- Jun 6, 2007
- 794
- 0
- 0
Finally, PPI in monitors improve (slightly)
- Thread starter epidemis
- Start date
crisium
Platinum Member
- Aug 19, 2001
- 2,643
- 615
- 136
Still want 1440 at 24-inch. This monitor is even higher PPI, but 32-inches is massive. Too massive.
He's too stubborn, let's not invite him here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220
3840x2400 @ 22.2 inches over a decade ago. But he denies that even 2560x1440 @ 23 or 24 inches will ever exist? 4K will return there eventually, let alone 2560.
He's too stubborn, let's not invite him here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220
3840x2400 @ 22.2 inches over a decade ago. But he denies that even 2560x1440 @ 23 or 24 inches will ever exist? 4K will return there eventually, let alone 2560.
Last edited:
Interesting. I've stated that I want 4k and higher resolution from the get-go -- You're the one using a low resolution TN panel, not me. I use a 2560x1600 monitor and have for a long time, maybe you weren't paying attention but my entire point was: Your assertion that gamers, HDTV users, and enthusiasts and HDTV users want smaller screens (such as a 23 inch 4k monitor) was absurd and still is absurd. Gamers and HDTV users want bigger screens. Not smaller ones. Not tiny 22 inch ones. What are the sizes of the monitors and TVs announced from CES? 30 inches, 32 inches, 50 inches, 60 inches, and 84 inches. Where's your 23 inch panel? Oh yeah. I forgot. That mythical 23 inch 2560x1600 monitor that you hyped up so much won't exist and still doesn't exist.
I think you can see from the CES announcements that all the screens are 30 inches are larger. High PPI makes a lot of sense for handheld mobile devices because you hold them inches from your face and the screens are small. They also make a lot of sense for ultrabooks and the ilk. As you can obviously see from the announced devices, the demand is for larger screens. 300 PPI does not make sense for something that you view from 3 feet away, and if you do the calcuations you will find that a 32 inch 3840x2160 Ultra HD monitor is actually nearly the same PPI as a 27 inch 2560x1440 monitor (137 vs 110). So there goes your argument, I guess.
Again. I'm not sure why i'm discussing this with you as you apparently can't pay attention but, i'll say it again:
1) I want higher PPI and resolution just like you do.
2) The market wants bigger screens (EXCEPT FOR MOBILE DEVICES). Not smaller ones.
3) You need to get this through your head:
A) High 300+ PPI makes sense for handheld devices because they're inches small and you hold them 2 inches from your face
B) 300+ PPI will not happen in the enthusiast sector (ie HDTV, Desktop monitor) because you sit 2-20 feet away from the screen. Therefore you don't need 300+ PPI, nor would it be feasible: 300 PPI on a 27 inch monitor requires 8k resolution. Is that going to happen? I think you know the answer.
3) Your assertion that enthusiasts and HDTV users want cheese 22 inch tiny screens with a 2560x1600 resolution is still absurd.
4) Enthusiasts want bigger. Not smaller. And as you can plainly see from the CES announcements, you were wrong.
5) All of the screens announced at CES were 30/32 inches for monitors, and 50 inches and up for ultra HD TVs.
I'm still waiting for your 23 inch 2560x1600 monitor. You're so eager to proclaim i'm wrong, but you entire argument was that the market demands smaller screens with high resolution. The market does demand that for handheld devices that are small because you hold them inches from your face. The market for enthusiasts is completely the opposite: they want bigger screens. On that point, you are wrong and apparently you weren't paying attention when I told you this - you can also view the products from CES and guess what. As I said, enthusiasts want larger screens. 30 inches+ for monitors and 50 inches+ for UltraHD TV's. Maybe you just need to search harder or create your own 23 inch 2560x1600 desktop monitor again. Apparently, you think enthusiasts love small 20 inch screens for their HDTVs and Desktop PCs.
Again, if you remember nothing from this, repeat after me:
Enthusiasts want bigger. Not smaller.
I still find your assertion that the biggest enthusiasts demand 20-23 inch screens to be hilarious. If you say so. That kind of crap makes sense for mobile because those devices are held 2-3 inches from your face. But it has no place for enthusiast level desktop screens or UltraHD TVs, in which you sit 2-20 feet away.
Last edited:
I cant be bothered to read all that.
You said it would never happen. High PPI was never going to happen especially 1600p in 24" Well looks like your wrong because they have a 22" 4k panel already. It took less than one week and CES to bring high PPI monitors of 150-200 ppi.
IBM released a 22 inch 4k panel 7 years ago if I recall correctly, and most of the models were monochrome with a 30hz limit. Yeah okay pal, use that as the basis of your argument. Oh, nevermind the price tag of 40,000$ US. I also never said that higher PPI would never happen. I said that your mass market 23 inch 2560x1600 panel wouldn't happen. I said that enthusiasts don't demand smaller screens, they demand larger ones for desktop and HDTV use (IE NON MOBILE). And, it hasn't: look at all the of the desktop and HDTV panels announced at CES. They're tailored to enthusiasts and are large screens.
Repeat after me:
1) Mobile users need 250+ PPI because you hold these small devices 2 inches from your face.
2) Enthusiasts, on the other hand, want larger screens. Ultra HD TV users want larger screens. Hardcore gamers want larger screens.
3) A 30/32 inch 3840x2160 panel isn't 150-200 ppi. The PPI isn't much different than a 27 inch 2560x1440 panel. Hilarious how that works, huh?
All of that aside, I want higher resolution and higher PPI just like you. What we disagree on is what the market wants: you should understand that 300 PPI devices makes sense for handheld, but that is not what the enthusiast market is seeking. Consider that 250 PPI on a 27 inch screens requires nearly an 8k resolution. Now you tell me: is that going to happen? I'll let you mull this question and figure it out.
Your assertion is that the enthusiast market for HDTVs and desktop monitors wants a 20 to 23 inch screen. I believe that to be nonsense - enthusiasts are willing to spend more for quality, and more often than not want larger screens. 4k resolution is going to be great but I don't see anyone using a 23 inch as the center of the high end gaming rig.
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind that myself: apparently OLED is fantastic in this respect. I don't think OLED is ready for prime time, though.
Who's talking about a 10 year old IBM. I'm talking about CES last week. There is a 4k 22inch panel from Panasonic going in a tablet. Just admit when you wrong. You said it would never happen and it has. Not every one wants a 32 inch screen on their desk. I don't want any bigger than 27 personally because I use 2 screens.
I sort of disagree with blackened here. There is a line where large turns into too large. If all people wanted would be large displays, we would be gaming with beamers, and full HD ones have been around for the better part of this millenium.
Also, before mass market TN screens happened, most of us were already owners of 19" or 21" CRTs which we traded mostly for 15"-17" flatscreens. 24" CRTs were selling for half the price of 19" TFTs back then until most companies stopped selling them alltogether. Picture quality won against size before...
Also, before mass market TN screens happened, most of us were already owners of 19" or 21" CRTs which we traded mostly for 15"-17" flatscreens. 24" CRTs were selling for half the price of 19" TFTs back then until most companies stopped selling them alltogether. Picture quality won against size before...
Zstream
Diamond Member
- Oct 24, 2005
- 3,395
- 277
- 136
it was never about picture quality or size. It was about form factor. People did not want heavy, bulky, hot screens anymore.
I still have my first (15") TFT on the attic, in retrospect it was horrible. Needed an external power brick, had low resolution and brightness, wasn't that compact with >1" bezel on all sides and it was ugly as a turkey. The only redeeming feature was its ergonomics - also the reason why I bought it back then.
At least in my area noone bought them for their form factor as they all were grey plastic boxes with huge bezels in a time where CRTs went with black cases, shiny buttons on the front and blindingly high brightness settings. Perhaps you forgot how horrible early TFTs were.
At least in my area noone bought them for their form factor as they all were grey plastic boxes with huge bezels in a time where CRTs went with black cases, shiny buttons on the front and blindingly high brightness settings. Perhaps you forgot how horrible early TFTs were.
Grooveriding
Diamond Member
- Dec 25, 2008
- 9,147
- 1,329
- 126
Want one. But if pricing on some of the screens where I work that support these resolutions is anything to go on.. I won't be getting one.
Expecting these to go for over $5000.
Expecting these to go for over $5000.
We're talking about desktop, bigscreen and HDTV displays and you bring up a mobile tablet display. The panasonic device is a tablet being designed for medical and scientific use, is 20 inches, and will also cost well over 2000$ US. This screen you refer to is a mobile device, it isn't a desktop screen -- We aren't talking about mobile devices. This is hilarious because I knew you would do this.
Pay attention: I know this is tough for you:
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ENTHUSIAST, DESKTOP, AND HDTV SCREENS
NOT MOBILE AND, NOT A PHONE, NOT A TABLET SCREEN
I repeat again: I never said that higher PPI would never happen. I said that your mass market 23 inch 2560x1600 panel wouldn't happen. I said that enthusiasts don't demand smaller screens, they demand larger ones for desktop and HDTV use (IE NON MOBILE). And, it hasn't: look at all the of the desktop and HDTV panels announced at CES. They're tailored to enthusiasts and are large screens.
In our discussion of desktop screens, keep trying to skew the discussion with tablet and mobile devices. That is a different market with different demands.
Last edited:
Are you kidding? CRTs became obsolete because they were hot, heavy, huge pieces of junk. I had a 19 inch Trinitron which probably weighed 40 pounds; It was nice for its time but when you have an LCD that takes up 5 times less room, weights 10 times less, and has better picture quality, what do you think will happen.
Aren't you trying to defend your point a bit too hard? Early TFTs had fairly thick glass panes, were mounted in metal frames on metal reinforced stands (no, I'm not kidding) and thus 17" ones were still around 20 pounds without the power brick.
They were getting quite hot as well. My old Syncmaster 21" CRT was ~60 Watts back then, my 15" Medion (can't remember the model) TFT still needed a 12V/3A brick (35-40W at the wall).
TFTs did not win in companies because of their 'sleek' aesthetics, shoddy reliability (in comparison, back then) or slight power reduction. They won thanks to ergonomics alone and only then was the price dropping enough to make them viable for consumers.
They were getting quite hot as well. My old Syncmaster 21" CRT was ~60 Watts back then, my 15" Medion (can't remember the model) TFT still needed a 12V/3A brick (35-40W at the wall).
TFTs did not win in companies because of their 'sleek' aesthetics, shoddy reliability (in comparison, back then) or slight power reduction. They won thanks to ergonomics alone and only then was the price dropping enough to make them viable for consumers.
Oddly enough, screen sizes became much larger once LCDs became the norm. Anyway, the entire point is what the market demands for enthusiasts versus what the market for mobile devices demands.
Extremely high PPI matters quite a bit for handheld mobile devices because they are small 3 to 5 inch screens which you hold a mere inches from your face; By contrast, a desktop or HDTV screen is viewed from 2 to 20 feet away.
I've stated all along that i'm all for higher PPI and higher resolution devices. What myself and FX1 disagree on is what the market wants: he says that the market wants smaller screens for enthusiast and desktop displays. That isn't true: and as you can see from the CES announcements, all of the announced 4k screens for desktop and enthusiast use are large screens. Hardcore gamers, enthusiasts, and home theater nuts without exception want larger screens with higher resolution and faster refresh rates - they absolutely do not want smaller screens for anything outside of their mobile devices.
His mere exception (the panasonic tablet that he mentioned) is a mobile tablet display. We aren't talking about mobile devices, that is an entirely different market with different demands. Again, 300 PPI makes sense there because the devices are held so close to the eye. 300 PPI is not feasible on a desktop monitor - I'll ask you the same question, do you think the 8k required resolution for 250 ppi on a 27 inch screen will happen? I think you know the answer. That kind of PPI isn't necessary for a desktop, HDTV or enthusiast display. It is required for mobile devices.
Extremely high PPI matters quite a bit for handheld mobile devices because they are small 3 to 5 inch screens which you hold a mere inches from your face; By contrast, a desktop or HDTV screen is viewed from 2 to 20 feet away.
I've stated all along that i'm all for higher PPI and higher resolution devices. What myself and FX1 disagree on is what the market wants: he says that the market wants smaller screens for enthusiast and desktop displays. That isn't true: and as you can see from the CES announcements, all of the announced 4k screens for desktop and enthusiast use are large screens. Hardcore gamers, enthusiasts, and home theater nuts without exception want larger screens with higher resolution and faster refresh rates - they absolutely do not want smaller screens for anything outside of their mobile devices.
His mere exception (the panasonic tablet that he mentioned) is a mobile tablet display. We aren't talking about mobile devices, that is an entirely different market with different demands. Again, 300 PPI makes sense there because the devices are held so close to the eye. 300 PPI is not feasible on a desktop monitor - I'll ask you the same question, do you think the 8k required resolution for 250 ppi on a 27 inch screen will happen? I think you know the answer. That kind of PPI isn't necessary for a desktop, HDTV or enthusiast display. It is required for mobile devices.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter