Jump to content



Photo

Linus Torvalds: 2560x1600 Needs To Be Next Standard


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#16 zivan56

zivan56

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,389 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 01
  • Location: Vancouver, BC

Posted 03 November 2012 - 05:30

I was looking to replace my old 24' MVA LCD (1920x1200) from 2007ish with something higher res when the power supply died. I saw 27' consumer LCDs (not a TV) and they are lower resolution than my old 24'...even 24' LCDs are lower res (1920x1080). Also, the current MVA panels look worse than my 24'...ended up paying someone to fix it as there was nothing with a reasonable price tag to replace it.


#17 moloko

moloko

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 02

Posted 03 November 2012 - 05:56

Why stop there? I want 4K resolution on my laptop and at least 1080p on my thermostat.

right now this cannot happen because of battery life. Wait a few years.

25x16 sounds like great for tablets if they can keep battery life at 10 hours. That should be the standard.

#18 tiagosilva29

tiagosilva29

    Looking for a job in Lisbon

  • 12,231 posts
  • Joined: 08-May 04

Posted 03 November 2012 - 09:14

Why stop there? I want 4K resolution on my laptop and at least 1080p on my thermostat.

4K is too mainstream. 8K is the way to go.

#19 vetFourjays

Fourjays

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,013 posts
  • Joined: 09-September 05
  • Location: Staffordshire, UK

Posted 03 November 2012 - 09:55

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.

#20 Arceles

Arceles

    Time Craymel

  • 2,101 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 09
  • Location: 4th dimmension.
  • OS: Win 7 Ultimate / Win 8.1 Pro (With Start Menu Start8, otherwise is UNUSABLE) / Android 4.1.2 Jelly Bean
  • Phone: XT890 Motorola RAZRi (x86 processor)

Posted 03 November 2012 - 10:03

I changed my laptop's screen from 720p to 1080p.... never going back, who ever tought 1366x768 screens are good... is plain wrong, even I prefer 1280x800.

#21 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • 19,527 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 03 November 2012 - 10:48

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.


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

#22 Fahim S.

Fahim S.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,051 posts
  • Joined: 15-April 02
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Update 1 / Chrome OS 37
  • Phone: Google Nexus 4

Posted 03 November 2012 - 11:08

I am not sure that he is saying 2560x1600 needs to be the next standard but that 300ppi+ should be the minimum requirement.
And I agree with him.

#23 InsaneNutter

InsaneNutter

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,827 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03
  • Location: Yorkshire, England
  • OS: Win 8.1, OSX 10.10 & Ubuntu
  • Phone: OnePlus One

Posted 03 November 2012 - 11:08

Unless anything has changed things just break when you try and scale things up in a desktop environment, I'm personally happy with 1440x900 on my 13" ultrabook... i dont think i would gain anything by having a stupidly high resolution, things might look a bit sharper and thats it.

#24 thommcg

thommcg

    Neowinian

  • 1,235 posts
  • Joined: 23-November 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 11:14

... things might look a bit sharper and thats it.

Well, yeah, kinda the point :)

#25 moloko

moloko

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 02

Posted 03 November 2012 - 11:22

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.


Look at the ipad2 and new ipad, there is a real difference in view photos. I am sure looking at say a transformer to a N10 and there again will be a huge difference in how a photo looks.

#26 vetFourjays

Fourjays

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,013 posts
  • Joined: 09-September 05
  • Location: Staffordshire, UK

Posted 03 November 2012 - 11:43

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.

#27 +TruckWEB

TruckWEB

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,542 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 01
  • Location: Quebec, Canada

Posted 03 November 2012 - 11:55

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.

#28 francescob

francescob

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,341 posts
  • Joined: 04-November 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:37

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.

#29 spenser.d

spenser.d

    Neowinian Senior

  • 11,114 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 03

Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:41

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

#30 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • 19,527 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:42

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.