.

i could always do a single 30in display.... seems boring though.

a side though. how would eyefinity do with 1 large display flanked by 2 smaller displays in portrait.
 
I absolutely love high res on small monitors, it just looks amazing in games and films IMO. I don't find the text that hard to read when it's properly done (have you seen the IPS in the iphone 4G? ridiculous dot pitch but reading on it is a piece of cake)
 
I own a U2711 which is a 27" with a 2560x1440 resolution, I can tell you that a 24" with the resolution of my 30" would be really difficult on the eyes.

It's important to consider viewing distance when comparing resolution and screen size. With a laptop or cell phone you're generally sitting much closer to the screen than you would a desktop monitor.


kasakka said:
It's simple: resolution independent scaling is simply not quite there yet. Win7/Vista supports it but OSX for example doesn't. In Win7 it is far from perfect. Programs using older rendering methods or custom UIs don't scale properly, usually they don't have higher res icons so those will end up looking blurry.

You need resolution independent scaling because otherwise a 24" @ 2560x1600 would have totally unreadably small text and icons.

I don't think we really need higher res displays, we just need better display tech. OLED will be it eventually, but it still has a long way to go. We also need less 16:9 computer displays, that's just useless for anything but games and movies.
Click to expand...
This, as well. Some apps that I use completely break if I bump up the text size in win7 :(
 
Its a chicken and egg thing. If no one bought the higher res TV's because of a lack of content we would all be stuck with 480p TVs. The manufacturers just need to start making and pushing higher PPI monitors - then the changes will come.

My girlfriends iphone 4 totally changed my mind on this issue. Higher PPI is something that we should be looking for in our monitors. It's very nice to see extremely sharp and clear images and text. There are quite a few people that prefer the higher PPI of the new 27inchers compared to the 30 inchers that are available.
 
Neb said:
This, as well. Some apps that I use completely break if I bump up the text size in win7 :(
Click to expand...

I think this is the main problem with desktops and even laptops as opposed to phones. The windows OS itself is very good at scaling the text size, but the applications need to update their scaling abilities. I also hate how monitors have moved to 16:9. I wish I could find a 23" monitor with 1920x1200 res, but I'm forced to buy 1080.
 
The iPhone 4 (which I own and love) is a different case. That has double size assets (icons etc) to accommodate the higher resolution. Programs had to be updated to properly support the "retina" display.

If all software companies made their programs scale properly then we could have higher res displays. But as it is, that is not happening especially in the Windows world where even following Microsoft's user interface design guidelines seem to be an insurmountable effort for most Windows developers.

The resolution vs display size is very important. For example I find that the 17" 1920x1200 found on Macbook Pros is just too small and difficult to read. Yet the 15" @ 1680x1050 is the perfect combination of resolution and display size.

Having an absurd disparity between display size and resolution is not beneficial at the moment. For one there could be performance issues (my 2009 Macbook Pro starts to struggle a bit with a 2560x1600 external display). The main benefit would be better looking text, but if you consider that Windows fits text into a pixel grid (resulting in less accurate letter shapes but sharper text) as opposed to OSX which renders fonts with the correct shapes etc for a more "book-like" display at the expense of sharpness, I don't know if Windows would benefit from really high resolutions until the font rendering is changed.
 
kasakka said:
if you consider that Windows fits text into a pixel grid (resulting in less accurate letter shapes but sharper text) as opposed to OSX which renders fonts with the correct shapes etc for a more "book-like" display at the expense of sharpness, I don't know if Windows would benefit from really high resolutions until the font rendering is changed.
Click to expand...
If you've got pixels small enough, it's really not going to make a difference what way you render it because you won't be able to see individual pixels.
 
babyshark31 said:
If you've got pixels small enough, it's really not going to make a difference what way you render it because you won't be able to see individual pixels.
Click to expand...

Actually yes it is. The way Windows does it changes the shape of the fonts so they fit into the pixel grid. This makes them blockier. If the pixel grid became moot (small enough pixels that letters will take many more pixels than currently anyway) then Windows' font rendering would not be a plus.
 
kasakka said:
Actually yes it is. The way Windows does it changes the shape of the fonts so they fit into the pixel grid. This makes them blockier. If the pixel grid became moot (small enough pixels that letters will take many more pixels than currently anyway) then Windows' font rendering would not be a plus.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that makes no sense. It wouldn't be a plus or a minus, it would be moot as well. Babyshark is right, the methods only matter at low DPI.
 
I was fixing a Dell D600 laptop from 2003 I believe and it has a 14" 1440x1050 screen.
I was surprised at the high resolution on an old small laptop.
 
Ducman69 said:
Sorry, but that makes no sense. It wouldn't be a plus or a minus, it would be moot as well. Babyshark is right, the methods only matter at low DPI.
Click to expand...

Maybe I didn't phrase it quite right. Windows would still keep fitting the text into a pixel grid and that would still change the shape of the font. OSX as it is has much more "book-like" text and this results in gorgeous text on the iPhone 4's high DPI display.

But the main issue isn't font rendering but icon scaling. They'd have to be either bitmaps at varying resolutions or vectors, which are resource intensive.
 
Eizo makes, and Lenovo used to, a 22" 1920x1200 monitor. Eizo's is the s2243w, available in the states at B&H and a few other places. It's a PVA panel, ~$900.

I've considered getting one (or two) for portrait beside a 27" 2560x1440, but it's hard to justify the price, since it's competing with another 27".
 
cvgd said:
Eizo makes, and Lenovo used to, a 22" 1920x1200 monitor.
Click to expand...

I used to have the Lenovo before I moved to the Dell 3008WFP (30" 2560x1600). I felt the pixels were a bit small on the Lenovo and at that res would've preferred 23-24" instead.
 
Neb said:
I own a U2711 which is a 27" with a 2560x1440 resolution, I can tell you that a 24" with the resolution of my 30" would be really difficult on the eyes.

It's important to consider viewing distance when comparing resolution and screen size. With a laptop or cell phone you're generally sitting much closer to the screen than you would a desktop monitor.



This, as well. Some apps that I use completely break if I bump up the text size in win7 :(
Click to expand...


Bleh... 2560x1600 would just be fine on a 24 inch monitor. I ran it on a 22.2 inch monitor that was pretty far away from my face but stopped due to the fact the refresh rate was to low as it was being scaled. I had no problems reading it at 2560x1600.

Even 3840x2400 on a 22.2 inch display is readable and fine if you ask me although if possible I would prefer that on 24 or 28 inches instead.


OP: If your not a gamer (don't need good response time and 60Hz refresh) then the IBM T221 is an awesome monitor. I use that in combination with a 30 inch on my desktop here at work.

I run it at 3840x2400@48Hz and even FPS gaming is possible but not great due to the refresh rate/response time.

I think apple will be coming out with a 27.8 inch IPS LCD that is 3840x2160. The reason I heard this is someone said they demo'd a smaller 4k cinema display, they recently updated their OS to scale perfectly (for retina displays) and in Q3 of this year chimei is coming out with a 27.8 inch 3840x2160 resolution panel:

http://www.chimei-innolux.com/openc...play/products_medical_R278D1.html?__locale=en

My guess (and hope) is apple will be using this panel in a new 'retina' cinema display. If they do it mans the price of buying a monitor with this panel will be much lower than what it will be otherwise.
 
I think apple will be coming out with a 27.8 inch IPS LCD that is 3840x2160. The reason I heard this is someone said they demo'd a smaller 4k cinema display, they recently updated their OS to scale perfectly (for retina displays) and in Q3 of this year chimei is coming out with a 27.8 inch 3840x2160 resolution panel:
Click to expand...

Nice. I don't think I can wait that long - I am going to jump to 1440p. Plus the glare on those Apple monitors is horrific.

As for the small text size in windows - I think IE9/Windows 7 scales fine right? So that's really the content that people need to read. I don't see the huge problem. What applications break?

Either way we should be happy about this because Windows will hopefully fix the text scaling problem....
 
Imagine 3 wireless retina displays with modular borders on the side that dock with each other for a decreased bezel gap :O

Heck the docking could mate power connectors/ peripheral connectors, so you would only have to plug in a power cord to the center monitor and bam!
 
boushidosan said:
Imagine 3 wireless retina displays with modular borders on the side that dock with each other for a decreased bezel gap :O

Heck the docking could mate power connectors/ peripheral connectors, so you would only have to plug in a power cord to the center monitor and bam!
Click to expand...

hell... that would be a monitor I'd buy in triplets :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top