Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why are computer displays SO BAD?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 8, 2011 1:38:39 AM

So here's my thought. We've had 1080p monitors for well over half a decade. It seems like the industry is completely content with being stuck in this RUT. It may be okay for television or consoles, but for PC?!?! We need to see advancements.

Eyefinity and Surround are nice features but not solutions.

1920x1200 monitors have even become less noticeable on the market in the past year.

Sure there are a few " 2560 x 1600 monitors, but they all cost $1000 +

Why don't manufactures realize if they made a higher resolution affordable monitor they would sell like hot-cakes!

There is this huge price gap between a nice $250 1920x1080 display, the next price point is $1000. I have two video cards that cost as much as a ps3 each. My computer can handle more than what the current standard is...

I just wanted to hear others thoughts... Please comment!

More about : computer displays bad

a c 180 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 8, 2011 1:49:19 AM

Thats a hell of a lot of pixels for such a small area, and the larger ones are going to need stronger graphics cards since most dont support anything over 2560x1600, but those also tend to be 28" or 30" monitors, frankly i dont have space for something that big and the current resolution is pretty good, if you increase the resolution you end up shrinking text which can make stuff hard to read which you dont want happening.
February 8, 2011 1:54:57 AM

okay all fair and understandable. But saying text will get smaller isn't true. The idea is to increase the PPi pixels per inch. My cell phone has 960x640 resolution and its actually quite a bit less of a strain on the eyes.

The physical screen does not need to increase in size. 24 inches is perfect for a desk. Simply the resolution should be better.

Video cards are coming standard with 2gb of RAM. Single 1080p monitors can't take advantage of that. I would just like to see sharper screens of the same size and possibly some more screen space.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2011 2:08:15 AM

If you keep the physical size the same but pack more pixels into the same space the pixel density increases. Screens with higher pixels density are more expensive and difficult to produce because smaller pixels spaced closer together leads to tighter manufacturing tolerances and potentially lower yields.

Higher DPI does shrink text, with the intro of high DPI features in Vista lots of work had to be done to make sure text was displayed properly. Higher DPI is problematic because graphics designers have always laid out text assuming ~100DPI, if you increase resolution in the same form factor you increase DPI which can screw up layouts and cause text to be displayed incorrectly.

Another reason for the prevalence of 1080P monitors is that 1080P is a industry standard resolution and so it's cheaper to produce monitors with that resolution.
a c 172 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 8, 2011 2:08:51 AM

I agree I would like a higher density of pixels as well higher viewing quality. It took a decade just for LCDs to finally be able to match and exceed the image quality of CRTs (some are much better than most think) while the cheap ones still burn my eyes like nothing else. I hate having eye strain with some monitors. Like cheep grade usb mice and keyboards quality isn't available to every one. I like a monitor be good enough to be kicked around for 10 years and still work with out hardly any degradation of quality.
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2011 2:11:52 AM

Well, the real innovation I would like to see is in the LCD type. It is funny that you mention cell phones. I think I remember hearing recently about the advanced new display on the phone, and one of the many techs was that it was using a variant of an In Plane Switching (IPS) LCD. IPS monitors have come down a lot in price recently, but I really wish they would become more mainstream. Better color and visual quality is needed more urgently that higher resolution, in my opinion.
February 8, 2011 2:13:03 AM

Displays are not my expertise. I am a software engineer however. I guess my motivation is driven from the fact that I do stare at the thing 12 hours a day. I just want something that looks better...

I understand industry standard. It's true its easy and cheap and most people are okay with it. But as any software developer knows, nothing stays the same for long. It'll take a while to adapt but we shouldn't stick to the standard because its easy.

Anyway, I'm just ranting. I just want nicer displays :p  Thanks for the input though!
a c 172 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 8, 2011 2:20:19 AM

Add 3 more hours a day to that then you got me summed up. LCDs at school and else ware while CRT junk at home. Low refresh rates are not my liking either :/  I don't see how people can game at high ress while the refresh rates are like 56hz or worse in GTA IV ect.
February 8, 2011 2:24:26 AM

one more piece of food for thought.... regarding cell phone screens. To view it from a higher scope. Doesn't it simply seem alarming that a 2.5 inch screen has a resolution of 960x640 and a 52 inch screen has a resolution of 1920x1080? Ratio seems off to me.
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2011 2:32:46 AM

You are very close to the phone screen though. Personally I find TVs ok at their current res (upgrading them would just give manufacturers another excuse to raise prices) though higher res monitors seems intriguing.
February 8, 2011 2:48:17 AM

hahaha thank you thats my answer. it also proves my point of the price being beyond reason
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2011 2:50:17 AM

<drool>
a c 172 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 8, 2011 2:51:10 AM

For that price I could literally buy up a fifth of the Detroit and turn it into an urban farm.
February 8, 2011 2:58:01 AM

easy now. I work a car company :p 
!