Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
LCD Resolution
I am annoyed.
My 21" monitor at home is a CRT with 2048x1536 resolution at 4:3 aspect ratio. Extrapolating information:
The horizontal distance is 16.8"
The vertical distance is 12.6"
The pixels/inch density is 121.9
Dell and HP both make laptops with 15.6" screens that are 1920x1080 resolution at 16:9 aspect ratio. Extrapolating information:
The horizontal distance is 13.6" (roughly)
The vertical distance is 7.6"
The pixels/inch density is 141.2
So they have the technology to make high-density screens, higher than even my current CRT, but yet they don't make them for DESKTOPS...
Even if the pixels/inch density was closer to that of my CRT, an LCD screen could be made that was 21" diagonally and was 2231x1255 (and if, by some miracle, they had one as dense as the 15.6" monitor, it'd be 2584x1454).
sigh...
Comments
I don't like shortscreen monitors. Yeah, yeah, they call them "widescreen", but 7.6" tall isn't wide. It's short.
Putting 1080 pixels high in that tiny of a space just means that text is too small to read comfortably. Do you really want that in a desktop?
I like widescreen monitors. The trick is getting one tall enough. My 24" 16x10 is nearly the same height as my 19" 4x3, so I didn't sacrifice any height to go wide screen, I just gained several inches of width.
That said, high density pixels are expensive, especially when you try to scale them to large surface areas. LCD screens are still "grown", and there is a certain amount of failure in the process. The higher density/more pixels in the process, the higher that failure rate, and the more expensive each successful screen becomes. This is part of the reason why there is such a huge jump in price between a 1920x1080 27" monitor and a 2560x1440 resolution 27" (and even more going up to 30" 2560x1600) - but the price difference between basically any size monitor running at 1920x1080 is very small: your really paying per pixel, not per square inch.
That, and most people have found that 1080p is "good enough" for now, and I have to agree that there is some truth to that. Text starts to become very small once you get much bigger, and sitting at your average desk, once you start to go over that 24-27" size you've got more real estate than your eyes can easily cover without a lot of eye scanning/head movement. I would love to see pixel densities go up; the difference between the screen on the iPhone 3 and iPhone 4 was pretty staggering, doubling the number of pixels in the same screen size (326 pixels/inch), but when you are talking about a 3" screen compared to a 19-30" screen size, the cost goes up dramatically.
Honestly, I am more excited about the impending jump to OLED. I love LCD monitors, especially over CRTs - I was an early adopter and paid through the nose for my first LCD screen, and I am eagerly awaiting OLED as well, as it, I think, will be just as dramatic a shift as CRT to LCD was. I don't know what it will do for pixel density, but it has a lot of other benefits besides just pixel count.
I do love my LCD monitor. I spent $200 on it back in 08 and I can honestly say I'd be fine with never switching. 25" Acer HDMI compatible with 2048x1152. We'll have to see what the next wave of display technology reaches. I can see a future where you just wallpaper a flat surface with OLED then roll it up when you're done. (God that stuff looks great.)
OLED is the future and always will be. Why don't we have cheap OLED monitors by now? And flying cars!
No, I'm not really that cynical about OLED's adoption. But it would be nice if it became cheaper, faster.
well if you want HIGH pixel density...
http://www.vrealities.com/vrprowuxga.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/676516-REG/Astro_Design_Inc_DM_3410_4K_x_2K_10.html
There you go. 8,294,400 pixels in a nice neat 56" frame for only $70,000 USD.
The funny part is my Onkyo receiver claims to be 4k ready...like that's going to take off anytime soon.
yah but he's mostly b1tchin about pixel density not resolution:D sure bigger would have more pixels, but it does kill your relative density:D
Yes, but no one is even offering a desktop monitor like I describe... even if it was very expensive, some of us would be willing to pay.
I'm one of those people with insanely good eyesight (despite the fact that I'm hitting middle age), and I find the text on my desktop to be perfectly fine, small as it is. I like having the added resolution real estate because it gives me more room to move my stuff around (didn't want to have to deal with a dual monitor setup, though I may break down and do that).
Agreed.
The reason (besides cost) that TFT screens usually is smaller than a CRT is that a CRT screen run any of it's resolutions as well. A TFT LCD screen on the other hand is optimized for one solution: It's maximum.
Try lowevering it and you see that the picture suddenly gets less than optimal. TFT screen are made by small crystals that goes together 3 and 3 while a CRT screen projects it dots with a canon, making it a lot simpler for smaller dots and keeping the ratios when you enlarge them.
A TFT will have to use several cells when you pull up the resolution, therefor the piscture kinds kinda square and out of shape.
TFT is probably soon gone as OLED takes over, it will give a lot improved screen, particularly in colors but it should also made smaller pixels easier and cheaper than the current screens, but not at first since new technology always cost in the beginning.
The reason for that is that OLED still have problems with it's lifetime, the blue color just dies too fast right now.
It will probably be solved pretty soon if we are lucky, and in that case the OLED revolution will start.
actually, my hope for OLED/super AMOLED would be drastic decrease in price for VR glasses:D i would love to be able to take my monitor with me and it's the last real hurdle for wearable computers:D it would be the ideal implimentation of 3d display and i think it would drasticlly change the way we compute much like how bluetooth headset changed cellphone use. yah adaptation wont be that fast, but it would at least be a viable option for people too lazy to get out of bed to play WoW:D
reality is that we wont see it adapted in the next 10 years or so, but eventually as more people become "cyberized" where you have cell phone sized computer that has the computing power of a Llano, portable display is the final link to freedom from the desktop. with 10nm chips coming up in about 5 years, there should be some kind of breakthrough in wearable computing devices:)
but then again, we are still far from viable battery technology that would sustain that level of tech considering it'll take a crapload of bandwidth to send video via wireless means to the glasses:(
That is not really the problem with VR glasses. VR takes too much memory and until the next generation harddrives (that will be as fast as ram are) hit's the market it really isn't any idea to sell VR glasses and the few you can find are expensive because they are made in small numers.
VR just needs better computers than we have right now.
well, i guess VR glasses is the wrong term to use as most computing would be done on the ipod sized computer. what i mean to say is head mounted displays. (in the form factor of a sunglasses with see through display and head tracking sensors built in) currently the technology exist for wired version but at an extreamly high price (like the one i linked above) I'm hoping some OLED/super AMOLED version would come out with a sub $1000 price tag within the next 5 years. SONY already demo'ed a prototype in 720p resolution at the CES2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BKl2xbxNNo
EVENTUALLY when more radio bandwidth is allocated for consumer electronics, I would like to see wireless versions. HOWEVER, battery technology would be the bottleneck at that point.