Jump to content



Photo

Linus Torvalds: 2560x1600 Needs To Be Next Standard


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#31 CJEric

CJEric

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,243 posts
  • Joined: 04-December 01

Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:52

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


#32 .Neo

.Neo

    Generic User

  • 17,467 posts
  • Joined: 14-September 05
  • Location: Amsterdam, NL
  • OS: OS X Mavericks
  • Phone: iPhone 5s

Posted 03 November 2012 - 13:43

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

#33 giantpotato

giantpotato

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,133 posts
  • Joined: 27-January 04
  • Location: Montreal, Canada

Posted 03 November 2012 - 14:02

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.

#34 .Neo

.Neo

    Generic User

  • 17,467 posts
  • Joined: 14-September 05
  • Location: Amsterdam, NL
  • OS: OS X Mavericks
  • Phone: iPhone 5s

Posted 03 November 2012 - 14:08

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.

#35 seta-san

seta-san

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,337 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 05

Posted 03 November 2012 - 14:19

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.

#36 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • 5,874 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 03 November 2012 - 14:26

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.

#37 .Neo

.Neo

    Generic User

  • 17,467 posts
  • Joined: 14-September 05
  • Location: Amsterdam, NL
  • OS: OS X Mavericks
  • Phone: iPhone 5s

Posted 03 November 2012 - 14:43

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.

#38 Kreuger

Kreuger

    Neowin's Local Grouch

  • 5,843 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 03
  • Location: Ontario, Canada

Posted 03 November 2012 - 14:44

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.

#39 Rudy

Rudy

    Neowinian Senior

  • 22,387 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 01
  • Location: Ottawa, On

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:36

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

#40 Syanide

Syanide

    From here to infirmary.

  • 4,134 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 03
  • Location: /home

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:49

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.

#41 Fahim S.

Fahim S.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,927 posts
  • Joined: 15-April 02
  • OS: Windows 8 - OG
  • Phone: Google Nexus 4 16GB by LG

Posted 03 November 2012 - 17:31

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.

#42 Joshie

Joshie

    Wandering NPC

  • 4,693 posts
  • Joined: 01-March 02
  • Location: Seattle, WA

Posted 03 November 2012 - 19:09

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.

#43 KRazpopov

KRazpopov

    Neowinian

  • 486 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 10
  • Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro
  • Phone: Samsung Omnia 7

Posted 03 November 2012 - 19:16

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.

#44 Laslow

Laslow

    ...

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 03

Posted 03 November 2012 - 19:28

/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.

#45 Joshie

Joshie

    Wandering NPC

  • 4,693 posts
  • Joined: 01-March 02
  • Location: Seattle, WA

Posted 03 November 2012 - 20:01

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.

Attached Images

  • 16-10vs9.png




Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!