# The Future Of Flat Panel Display 4096 x 2304



## Protagonist (Oct 16, 2011)

So I'm curious, id like to know if anyone knows if as of next year flat panel display resolution/pixels will be increased per inch or what? If so then i think it will be something like this:

1920 x 1080 - 19/20 inches

2048 x 1152 - 21.5/22 inches

2560 x 1440 - 23/24 inches

3840 x 2160 - 27 inches

4096 x 2304 - 30 inches

5120 x 2880 - ??? inches, in the near future??

For Desktop computer displays, what do y'all think or know?


----------



## Bo$$ (Oct 16, 2011)

how far?


----------



## Protagonist (Oct 16, 2011)

Bo$$ said:


> how far?



With Intel Ivy Bridge coming next year and it is said that it will support 4096 x 4096, so i guess the display shift should be happening as we speak


----------



## Disparia (Oct 16, 2011)

Well, it would be about time. Over the last ten years we've only had a handful of models above 2560x1600. The progress curve is nearly flat for extremely high resolution displays.


----------



## claylomax (Oct 16, 2011)

Jizzler said:


> Well, it would be about time. Over the last ten years we've only had a handful of models above 2560x1600. The progress curve is nearly flat for extremely high resolution displays.



This.


----------



## Bo$$ (Oct 16, 2011)

when nvidia and AMD start allowing higher resolutions per port, then we will see these displays


----------



## Protagonist (Oct 16, 2011)

Bo$$ said:


> when nvidia and AMD start allowing higher resolutions per port, then we will see these displays



Graphics manufactures say opposite they say when the displays are available then they'll up the res, so that's what Intel is doing coz currently there are displays with 4096 x 2160


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 16, 2011)

I think there's going to be a big boom in display resolution soon due to phones coming out this month with 720p resolution screens, with small devices such as phones and tablets pushing the DPI to crazy levels bigger screens will have to get higher resolutions or end up looking shitty next to a phone.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 17, 2011)

display manufacturers need a profit motive to produce higher res displays. consumers wont buy a more expensive high res display if there is no content out there to watch. i guess content providers could sell their movies and shows on the new bluray 100 gig discs. as for live television and VOD you still wont see 1080p anytime in the near future.


----------



## jasper1605 (Oct 17, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> display manufacturers need a profit motive to produce higher res displays. consumers wont buy a more expensive high res display if there is no content out there to watch. i guess content providers could sell their movies and shows on the new bluray 100 gig discs. as for live television and VOD you still wont see 1080p anytime in the near future.



Well said.  Though the first company to jump the gun on that would definitely be a welcomed catalyst to the whole "let's make things look even better" progression that would give providers a _reason_ to charge more provide us with better quality content


----------



## Neuromancer (Oct 17, 2011)

Jizzler said:


> Well, it would be about time. Over the last ten years we've only had a handful of models above 2560x1600. The progress curve is nearly flat for extremely high resolution displays.



I will be happy when that res is affordable in an LCD. I miss my 2304 x 1440 CRTs. ( I ran two of them  )

Stuck now with a 1920x1200 LCD that cost more than either one of the CRTs (add its a cheap LCD too)


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 17, 2011)

I wouldn't mind having some extremely dense panels.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Oct 17, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> display manufacturers need a profit motive to produce higher res displays. consumers wont buy a more expensive high res display if there is no content out there to watch. i guess content providers could sell their movies and shows on the new bluray 100 gig discs. as for live television and VOD you still wont see 1080p anytime in the near future.



I see the mention of discs, which brings me to the point of, when will we do away with those damn things. I'm waiting for the day when everything comes on a USB stick, way too many discs scratched over the years.


----------



## Neuromancer (Oct 17, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> I see the mention of discs, which brings me to the point of, when will we do away with those damn things. I'm waiting for the day when everything comes on a USB stick, way too many discs scratched over the years.



LMAO I just wrote a "rant of the day" about that last week.

I have one optical drive in the 5 computers in my house, if I absolutely need something that comes on a disk, I make an ISO of it and network share it 

EDIT: http://techreaction.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6721&


----------



## Disparia (Oct 17, 2011)

Connectivity is not really a problem IMO. All models that have exceeded 2560x1600 have done so with dual or quad inputs. In the early days, yes, you would have wanted a certified video card (or a pair) to drive such a monitor because of the drivers. But today I can't see any reason why common video cards can't do it (AMD Eyefinity, nVidia Surround). In short: I don't see support lacking on the GPU side.

Edit: Disclaimer: Support defined as being able to display that resolution, general application usage, etc. Due to current technical limitations, you may not be able to game without sufficient power (multiple cards) or being able to run 4K video smoothly.



Neuromancer said:


> I will be happy when that res is affordable in an LCD. I miss my 2304 x 1440 CRTs. ( I ran two of them  )
> 
> Stuck now with a 1920x1200 LCD that cost more than either one of the CRTs (add its a cheap LCD too)



The Sony Trinitron 24"? First monitor that popped in my head when hearing that resolution. They were amazing! Never had one myself, but did have the pleasure of using on them a couple occasions.




Neuromancer said:


> LMAO I just wrote a "rant of the day" about that last week.
> 
> I have one optical drive in the 5 computers in my house, if I absolutely need something that comes on a disk, I make an ISO of it and network share it
> 
> EDIT: http://techreaction.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6721&



Oh yeah! Once my new storage server is up, it'll have the Blu-ray drive and I'll stop putting opticals into my systems. I used to have 3 in this system alone, now I'm down to one.


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 17, 2011)

Neuromancer said:


> I have one optical drive in the 5 computers in my house, if I absolutely need something that comes on a disk, I make an ISO of it and network share it



I've only the one optical drive to share as well, I just hate how damn slow optical media is!


----------



## Neuromancer (Oct 17, 2011)

Yup the sonys  24" widescreen goodness.


----------



## Delta6326 (Oct 17, 2011)

ugh, i can't stand 1920x1080 I want more!! My next Screen will be 2560x1600+


----------



## whitrzac (Oct 17, 2011)

I have a 15.6 in 16:10 laptop with a WUXGA(1200x1950) screen, I don't think I will ever sell it, I have NEVER seen a laptop screen with a higher res...


This **** 10-80p/FHD/HD thing needs to die a firey death, and soon


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 17, 2011)

st.bone said:


> With Intel Ivy Bridge coming next year and it is said that it will support 4096 x 4096, so i guess the display shift should be happening as we speak


As stated in the threads related to that IGP, the limit isn't the GPU, it is the cable.  Current cable standards can't go higher than 3840 × 2160 without using multiple cables.  There's prefessional displays out there that are 5 mega-pixel or more in ~22" but they have multiple inputs and price tags in around $10,000.

We're not going to see a major jump in resolution until cables improve and higher pixel density becomes cheaper.


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 17, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> As stated in the threads related to that IGP, the limit isn't the GPU, it is the cable.  Current cable standards can't go higher than 3840 × 2160 without using multiple cables.  There's prefessional displays out there that are 5 mega-pixel or more in ~22" but they have multiple inputs and price tags in around $10,000.
> 
> We're not going to see a major jump in resolution until cables improve and higher pixel density becomes cheaper.





Just to add to this, we know AMD cards can drive up to 24576000 pixels (2560x1600 x 6) so it's definitely not the cards ( Nv cards could do this to if they had the same display output functionality)


----------



## Neuromancer (Oct 17, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> As stated in the threads related to that IGP, the limit isn't the GPU, it is the cable.  Current cable standards can't go higher than 3840 × 2160 without using multiple cables.  There's prefessional displays out there that are 5 mega-pixel or more in ~22" but they have multiple inputs and price tags in around $10,000.
> 
> We're not going to see a major jump in resolution until cables improve and higher pixel density becomes cheaper.



Still wouldn't you like to see that resolution on your desktop? Even if it meant going say 32" monitor? I had to go 28" to afford 1920x1200 3 years ago *sigh. 

Granted it doubles as my bedroom HTPC (in fact it is larger/higher res than my Living room HTPC screen lol)


----------



## mastrdrver (Oct 17, 2011)

The next "easy" move in resolution is to double "1080p". You get close to 4k.



FordGT90Concept said:


> As stated in the threads related to that IGP, the limit isn't the GPU, it is the cable.  Current cable standards can't go higher than 3840 × 2160 without using multiple cables.  There's professional displays out there that are 5 mega-pixel or more in ~22" but they have multiple inputs and price tags in around $10,000.
> 
> We're not going to see a major jump in resolution until cables improve and higher pixel density becomes cheaper.



I thought OLED was the next move really.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 17, 2011)

Neuromancer said:


> Still wouldn't you like to see that resolution on your desktop?


Not really.  There's a physical limit to what the eyes can perceive.  The reason why professional displays are so much higher is because old farts (doctors) would rather use a magnifying lense (literaly) than zoom the image digitally.  A lot of those screens have been discontinued probably because they didn't sell very well (only the medical field has the money and interest).


----------



## Protagonist (Oct 17, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> As stated in the threads related to that IGP, the limit isn't the GPU, it is the cable.  Current cable standards can't go higher than 3840 × 2160 without using multiple cables.  There's prefessional displays out there that are 5 mega-pixel or more in ~22" but they have multiple inputs and price tags in around $10,000.
> 
> We're not going to see a major jump in resolution until cables improve and higher pixel density becomes cheaper.



I read in many posts in different websites that Display Port Can Push 4096 x 2304, or even more within that range, some posts say even DVI-D can push 4096 x 2304, but i'm not sure if it's true


----------



## Animalpak (Oct 17, 2011)

Well well dual GPU and SLI config. will become finally A MUST HAVE with those resolutions.


----------



## Protagonist (Oct 17, 2011)

Animalpak said:


> Well well dual GPU and SLI config. will become finally A MUST HAVE with those resolutions.



Not exactly, Intel Ivy Bridge to support 4096 x 4096, maybe dual GPUs for gaming at resolutions such as 4096 x 2304


----------



## Protagonist (Oct 22, 2011)

4096 x 2304 sounds practical


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 22, 2011)

I don't get the logic.

Television implementation of LCD technology drives the LCD research.  If you've noticed, only a select few monitor go over 1920x1080 resolution.  Of course, the amount of screens at the 1920x1080 resolution are astounding.

Moving forward, it will take TV being upped to make higher resolutions a common occurance.  Nvidea and AMD have both seen this reality, choosing to focus on multi-monitor setups rather than a single giant high resolution display.

While everyone wants to say their resolution is comically great, the likelihood of it happening is low.  1920x1080 penetrating into smaller monitors is most assuredly a reality.  I do have to question the reasonability of 720p video on phones though.  You've got a display that would require a magnifying glass to find individual pixels on, but want even more crammed in there.  If that kind of logic was applied everywhere then printers would have 1000dpi rather than 300.  There is a limit to your vision, whether you like it or not.


Summing up the idea, resolutions are not likely to increase in the near future.  High resolution displays will remain a niche product.  If you're dying for more on the screen then setup a multimonitor display with a quartet of 1920x1080 monitors, and deal with the bezels.


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 22, 2011)

Last night I saw a QUAD HD TV at this restaurant/bar that was running 4x HD resolution somehow, and it had four separate HD channels on it at once. It was just running them all at the same time, one in each corner. It was pretty crazy looking.


----------



## Protagonist (Oct 23, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> Last night I saw a QUAD HD TV at this restaurant/bar that was running 4x HD resolution somehow, and it had four separate HD channels on it at once. It was just running them all at the same time, one in each corner. It was pretty crazy looking.



Most news rooms have more than what you've seen


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 23, 2011)

st.bone said:


> So I'm curious, id like to know if anyone knows if as of next year flat panel display resolution/pixels will be increased per inch or what? If so then i think it will be something like this:
> 
> *1920 x 1080 - 19/20 inches*
> 
> ...



I hope not, I have a 21.5" 1920 x 1080 display right now, and everything is way to small, text is pretty much unreadable.  I have to run it at 1600 x 900 to make anything readable at any reasonable distance...



LordJummy said:


> Last night I saw a QUAD HD TV at this restaurant/bar that was running 4x HD resolution somehow, and it had four separate HD channels on it at once. It was just running them all at the same time, one in each corner. It was pretty crazy looking.



Just because it was displaying 4 HD video feeds doesn't mean each was actually being displayed at HD resolution.  The TV I have at home will display all 4 of the HDMI feeds on the screen at once and it is only a 1080p screen, it just displays each feed at 960 x 540, which isn't that much of a downgrade from 720p HD, and still an upgrade from SD.

And when I was working for a video recording company that did real time video recording at weddings and such, the video mixer we had would take up to 9 SD video feeds and display them all on 1 SD screen(HD wasn't even out back then, at least not on the consumer level).  It isn't about the screen resolution to do this, it is just about shrinking the feeds down to fit at the resolution of screen.


----------



## Frick (Oct 23, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I hope not, I have a 21.5" 1920 x 1080 display right now, and everything is way to small, text is pretty much unreadable.  I have to run it at 1600 x 900 to make anything readable at any reasonable distance...



This is what people are missing. I'm all for bigger resolutions, but you'd have to increase the DPI like crazy and I don't know if current software do that very well.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 23, 2011)

Frick said:


> This is what people are missing. I'm all for bigger resolutions, but you'd have to increase the DPI like crazy and I don't know if current software do that very well.



The software definitely doesn't do it very well, increasing the DPI in Window's global setting for example works for ths most part, but some programs just look totally screwed up with higher DPI settings in Windows.  Some pieces get expanded, while others seem to stay the same size, and everything gets all wacked.


----------



## cheesy999 (Oct 23, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> I see the mention of discs, which brings me to the point of, when will we do away with those damn things. I'm waiting for the day when everything comes on a USB stick, way too many discs scratched over the years.





Neuromancer said:


> LMAO I just wrote a "rant of the day" about that last week.
> 
> I have one optical drive in the 5 computers in my house, if I absolutely need something that comes on a disk, I make an ISO of it and network share it
> 
> EDIT: http://techreaction.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6721&





pantherx12 said:


> I've only the one optical drive to share as well, I just hate how damn slow optical media is!



i can't be the only one here who still prefers disks

i have no idea why you complain about speed, so long as you can watch the movie/listen to the music isn't the speed high enough for you?

only application for USB drives would be things like computer programs where they exist for the sole purpose of transferring information (installing windows or a program)


----------



## N-Gen (Oct 23, 2011)

If there were good viable setups for eyefinity it would be nice. Say for example a manufacturer offering a triple setup where the side displays are frameless on the inside and the center one being completely frameless...that would be nice. (It might exist already, I never bothered to check, but when checking for frameless it was quite hard to find any)


----------



## Black Panther (Oct 23, 2011)

Thing is that when you buy good resolution there's _no way_ you're going back. I currently use 17" 1920x1200 for laptop and 27" 2560x1440 for desktop. It spoilt me. I can never go 1080p. The husband wants to buy a large (like 47" or 50") 1080p... and now I see them all smudgy even from a distance, and even the costly ones.


----------



## Frick (Oct 23, 2011)

Black Panther said:


> Thing is that when you buy good resolution there's _no way_ you're going back. I currently use 17" 1920x1200 for laptop and 27" 2560x1440 for desktop. It spoilt me. I can never go 1080p. The husband wants to buy a large (like 47" or 50") 1080p... and now I see them all smudgy even from a distance, and even the costly ones.



Heh, I've jumped back and forth several times and I'm always coming out happy (running two 19 inch 1280x1024).


----------



## Super XP (Oct 24, 2011)

1920 x 1080p is the Format the industry is trying to standardize. Not everybody moved to HD. This has to happen before before any talk about supporting higher res displays via your HDTV. They still sell useless 720p displays for goodness sakes.

Once 1080p becomes the standard, it needs to be within the industry for at least 10 years, then the next format will move to either 4096 x 2304p OR 3840 x 2160p. Anything lower is a complete wait of time and money.

IMO, right now let's make full 1920 x 1080p much better, and let's keep making it better.


----------



## Disparia (Oct 24, 2011)

Bah!

I mean, I know why it's happening. Just don't have to like it  Seemed like we (resolution junkies) were so close to having multiple 2560x1600 monitor choices in the under $1K price bracket. That, along with 3840x2400 monitors coming down in price. Back in 2001, the IBM T221 come out at $18,000, but was $8,400 the next year. Models from vendors released in the following years started to drop the price down thousand by thousand as the resolution gap diminished.

Now, with displays intended for computers and television being for the most part indistinguishable, those trends have been killed. Using Newegg as an example, 1920x1080 accounts for 46% of all models available with only 7% having a higher resolution. As for ultra-high displays, they're back up in the five-digit price range.


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 24, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Just because it was displaying 4 HD video feeds doesn't mean each was actually being displayed at HD resolution. The TV I have at home will display all 4 of the HDMI feeds on the screen at once and it is only a 1080p screen, it just displays each feed at 960 x 540, which isn't that much of a downgrade from 720p HD, and still an upgrade from SD.
> 
> And when I was working for a video recording company that did real time video recording at weddings and such, the video mixer we had would take up to 9 SD video feeds and display them all on 1 SD screen(HD wasn't even out back then, at least not on the consumer level). It isn't about the screen resolution to do this, it is just about shrinking the feeds down to fit at the resolution of screen.



Ah, well this one was a bit different I believe. It was enormous (something like near 100"), and it said something like "4X HD". It was extremely high resolution which was quite obvious up close. I don't think it was a standard 1080p set. It was the centerpiece of the entire restaurant/bar area and quite impressive.

I will have to go up there or call them and ask what model it was. From what I'm researching right now it appears they do make super large quad HD panels. I'll see if I can find out what it was for you.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 24, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> Ah, well this one was a bit different I believe. It was enormous (something like near 100"), and it said something like "4X HD". It was extremely high resolution which was quite obvious up close. I don't think it was a standard 1080p set. It was the centerpiece of the entire restaurant/bar area and quite impressive.
> 
> I will have to go up there or call them and ask what model it was. From what I'm researching right now it appears they do make super large quad HD panels. I'll see if I can find out what it was for you.



They are out there for sure, so it is entirely possible.  I know Samsung and Toshiba both have 3840x2160 displays, so it is possible they have one of those.  I'm just saying a standard 1080p screen is more commonly used with little visual difference when sitting a reasonable distance from the screen.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Oct 24, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I hope not, I have a 21.5" 1920 x 1080 display right now, and everything is way to small, text is pretty much unreadable.  I have to run it at 1600 x 900 to make anything readable at any reasonable distance...





newtekie1 said:


> The software definitely doesn't do it very well, increasing the DPI in Window's global setting for example works for ths most part, but some programs just look totally screwed up with higher DPI settings in Windows.  Some pieces get expanded, while others seem to stay the same size, and everything gets all wacked.



This is the key point to the entire discussion. We need a revolution in scaling quality and uniformity. Ultimately displays on tablets are trying to match e-ink on the "eyestrain" factor using ultra highres LCD displays with ridiculous DPI. That works out fine there. Those are much more closed systems compared to Windows and they've spent more effort on the problem. With my 21.5 1080p display I am at the absolute limit for comfortable reading. A DPI any higher is simply unacceptable without scaling and that scaling just isn't here yet. With any luck Windows 8 will start to tackle that seriously as it's designed with tablets in mind, until the issue is resolved higher res screens are not something to be desired.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 24, 2011)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Television implementation of LCD technology drives the LCD research.  If you've noticed, only a select few monitor go over 1920x1080 resolution.  Of course, the amount of screens at the 1920x1080 resolution are astounding.


No, it really doesn't.  ATSC and other over the air standards support a maximum of 1920x1080 interlaced.  Satellite maximum is 1920x1080 interlaced.  Cable is mostly analog still but those that are digital also have 1920x1080 interlaced.  As far as I know, the ability to increase those are quite limited due to single strength as it relates to bandwidth.

Bluray DVD is only specified to do do 1920x1080 interlaced although the format can hold double that for 3D.  They are not going over 1080 persistent because very, very few people are going to buy a TV greater than that just for BluRay videos.

Only the computer industry is going to 1920x1200 and higher.  The TV industry is very slow to adapt to new technology compared to computers because a) it is far more costly and b) there's not enough demand for it.





lilhasselhoffer said:


> I do have to question the reasonability of 720p video on phones though.


iPhone 4S has a resolution of 960x640 and Windows Phone 7 has a resolution of 800x480 (those are hardware standards).

720p is 1280x720...smart phone displays are too small to show it without shrinking it down.

I think pixel densities will continue to rise in mobile devices because of all the competition but I don't think it is likely to rise much in desktop monitors because small screen size is rarely in demand.  Most people would buy a 24 inch 1920x1200 before buying a 17 inch 1920x1200 monitor for their desktop.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Oct 24, 2011)

I'm using a 1920x1200 that I bought four years ago.  My thinking at the time was that I would get an even higher res display in the not too distant future.  But instead of progressing, 90% of monitors for sale regressed to 1080p and stayed there.

The resolution had been going higher and the costs getting lower over time.  But I guess the companies involved weren't making enough money that way.  So they stamped a "FULL HD" tag on them, put shiny bezels around them, and people are eating them up.  They only thing new is that they decided we all need 3D.  I don't.

I have little confidence in the companies doing what is best for the customers or in the market selecting what is best for them.  So we are stuck right we are for some time to come.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 24, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> No, it really doesn't.  ATSC and other over the air standards support a maximum of 1920x1080 interlaced.  Satellite maximum is 1920x1080 interlaced.  Cable is mostly analog still but those that are digital also have 1920x1080 interlaced.  As far as I know, the ability to increase those are quite limited due to single strength as it relates to bandwidth.
> 
> Bluray DVD is only specified to do do 1920x1080 interlaced although the format can hold double that for 3D.  They are not going over 1080 persistent because very, very few people are going to buy a TV greater than that just for BluRay videos.
> 
> ...



I would love to see 2560x1440 become more affordable though.

And the Google Nexus will be 1280x720 on a 4.65" screen  It will be my next phone  I LOVE DPI. But it is too expensive and not enough choices. My 2048x1152 23" has served me well, but I think I'll be moving to 1080p LED IPS for the viewing angles, energy efficiency, and brightness.

I would have thought that by now, 24~25" would have moved to 2560x1440 slowly, and at a reasonable price


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 24, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> No, it really doesn't.  ATSC and other over the air standards support a maximum of 1920x1080 interlaced.  Satellite maximum is 1920x1080 interlaced.  Cable is mostly analog still but those that are digital also have 1920x1080 interlaced.  As far as I know, the ability to increase those are quite limited due to single strength as it relates to bandwidth.
> 
> Bluray DVD is only specified to do do 1920x1080 interlaced although the format can hold double that for 3D.  They are not going over 1080 persistent because very, very few people are going to buy a TV greater than that just for BluRay videos.
> 
> Only the computer industry is going to 1920x1200 and higher.  The TV industry is very slow to adapt to new technology compared to computers because a) it is far more costly and b) there's not enough demand for it.





Help me here, either you read something I did not write or made an assumption based upon the language I used.  Your response is not a direct answer to what I said.  Television, not broadcast mediums, drive the display market.  I play Blu-ray on my TV.  It is the highest definition medium currently available to mass-consumption.  

So Blu-ray maxes out at 1080p, which is 1920x1080.  It stands to reason that the television based standard of 1080p has helped to define that as the "standard maximum" size for monitors, due in no small part to monitor being largely interchangeable with TV.





FordGT90Concept said:


> iPhone 4S has a resolution of 960x640 and Windows Phone 7 has a resolution of 800x480 (those are hardware standards).
> 
> 720p is 1280x720...smart phone displays are too small to show it without shrinking it down.
> 
> I think pixel densities will continue to rise in mobile devices because of all the competition but I don't think it is likely to rise much in desktop monitors because small screen size is rarely in demand.  Most people would buy a 24 inch 1920x1200 before buying a 17 inch 1920x1200 monitor for their desktop.



What?

I stated this:


lilhasselhoffer said:


> While everyone wants to say their resolution is comically great, the likelihood of it happening is low.  1920x1080 penetrating into smaller monitors is most assuredly a reality.  I do have to question the reasonability of 720p video on phones though.  You've got a display that would require a magnifying glass to find individual pixels on, but want even more crammed in there.  If that kind of logic was applied everywhere then printers would have 1000dpi rather than 300.  There is a limit to your vision, whether you like it or not.



This statement says that the need for 720 resolutions on phones is questionable at best.  Is that not *the exact same point* you just "corrected" me on, that you espouse yourself?



I'm failing to see where you're coming from.  We seem to agree on the outcomes, but you are attacking my points with the exact same points??? 

If we were to disagree, then I could see having some issues.  As it stands, you may want to read the post more carefully before attacking it.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 24, 2011)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> ...



I think he is trying to have a discussion, and not trying to attack you/your posts


----------



## Frick (Oct 24, 2011)

Super XP said:


> 1920 x 1080p is the Format the industry is trying to standardize. Not everybody moved to HD. This has to happen before before any talk about supporting higher res displays via your HDTV. They still sell useless 720p displays for goodness sakes.
> 
> Once 1080p becomes the standard, it needs to be within the industry for at least 10 years, then the next format will move to either 4096 x 2304p OR 3840 x 2160p. Anything lower is a complete wait of time and money.
> 
> IMO, right now let's make full 1920 x 1080p much better, and let's keep making it better.



I think it is the standard already. And what do you mean by "making it better"?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 24, 2011)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Television, not broadcast mediums, drive the display market.


...and television resolutions are driven by broadcast mediums.  Why buy something greater than 1080p if all that uses it is an occassional BD-DVD movie?  Most people can't justify that expense unless the series they watch on a weekly basis supports it.

Come to think of it, gaming consoles might drive to higher resolution TVs than anything else.




lilhasselhoffer said:


> So Blu-ray maxes out at 1080p, which is 1920x1080.  It stands to reason that the television based standard of 1080p has helped to define that as the "standard maximum" size for monitors, due in no small part to monitor being largely interchangeable with TV.


Yes, due to the economics of part sharing.  It is cheaper for them to build only 1920x1080 than build 1920x1200 for computer consumers and 1920x1080 for television consumers.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 24, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> ...and television resolutions are driven by broadcast mediums.  Why buy something greater than 1080p if all that uses it is an occassional BD-DVD movie?  Most people can't justify that expense unless the series they watch on a weekly basis supports it.
> 
> Come to think of it, gaming consoles might drive to higher resolution TVs than anything else.
> 
> Yes, due to the economics of part sharing.  It is cheaper for them to build only 1920x1080 than build 1920x1200 for computer consumers and 1920x1080 for television consumers.



To the first point, DVD was expensive at one time.  As production volume increased, and market penetration increased, pricing dropped.  Players that started out at $500 rapidly became $50.  Disks that were $50 dropped to $20.  

Blu-ray is doing the same thing.  I can buy a new disk at Walmart right not for between 20 and 30 dollars.  Players still haven't largely broken the "cheap" gap, but they are occasionally on sale.  Like it or not, Blu-ray penetration is a reality.

As Blu-ray is currently the most data intensive source, it stands to reason that manufacturers will use it as a rule.  "Well, we can make monitors that are 1920x1080 in the 20" range.  We could use the same technology to make monitors that are 40" big with 3840x2160."  This logic holds, but the question stands, why?

As you stated, economics.  It is cheaper to have one process than two.  It is cheaper to have your most expensive component be interchangeable between computer monitors and consumer televisions.  So yes, I agree that the economics drive this.  The one economic limiter is Blu-ray, to which there is no successor and thus no reason to yet develop higher resolutions.


Video game systems are, whether you like it or not, not designed to push new TV sales.  If you remember, Dead Rising had numerous people complain because the text was too small on a standard definition screen.  These complaints hurt sales, rather than driving people to go out and purchase a new TV, so they could read the game text.  

Likewise, its time to address the elephant in the room.  The Wii sold how well?  while everyone here would love to see the "hard core" games start to come back, the fiscal reality is that mediocre graphics, not even 720p from the wii, are acceptable to the average consumer.  As such, video game systems will not drive resolution changes.  


What we are left with is no reason to push for higher resolutions.  There is a definite need for them in certain niche applications (medical, entertainment, etc...), but these niches have already subscribed to having very high pricing.  Likewise, people who are on a budget do not want to spend massive amounts of money on a new system, when they have yet to functionally reach the limits of their current system.

Whenever TV moves forward, specifically whenever something exists to supercede Blu-ray, then monitors will move forward.  As computer monitors are now linked with televisions, the two will stagnate in development.  This is not horrible for the consumer, as further developments lead to decreased pricing.  What it means for a resolution junkie is a plateau.  Resolutions will continue to rise only when the TV demands more resolution.


So how does your carrot taste?  I know yours are orange, but I've got this awesome variant that is still purple.  The thrust of this is that you and I have the same underlying reasoning, but a different way to get there.  Colors be damned, can't we just agree that the resolution for monitors isn't going to be changing any time soon?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 24, 2011)

You're going way off topic.

BD-DVD = 21% of disk sales
DVD = 79% of disk sales

Disk sales overall falling as video-on-demand services boom.

More links:
http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/rep...short-of-expectations-even-as-prices-decline/
http://www.reelseo.com/dvd-sales-down-digital-delivery-up/


Display resolution innovations have always occured on computers first.  The future will be no different making this whole emphasis on televisions moot.

Examples (4096x2160 professional/medical monitors):
http://www.eizo.com/global/products/duravision/fdh3601/
http://www.eyevis.de/index.php?article_id=51&clang=1

Remember, every console and video player to date conformed to ATSC/PAL standards, not the other way around.  The only exception to that rule is 3D most likely because ATSC/PAL would never be extended to support it.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> Colors be damned, can't we just agree that the resolution for monitors isn't going to be changing any time soon?


But it is. The TV/film industry be damned...as always.  Just expect to use more than one cable and shell out a lot of money for it until some cheap revolution occurs.  Pretty funny DisplayPort is already considered inadequate.


----------



## Protagonist (Oct 24, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I hope not, I have a 21.5" 1920 x 1080 display right now, and everything is way to small, text is pretty much unreadable.  I have to run it at 1600 x 900 to make anything readable at any reasonable distance...



What you don't know is that you're HP Display is shitty if not then you have Bad eyes get your eyes checked, and if its your display then Replace it with any Dell 21.5 and see the big deference, to me HP are not good with displays


----------



## Derek12 (Oct 24, 2011)

Meh I am very happy with my old but reliable and great quality IBM Thinkvision 17" 1280x1024. Those new screens who have very high res and super high DPI make my sigh bad (I have poor eyesight).

I wouldn't choose a small screen and higher resolution screen for anything else but games/videos/movies, etc.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 24, 2011)

st.bone said:


> What you don't know is that you're HP Display is shitty if not then you have Bad eyes get your eyes checked, and if its your display then Replace it with any Dell 21.5 and see the big deference, to me HP are not good with displays



What you don't know is that I had a Dell display before the HP, but it died.  It wasn't any better.  A 21.5" 1080p LCD 4-5 feet from your face is almost impossible to read small text on, even with good eyes.  The text on webpages is ok, I can read this text I'm typing for instance, but reading a long article tends to strain the eyes, especially if the text is much smaller.


----------



## Protagonist (Oct 24, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> What you don't know is that I had a Dell display before the HP, but it died.  It wasn't any better.  A 21.5" 1080p LCD 4-5 feet from your face is almost impossible to read small text on, even with good eyes.  The text on webpages is ok, I can read this text I'm typing for instance, but reading a long article tends to strain the eyes, especially if the text is much smaller.



dude its your eyes, get them checked


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Oct 24, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Examples (4096x2160 professional/medical monitors):
> http://www.eizo.com/global/products/duravision/fdh3601/
> http://www.eyevis.de/index.php?article_id=51&clang=1


Want. Want.


Actually, this: http://www.eizo.com/global/products/atc/sq2801/index.html. Perfect for Office and map work.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 25, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> What you don't know is that I had a Dell display before the HP, but it died.  It wasn't any better.  A 21.5" 1080p LCD 4-5 feet from your face is almost impossible to read small text on, even with good eyes.  The text on webpages is ok, I can read this text I'm typing for instance, but reading a long article tends to strain the eyes, especially if the text is much smaller.



Why don't you just make the windows text bigger through control panel







And put a zoom on webpages (ie: Chrome AutoZoom or wtv its called). I did this for when I sat to far from my screen, while easily able to switch to normal when I am closer. I have a 2048x1152 23" screen, and when I was close, I was max 2 feet away, when I was far I was the length of a twin bed away.



st.bone said:


> dude its your eyes, get them checked



He is 4-5 feet away dude. Learn to read and think before saying stupid stuff like that


----------



## Frick (Oct 25, 2011)

n-ster said:


> Why don't you just make the windows text bigger through control panel
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/111025/Capture054.png
> 
> And put a zoom on webpages (ie: Chrome AutoZoom or wtv its called). I did this for when I sat to far from my screen, while easily able to switch to normal when I am closer. I have a 2048x1152 23" screen, and when I was close, I was max 2 feet away, when I was far I was the length of a twin bed away.



How does this work with stuff like developer programs, Office, virtual systems and the like?


----------



## Derek12 (Oct 25, 2011)

n-ster said:


> Why don't you just make the windows text bigger through control panel
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/111025/Capture054.png



Doesn't that setting cause text cut off in some programs? I will try it too, thought, because at default, font is a bit small for me even in my display.


n-ster said:


> Why don't you just make the windows text bigger through control panel
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/111025/Capture054.png
> 
> And put a zoom on webpages (ie: Chrome AutoZoom or wtv its called). I did this for when I sat to far from my screen, while easily able to switch to normal when I am closer. I have a 2048x1152 23" screen, and when I was close, I was max 2 feet away, when I was far I was the length of a twin bed away.



You can set a minimum font size too in preferences->advanced->custom fonts or similar, without affecting images (unless you want to zoom them anyway).  I don't know how is in Chrome but in Opera and Firefox you can zoom in and out with the + and - keys, seamlessly or with ctrl+mouse wheel.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 25, 2011)

Frick said:


> How does this work with stuff like developer programs, Office, virtual systems and the like?



I believe it works in them too. If it doesn't, many programs have their own font settings. I believe that the "Medium" 125% affects everything



Derek12 said:


> Doesn't that setting cause text cut off in some programs? I will try it too, thought, because at default, font is a bit small for me even in my display.
> 
> 
> You can set a minimum font size too in preferences->advanced->custom fonts or similar, without affecting images (unless you want to zoom them anyway).  I don't know how is in Chrome but in Opera and Firefox you can zoom in and out with the + and - keys, seamlessly or with ctrl+mouse wheel.



It doesn't cut off unless you make it too big in my experience. It sometimes does make it 2 lines instead of one

In Chrome, the zoom doesn't stay. With AutoZoom you can set, say, 150%, and everything is zoomed 50% all the time. There are ways for it not to effect images and such, and there are ways to put a minimum font size, I just didn't bothers as most images were too small for me anyways, and the ones that were bigger I usually just zoomed out (ctrl mouse scroll or ctrl 0 etc)


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 25, 2011)

st.bone said:


> dude its your eyes, get them checked



No, it is the fact that most people don't find it comfortable to read large amounts of text that small at reasonable distances.  The text on a 21" 1080p screen is roughly the same size as the text in a news paper.  You hold a news paper at less than arms length to read it comfortably, the monitor on my desk is beyond  arms length away from my face.  Most people with good eyes would have a hard time reading large amounts of text that small that distance away.  Reading a little text isn't the problem, but the strain on the eyes from reading large amounts of text is where the problem is.  If the monitor was closer it wouldn't be a problem, but I'm one that puts the monitor at the very back edge of the desk to maximize desk space, and I tend to lean back in my chair when I'm reading long articles.



n-ster said:


> Why don't you just make the windows text bigger through control panel
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/111025/Capture054.png
> 
> And put a zoom on webpages (ie: Chrome AutoZoom or wtv its called). I did this for when I sat to far from my screen, while easily able to switch to normal when I am closer. I have a 2048x1152 23" screen, and when I was close, I was max 2 feet away, when I was far I was the length of a twin bed away.



Like I said, the problem with just raising the DPI is that is breaks some programs.  It either makes the text go beyond the text fields and makes it unreadable, or it distorts everything so nothing lines up properly.

And what is the point of having a larger resolution, if I have to just make everything bigger anyway?  I might as well just use a lower resolution, right?


----------



## Disparia (Oct 25, 2011)

My personal fix for that: programs that break from DPI scaling are programs that I don't use.

Now, I don't scale on my 24" 1920x1200 which I have today, but did a couple years ago on my 17" 1920x1200. A bump in DPI was perfect for readability and the quality was noticeable. That last point is to answer to your question about increasing DPI as you increase resolution (relative to the size of the display).

As it's been mentioned, there's a limit to what eye can perceive. According to my VR teacher, it's around 4K (at the correct ratio of display size to viewing distance). So a valid point by those who said it, but we're not there yet.


----------



## Derek12 (Oct 25, 2011)

n-ster said:


> It doesn't cut off unless you make it too big in my experience. It sometimes does make it 2 lines instead of one
> 
> In Chrome, the zoom doesn't stay. With AutoZoom you can set, say, 150%, and everything is zoomed 50% all the time. There are ways for it not to effect images and such, and there are ways to put a minimum font size, I just didn't bothers as most images were too small for me anyways, and the ones that were bigger I usually just zoomed out (ctrl mouse scroll or ctrl 0 etc)



I tried it, you are right, none programs showed cut off text now wrap here, but anything on screen (icons, taskbar, start menu, etc), is bigger, seems the resolution has been lowered, the benefit of that is don't blur with non native resolutions 


Thanks I didn't knew that these extension can memorize zoom, would be useful here


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 26, 2011)

Jizzler said:


> My personal fix for that: programs that break from DPI scaling are programs that I don't use.



Some of us don't have the luxtury of just not using a program if it doesn't work properly with DPI scaling.


----------



## Disparia (Oct 26, 2011)

Could you give a example?

I take a hard stance on it and give comments to developers in hope that they take it into consideration with future projects. However small a difference, I try to do whatever I can to mitigate roadblocks such as this.


----------



## Delta6326 (Oct 26, 2011)

When the text is to small I just use Ctrl and scroll wheel to zoom in. But I as well use a 1080p 21.5" that is about 1.7 arms away and it can be hard at times.


----------



## seronx (Oct 26, 2011)

I rather see 21:9 monitors with a slight panoramic curve to them


----------



## Protagonist (Nov 25, 2011)

Soon maybe next year, increase in resolutions,????

Check out this post
http://www.techpowerup.com/155619/S...s-Laptops-Coming-In-2012-Thanks-To-Apple.html

"So, could this trend also rub off on desktop monitors, perhaps making 2048 x 1152 desktop monitors commonplace and inexpensive? It seems quite possible. The market has been stuck at a Full HD resolution for a while now and it's about time we saw a significant resolution jump."


----------



## largon (Nov 26, 2011)

That's hardly a significant jump...


----------



## Protagonist (Jan 9, 2012)

largon said:


> That's hardly a significant jump...



???


----------



## MilkyWay (Jan 9, 2012)

There is no market or demand until they start to push new techs. The average person cant afford to buy high resolution displays with new panel technologies and they aren't produced in large enough volumes to push prices down. Im also guessing right now its expensive to produce said displays.

Its all good and well saying yuck i hate 1080p but where is the content? 1080p isnt even fully utilized.


----------



## Phrase (Oct 7, 2015)

Time to dig out this old thread!
Looks like the time has finally come, according to 9to5mac.com, the new iMac 21.5 will be release next week with a resolution of 4096 x 2304.
Source: http://9to5mac.com/2015/10/06/apple-planning-to-launch-new-4k-21-5-inch-imacs-next-week/

PS: No, the fonts won't be tiny (unless you configure them to by tiny  )


----------



## hat (Oct 7, 2015)

cheesy999 said:


> i can't be the only one here who still prefers disks
> 
> i have no idea why you complain about speed, so long as you can watch the movie/listen to the music isn't the speed high enough for you?
> 
> only application for USB drives would be things like computer programs where they exist for the sole purpose of transferring information (installing windows or a program)


I'm with you there. The only time I have ever scratched up a disc was when I got the BF1942 warchest for christmas many years ago. It came with some crappy cardboard sleeves that were hell on discs. All my PS1 games still work!

I was taught at a young age to care for discs properly... one thing I can thank my dad for.


----------



## RCoon (Oct 7, 2015)

hat said:


> I'm with you there.



He said that four years ago  Probably doesn't even visit these forums anymore.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 7, 2015)

RCoon said:


> He said that four years ago  Probably doesn't even visit these forums anymore.



Last seen online September 2nd 2015, hope is not lost


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 7, 2015)

Anyone else looking back at some of the things that have been said here, and laughing?

DP was the first connection to offer 4K at 60 Hz.  The price of 4K is just now getting to a reasonable level (while still maintaining a decent refresh rate).  DVDs are still king, though Blu-rays aren't exactly a distant second.  Finally Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu are still silently murdering cable TV like cell phones murdered house phones.  

That's some good nostalgia.


----------



## Atomic77 (Oct 11, 2015)

my HP Pavillion 22bw IPS LED has 1920x1080 resolution and is a 21.5 inch monitor. I just got it last Christmas so I don't think resolution  will get much bigger.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 11, 2015)

Even for all the noise 4K makes, it's still pretty rare.  Market proliferation hasn't been great.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 13, 2015)

1920 x 1080p is good enough for the majority. Most people don't even have a HDTV yet. I am all for technological advancements for sure, though they should concentrate in making 1080p better. I haven't seen how well 1080p Blu-Ray films look when scaled to a 4K HDTV. Perhaps in a couple years I'll upgrade to a 4K, that is when we should be able to see more 4K content out.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 13, 2015)

The mandated switch from NTSC (analog) to ATSC (digital) back in 2009 forced a great number of HDTVs into homes State side.  I thought something similar happened to much of Europe but with DVB instead of ATSC.

I think there's only one TV left here that isn't 720p or better.


----------



## cheesy999 (Nov 1, 2015)

RCoon said:


> He said that four years ago  Probably doesn't even visit these forums anymore.



I don't even have a dvd drive anymore


----------



## alucasa (Nov 1, 2015)

I think I haven't used any optical discs since 2007 and completely omitted DVD drives from my builds since 2010.


----------

