Reasons for monitor resolution lagging?

[Chaoticlusts]

Hey all

This has been spoken about for a while but with CES and such recently it's come to a point that is somewhat ridiculous.

So...A while back we had mobiles go 'retina' and have huge PPI, shortly after that we had tablets start heading in that direction followed up by the first laptop last year and with CES showing dozens of TV's at 4K (although they don't quite count due to price just yet) also mobile phones hitting 1080p on a 5" screen and the 4K 20" tablet (which is a ridiculous product ) exactly why are we stuck at 1200p/1080p for screens below 27"?

When it was just mobiles I assumed maybe the tech didn't scale well so a monitor would be prohibitively expensive, tablets brought it a little closer..the 15" macbook a step closer still and the cost of the screen on that can't be too high considering the price of the entire device and apples markup.

I bought my main desktop monitor about 6 years ago now and while there are definitely nicer ones out nowdays (better colour gamut, contrast and refresh rate) they aren't actually that much nicer which is a massive timeframe for technology to have only improved incrementally.

I'm not posting to whine 'why isn't this here yet wtf' I'm actually genuinely asking people with more tech knowledge of manufacturing processes than I have if there is any reason outside of marketing that we haven't gotten them yet (because if there is I guess that might give some indication on when they could be expected).

I do understand graphics cards would choke and die on 4K resolutions with games but I'd be perfectly happy with a 24" 1600P monitor (or hell even 1440P) although gaming isn't the only thing we use computers for and the higher PPI would be very lovely to have for day to day non gaming use ^_^

So anyone care to enlighten me? ^_^

*edit changed DPI to PPI *

 

[KingFatty]

I think there is some curve where you can plot the rejection rate of a panel vs number of pixels, and I think 1080p is a sweet spot. Then, you can plot the market acceptance of a panel vs number of pixels and I think 1080p is also a sweet spot (put price in there somehow too, probably a function of rejection rate and market acceptance due to volume).

So it's a compromise, and I dislike it because I prefer 16:10 over 16:9.

 

[UaVaj]

until quad sli or quad cf can run bf3 with all the eye candy on triple monitor at 7680x1440 with minimum 60 fps.

1080p is where it needs to be. (900p might be more realistic)

-----

in other word. until the hardware can run the software in full surround with minimum 60fps.

1080p is pushing it. (900p is perhap the sweet spot)

 

[BrightCandle]

Laptops, Mobiles and tablets got high PPI screens because they need them. Its not the PPI that matters its the pixels per degree. Humans can only resolve a certain number of pixels per degree. PCs have had near retina levels for a long time due to their viewing distance and with HD TVs the average TV is well past that quality level and normal viewing distance.

So it turns out that we don't need much of a bump in the desktop monitor space to get to the level of PPD necessary to compete with what is the current PPD in the mobiles and tablets.

The move to so many cheap 1080p screens has been detrimental to PPD in general but the 16:10 screens when selected at their lowest size for a particular resolution are about 80% of retina PPD.

 

[Chaoticlusts]

Thanx for the responses ^_^

I think there is some curve where you can plot the rejection rate of a panel vs number of pixels, and I think 1080p is a sweet spot. Then, you can plot the market acceptance of a panel vs number of pixels and I think 1080p is also a sweet spot (put price in there somehow too, probably a function of rejection rate and market acceptance due to volume).

So it's a compromise, and I dislike it because I prefer 16:10 over 16:9.

Yeah I must say I prefer 16:10 as well even though it means letterboxing when watching TV/Movies, for every other usage aspect the extra height is very nice.

So in theory if it's just rejection rate and marketting then it could change rather rapidly if someone decided there was enough demand for it (unless there's an exponential raise in rejection rate past a certain point).

until quad sli or quad cf can run bf3 with all the eye candy on triple monitor at 7680x1440 with minimum 60 fps.

1080p is where it needs to be. (900p might be more realistic)

-----

in other word. until the hardware can run the software in full surround with minimum 60fps.

1080p is pushing it. (900p is perhap the sweet spot)

Like I said gaming isn't the prime focus of this. I've been a gamer for my entire life but I use my computer for numerous different things gaming is just one of them. Current cards can happily run 1440P, eyefinity is rather specific only works for some games and adds problems a lot of people don't want..besides if you can afford 3 identical good monitors with small bezels then you can afford an SLI/Xfire rig to run them ^_^. Plus you could also run non native when gaming(I know that's got some big downsides too)

Laptops, Mobiles and tablets got high PPI screens because they need them. Its not the PPI that matters its the pixels per degree. Humans can only resolve a certain number of pixels per degree. PCs have had near retina levels for a long time due to their viewing distance and with HD TVs the average TV is well past that quality level and normal viewing distance.

So it turns out that we don't need much of a bump in the desktop monitor space to get to the level of PPD necessary to compete with what is the current PPD in the mobiles and tablets.

The move to so many cheap 1080p screens has been detrimental to PPD in general but the 16:10 screens when selected at their lowest size for a particular resolution are about 80% of retina PPD.

I looked up some PPD stuff, there seems to be a huge amount of debate on the exacts of it but even based on the lower estimates desktop screens are lagging behind (unless you sit quite a distance from your screen or have sub-average eyesight). If I'm reading what you've said correctly you agree, but similarly we're not too far off, I guess I maybe 'suffering' (Yey first world problems ) from having quite good eyesight, between my phone and my laptop/tablet hybrid they both are much noticeably higher fidelity displays than my desktop and while obviously I use my phone a lot closer my laptop isn't necessarily that much closer than my desktop monitor, so they kind of rub it in that while I'd like to upgrade my monitor I currently don't have the option (aside from $10,000+ industrial use screens but they don't count ).

Again thanx for responses I'll just sit back and wait another year, hope next years CES at least shows off a few even if they're outside reasonable price-ranges that's usually the indication that they aren't too far away. Could always get a 20% or so increase in density by jumping to a 1440P 27" display ^_^

 

[VirtualLarry]

I don't know if my eyes are going as I get older, but I picked up an Acer Aspire One 722 11.6" Netbook, with a 1366x768 screen. I liked it. But then I picked up an Asus X401A, with a 14" 1366x768 screen, and I like it more. Now when I use the 11.6" screen for a while, it kind of makes my head hurt.

What I'm trying to say is, I'm not certain that a higher PPI display is necessarily good for you. At least not until we get windows DPI scaling working properly.

 

[Chaoticlusts]

I don't know if my eyes are going as I get older, but I picked up an Acer Aspire One 722 11.6" Netbook, with a 1366x768 screen. I liked it. But then I picked up an Asus X401A, with a 14" 1366x768 screen, and I like it more. Now when I use the 11.6" screen for a while, it kind of makes my head hurt.

What I'm trying to say is, I'm not certain that a higher PPI display is necessarily good for you. At least not until we get windows DPI scaling working properly.

Yeah without the UI supporting it you can easily end up with a display that leads to eyestrain. Since my distance from the screen varies a lot I have grown to love font size hotkeys ^_^ There are a few ways too adjust settings so everything is larger although obviously it's hit and miss for different software (perfect example I guess would be going back to 90's games and hacking the resolution too 1920x1200 you can barely make out the UI since it was never designed to scale beyond 1024x768)

My current laptop is 13" and 1600x900 I've found that quite a nice resolution so far (haven't had it long though so there's still a lot of things I haven't tried with it) but again I have quite good eye sight and hell if you find a lower res more appealing to your eyes then that's great for you ^_^ cheaper products lower requirements etc all positives