Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Linus Torvalds: 2560x1600 Needs To Be Next Standard

57 posts in this topic

Posted

Try disabling font anti-aliasing and you'll quickly start seeing individual pixels.

But we have anti-aliasing? Doesn't really answer my question. I suppose I could see AA becoming irrelevant with it, but any gains from turning off AA would be lost with rendering at an increased resolution. So I still don't really see the point unless the performance gain from no AA outweighs the loss from resolution.

I find it hard to believe it makes any actual difference to viewing photos either. Unless it can mysteriously extract additional pixels from the photo data, all it would do is "zoom out" the photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

He is right, but the OS must be able to scale with the resolution. I don't want everything to be too small to read because of the crazy resolution. Apple and Google seem to be making a good job at scaling iOS and Android to fit any resolution and still being usable.

But yes, when I see that my Galaxy S3 has more pixels than some laptop, it's getting ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You could even have a 10000dpi display but until desktop operating systems will do proper DPI scaling on very high resolutions displays it's completely pointless.

Windows scaling starts looking horrible from 200% DPIs and above (cursors and icons all look jagged) and there are still many applications that look horrible or ignore the scaling like Adobe's (also DPI settings seem to be ignored by Metro), OS X cheats by upscaling a lower resolution unless the application is "retina-aware" and Linux is probably the one with most issues but it depends, it can be either somewhat acceptable or horrible depending on the distro/desktop environment.

It is actually quite funny that it was Linus Torvalds complaining about this issue when most linux distributions recommend lowering the resolution on the retina macbooks basically tossing the extra pixels in the trash. If it's not done properly it just becomes a waste of CPU/GPU/power: it would be far better to have a reasonable resolution (1080p minimum?) that works well with the operating system rather than some insanely high-DPI display where everything looks like crap and movies still show with the annoying bars due to weird aspect ratios.

I think Apple approach was the best because they always tried to double the resolutions on their devices to make the transition the least painful they could and on the retina display their use of a whitelist system (only tested applications will work in native mode) has avoided the issues with all the applications that don't render properly. I still wonder why Windows still uses the cheapest scaling algorithms for some parts the UI, it's not like the recent CPUs couldn't scale a 32x32/48x48 cursor.

NOTE: This post is only exclusively about desktop operating systems, not phones or tablets where the UIs have been tailored for DPI scaling from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not sure why that's necessary, especially on a tablet or smaller laptop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But we have anti-aliasing? Doesn't really answer my question. I suppose I could see AA becoming irrelevant with it, but any gains from turning off AA would be lost with rendering at an increased resolution. So I still don't really see the point unless the performance gain from no AA outweighs the loss from resolution.

I find it hard to believe it makes any actual difference to viewing photos either. Unless it can mysteriously extract additional pixels from the photo data, all it would do is "zoom out" the photo.

That's kind of the point, we're using anti-aliasing (for nearly everything) because we have such low resolution devices. Increasing the resolution negates the need for anti-aliasing. Photos see an improvement since they're often scaled down for display, showing them at their normal resolution allows for more fine detail.

Compare proper 1920x1080 video to a scaled 960x540 copy, the overall image will be the same, but you'll be missing out on fine detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If only the Retina MBPs weren't so expensive (and the 13" doesn't even have a discrete graphics card)... :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've been using 2560 x 1440 for a while now. Loving the resolution on a 27-inch screen. It's perfect. (Y)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've been using 2560 x 1440 for a while now. Loving the resolution on a 27-inch screen. It's perfect. (Y)

The pixel density on that is worse than 720p on a 13" laptop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The pixel density on that is worse than 720p on a 13" laptop.

It's fortunate I don't have to use my 27-inch iMac with my nose pressed against the screen.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1080p is still cool to me. Higher res's can cause motion sickness and there is the added fact that there is a such thing as diminishing returns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm really not sure I understand this trend of squeezing more pixels into the same physical space. Have we suddenly evolved to have mega awesome eyes that can see individual pixels at 5 feet away? :wacko: Using my computer, netbook or phone I can't see the individual pixels unless my eyes are too close to the screen. Maybe I'm not understanding something but it seems like pointless number increases to me, much like camera megapixels.

The point is that breaking the 300 PPI barrier supposedly makes it nigh on impossible to see individual pixels, even at close range. For devices like tablets that are usually used pretty close up it will make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The point is that breaking the 300 PPI barrier supposedly makes it nigh on impossible to see individual pixels, even at close range. For devices like tablets that are usually used pretty close up it will make a difference.

On a smartphone or tablet it definitely makes sense and you can clearly see the difference. However, I'm using my 27-inch iMac at a comfortable 50 cm away and it already becomes increasingly hard to see the individual pixels. I have no doubt a "retina" iMac will be nicer, but the issue isn't as pressing as on - let's say - an iPhone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And we'll pay out the rear for it. I can't see a huge difference between my desktop running 1280*1024 (19" CRT) vs my laptop running 1366*768 (15.6"). Maybe it's my need for glasses that blinds me, or it's just a big marketing scam like most crap is.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It kills me to see really nice 27" computer displays running 1080p :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The standard should be 300ppi for mobile hardware (phones and tablets) and 150ppi for computers (laptops and desktops), considering you're usually not holding the second two close to your face so there's no need to push it as far as mobile devices go. Just think of the clear text and the eyes saved if this was to become a standard.

Right now I'm using a 24" LG @ 1080p, the pixel grid is visible from where I'm sitting if I lean just a bit towards it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The standard should be 300ppi for mobile hardware (phones and tablets) and 150ppi for computers (laptops and desktops), considering you're usually not holding the second two close to your face so there's no need to push it as far as mobile devices go. Just think of the clear text and the eyes saved if this was to become a standard.

Right now I'm using a 24" LG @ 1080p, the pixel grid is visible from where I'm sitting if I lean just a bit towards it.

I'd argue 330+ for mobile devices, 270+ for laptops, 200+ for desktop displays.

Currently I have:

iPhone 4: 960x640 @ 326ppi (and really good during normal operation)

Nexus 7: 1280x800 @ 216ppi (noticably lower than the iPhone) - this would be better in 330ppi range for day to day usage.

Thinkpad Edge 11: 1366x768 @ 135ppi (unacceptably low) - I would be very happy if this was in the 270ppi range for day to day usage.

Dell U2711: 2560x1440 @ 109ppi (low but marginally better than the Thinkpad) - it would be better if this was in the 200ppi range for day to day usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm more in line with these later opinions that understand PPI values should vary depending on device type. Resolution is not a simple matter of pixels and PPI. Anyone who establishes their opinion on display standards with just these two values does not understand display ergonomics.

At the lowest level, you want to begin with how far your eyes are from the screen. A smartphone, laptop, desktop, and television are all viewed at different distances--and even then, those distances aren't common for all people. You might sit comfortably anywhere from 1'-2.5' from your laptop display while doing work. Pixel density will have dramatically different effects depending on where you fall in this range.

Once you establish your comfort zone with displays, you need to determine which range of PPI values match it. That is, which PPIs make pixels indistinguishable at the high and low end of this zone (turn off font smoothing if you want to get really serious about it, but at that point you're going beyond what reality will ever throw at you--your choice). Hang on to these two values, because you can map these against the final cost of the display when you make your decision.

Now, take your preference for aspect ratio. Throw it away. It's meaningless. It doesn't matter. It's one of those things people take way too seriously and defend to the death with nothing but flawed anecdotal evidence and studies on FoV they don't even understand. What matters is perceived space. A 24" 16:9 display will have just as much physical vertical space as a 23" 16:10 display, and cost the same or less simply because 16:9 panels are in higher demand. It's not a matter of losing vertical space with 16:9--you're gaining horizontal space.

It's a lot easier to wrap your mind around if you give these two ratios a common denominator. It isn't about 16:10 vs. 16:9 (where the vertical value appears lower). It's 160:90 [16:9] vs. 144:90 [16:10]. This more accurately represents what you get for your dollar.

Now, ask yourself what the vertical height was of the 16:10 display you so fell in love with, and find out what diagonal length a 16:9 monitor has to be to have the same vertical height. Make this your minimum display size.

At this point, you know the physical size of the monitor you want, and the pixel densities to match. Congratulations, you have an informed opinion.

/my 16:9 27" 2560x1440 monitor lets me see more than your 1920x1200 16:10 display ever will, so come off it already. AR doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think he's right. It's kind of ridiculous to have a 1280x720 (and higher) screen res. on a 4.5" phone, yet have a laptop's 13" screen be only 1366x768px. Maybe the screens don't need to be 2560x1600, but at least have 1600x900 instead of 1366x768.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

/my 16:9 27" 2560x1440 monitor lets me see more than your 1920x1200 16:10 display ever will, so come off it already. AR doesn't matter.

The extra space on the top and bottom is useful for us that create and edit 16:9 content. Congratulations, you've completely missed the point of 16:10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The extra space on the top and bottom is useful for us that create and edit 16:9 content. Congratulations, you've completely missed the point of 16:10.

You're being snarky, but for making it to the bottom of my post, you completely missed the point.

Think, for a second, in terms of actual physical space: actual inches in the physical real world. A 23" 16:10 display gives you extra vertical space to work on 16:9 video, yes. But a 24" 16:9 display gives you the same extra vertical space, PLUS extra horizontal space, while the amount of actual physical space the video takes up on the screen is the same.

THAT is my point. Aspect ratio doesn't matter when the fact is a PHYSICALLY LARGER display is more affordable at 16:9 than 16:10. Let me actually draw a picture for you, because I think this is something people are genuinely having trouble making their brains process. Note that the attached picture is to compare the two aspect ratios where the video frame is given the exact same real-world physical space. You have the exact same space for the video frame, the exact same extra vertical space for editing controls, plus bonus extra horizontal space for whatever you desire, all on a monitor that costs the same price. You only lose the extra vertical work space if you decide to give the video frame more physical area, but at that point you'd need a physically even larger 16:10 display, which would add to the pricetag, and--guess what--a larger still 16:9 display will be available yet again at that same new higher price.

Entirely because of the effect TV panels are having on the cost of displays, it remains economically feasible to always just buy a LARGER 16:9 monitor that can contain the same work space as the smaller 16:10.

This is very, very simple math here. Middle school level stuff. Please, please tell me this isn't still going over your head.

/something to think about: for 2560px wide displays, 16:9 will run you $700, 16:10 will run you $1200. you can either pay $500 dollars for those extra 160px in height, or buy two of the 16:9 monitors. $1200 for 2560x1600, or $1400 for 5120x1440. I would rather buy two slightly shorter displays than be punished with a 50% markup per pixel for one slightly taller display. In pure economical feasibility, telling yourself that 16:10 is the "better choice" is downright lunacy.

post-10281-0-84041300-1351972610.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is very, very simple math here. Middle school level stuff. Please, please tell me this isn't still going over your head.

It's not about math, it feels unwieldy and doesn't work. You're missing the human element here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Linus is most wise.

We should be using Star Trek-like screens by now. ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's not about math, it feels unwieldy and doesn't work. You're missing the human element here.

Hang on here. I'm going into extreme detail to communicate my point of view, and all you're going to do is throw out a subjective remark like "it feels unwieldy" and conclude that it therefore "doesn't work"?

I see once you decide to believe something, you completely shut yourself off to even processing contradictory information. Can you even explain why it "doesn't work"? Or do you just say things and expect to be right by virtue of Having Spoken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hang on here. I'm going into extreme detail to communicate my point of view, and all you're going to do is throw out a subjective remark like "it feels unwieldy" and conclude that it therefore "doesn't work"?

I see once you decide to believe something, you completely shut yourself off to even processing contradictory information. Can you even explain why it "doesn't work"? Or do you just say things and expect to be right by virtue of Having Spoken?

Your point of view is nonsense, extreme detail, or otherwise. If it doesn't take you 5 seconds to realize the practical benefits of using a 16:10 monitor to edit 16:9 frames, then you're just dense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

16x10 is an obsolete aspect ratio.

16:9 is a **** ratio for computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.