![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Why no WUXGA+ monitors larger than 30" ?
- Thread starter NulloModo
- Start date
Don't lnow for sure but I can think of a couple of reasons.
>30" isn't that suitable for desktop use. A very narrow audience atleast. The price would be steep and the backlight uniformity would be poor and not on par with the high resolution.
And there isn't much use of >1080p resolutions on TVs since we won't have anything to watch at higher resolutions for 10 years maybe? And in 10 years everything we have today will be outdated.
Of course there are the 2160p, thats the first resolution that would enable you to play both 720p and 1080p at a native resolution without any degrading scaling. But don't think that most people justifies the price just to watch 720p in better quality (compared to 1080p)... Although I've seen a TV with that resolution somewhere on the net.
Whats bugging me is that we have had 15.4" monitors in laptops with 1920x1200 and three different resolution options for many years now yet all (non-wide) 17" and 19" monitors share the same resolution. It's absurd to think that eveyone has the same needs and seeing as 17" and 19" are the most common monitors around it makes it even worse. The same goes for pretty much every other monitor-size except for recently with the new low-budget 19"-wide monitors.
1280x1024 on a 19" is pathetic in my eyes (of course thats my opinion, there sure are thousands of others, only problem is that there is only one resolution to meet everyones needs).
Why oh why hasn't anyone even tried to fill that absolutely enourmus hole?
>30" isn't that suitable for desktop use. A very narrow audience atleast. The price would be steep and the backlight uniformity would be poor and not on par with the high resolution.
And there isn't much use of >1080p resolutions on TVs since we won't have anything to watch at higher resolutions for 10 years maybe? And in 10 years everything we have today will be outdated.
Of course there are the 2160p, thats the first resolution that would enable you to play both 720p and 1080p at a native resolution without any degrading scaling. But don't think that most people justifies the price just to watch 720p in better quality (compared to 1080p)... Although I've seen a TV with that resolution somewhere on the net.
Whats bugging me is that we have had 15.4" monitors in laptops with 1920x1200 and three different resolution options for many years now yet all (non-wide) 17" and 19" monitors share the same resolution. It's absurd to think that eveyone has the same needs and seeing as 17" and 19" are the most common monitors around it makes it even worse. The same goes for pretty much every other monitor-size except for recently with the new low-budget 19"-wide monitors.
1280x1024 on a 19" is pathetic in my eyes (of course thats my opinion, there sure are thousands of others, only problem is that there is only one resolution to meet everyones needs).
Why oh why hasn't anyone even tried to fill that absolutely enourmus hole?
Happy Hopping
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 7,837
because chiro adjustment costs too much 
If the screen is 34" say, you need to have a chair that elevate you to view the top part, but then you can't view the very bottom. If it's too far, then you can't read the words on the screen. So a 34" w/ res. higher than 2560x1600 is pointless
If the screen is 34" say, you need to have a chair that elevate you to view the top part, but then you can't view the very bottom. If it's too far, then you can't read the words on the screen. So a 34" w/ res. higher than 2560x1600 is pointless