Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

more inches buy why no more pixels

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 5:37:56 PM

First of this is a random rant of annoyance that I thought I'd share with you all and secondly pixel count != resolution, 1280x1024 or what ever doesn't tell you how fine the detail you can display only how many pixels you have to display something with.

Now with that cleared up considering that at at about arms length your eyes can see detail at approximately 150dpi why are we still stuck at 85~100dpi displays? & why does this matter? Well, my laptop has a 17" 1920x1200 display and first off with or without anti-aliased font rendering text always look crisp and defined without any harshness to it (which isn't the case on a 17" 1280x1024 display with font AA on or off) also on sans-serif fonts the limiting factor is the physical size not the OSs quality of AA font rendering, though some people comment about images being small, within' reason images are scaled up to 150% the size and look fine in all but MSIE. With the latest generation of 19" 1280x1024 displays being pushed forward we're back to 15" 1024x768 resolution and the heavy reliance of font AA to help try to keep fonts looking reasonable, so why re there no 1400x1050 or 1600x1200 19" displays on the market? Then at least we're back to, or surpassing current 17" displays for image resolution.

More about : inches buy pixels

July 24, 2005 5:42:15 PM

I really don't know why anyone buys a desktop LCD less than 20" anyway.

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:33:03 PM

one word answer: price
Related resources
July 24, 2005 6:58:07 PM

That same word explains the density of the pixels...

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>
July 24, 2005 9:57:45 PM

Well, we have to buy a 19" or smaller LCD if we want to play FPS games without ghosting.
I would like to see a 20" or bigger LCD with 8ms or less response time, for a resonable price.
July 25, 2005 4:31:42 AM

I get no ghosting on my 24". Everyone's eyes might be different, but I see no ghosting and have 20/40 to 20/20 vision.

Now getting enough fps....that requires a good videocard and a bit of sacrificing as far as the graphics settings are concerned.

<pre><font color=red>A64 3200+ Winchester
DFI Lan Party NF4 Ultra-D
1GB Corsair 4400C25PT
WD740GD, WD2000JB, WD1200JB
ATI X800XL
Dell 2405FPW</pre><p>
July 26, 2005 3:55:23 PM

Haha, 4 eyes o.0 :p 

People also have to realize you get used to ghosting, but yeah, the 24 shouldnt have much ghosting. How u been man?

<font color=white>XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX</font color=white>
<font color=green>XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX</font color=green>
<font color=red>XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX</font color=red>
July 26, 2005 4:41:00 PM

Yep, I've got the 24" Dell too and have no ghosting problems. I'm not sure but I think that sucker is 8ms - but maybe 16. But I dont' play games that often. I did play Serious Sam on it and had fun. Full settings, full resolution with a GeForce 6600GT. But that's an older game now. I have not tried anything much newer except demos. Painkiller is a good demo that played just fine. Not all high settings of course but still great.

<A HREF="http://www.ericstoffers.com" target="_new">(My little web site)</A>
July 27, 2005 1:01:31 PM

It's partly a price issue but the more general reason has to do with market demand. There's obviously no *technical* reason why they can't do it, since a laptop screen is more or less the same stuff as a monitor screen. However, people in general want different characteristics for monitors versus laptops. For monitors, people look for brightness, viewing angle, response time, color quality, and price. For laptops, the emphasis is on resolution, low power consumption, and thinness. Hence you don't see many laptops with MVA panels -- and conversely, monitors with laptop resolution. Regarding the price, the factor here is that laptop screens require more accessory stuff -- IC drivers and all that -- because of their higher resolution, but people with laptops are willing to pay that sort of price for them, as they are more or less a luxury item.

Currently, the manufacturers are going for the middle of the bell curve in terms of each market, i.e. what people in general wants. As time moves on and the market becomes more saturated, manufacturers will start branching out to capture more "niche" parts of the market, and that's when we'll see the stuff you're talking about. But that's not happened yet.

As for the resolution thing, yes in general resolution means the size of something at a certain distance, but in the monitor world that's known as dot pitch, while the number of pixels horizontally and vertically is known as resolution. That's just how it goes. Similarly, we never (or very very rarely) see true dead pixels, because they are actually defects that occur on a sub-pixel basis. But that's how it is.

A person with 20/20 vision is essentially defined as having a resolution of 1 arc minute, or 1/60th of a degree (this is how the width of the horizontal and vertical lines of the "E" you see in eye tests are calibrated). Doing the calculations for 70 cm (the generally used viewing distance for monitors), this comes out to a resolution of about 0.2 mm, or 127 dpi. A 17" monitor has a dot pitch of 0.264 mm (96 dpi) while a 19" monitor has a dot pitch of 0.294 mm (86 dpi), so yes, the dots are somewhat bigger than the resolution of the eye. But remember that this is for people with 20/20 vision. Not everyone keeps their prescriptions up to date. If you move to 20/30 vision, then you're looking at a resolution of about 0.3 mm, or about the size of the pixels. Even worse, and you start having to squint or sit closer to the screen.

Actually, I'd want a higher-res (i.e. 1400 x 1050 or 1600 x 1200) 17" or 19" monitor for another reason -- at that point, we'd (hopefully) move back to the sanity of 4:3 ratios.

A 1400 x 1050 19" monitor would have a dot pitch of 0.276 mm, while a 1600 x 1200 19" monitor would have a dot pitch of 0.241 mm. I would say the 1400 x 1050 is likely to appear first. Actually, some companies are already starting to make 1440 x 900 19" widescreen monitors; those have a dot pitch of 0.284 mm though, so while the dot pitch is smaller than the 0.294 mm of regular 19" monitors, that may still be somewhat too big for your taste. A 1920 x 1200 17" monitor has a dot pitch of 0.191 mm.
!