Forget Anti Aliasing - Where is PPI

[JAG87]

Actually, I did mention this. The PPI may be similar but 2560x1600 has double the pixels so the detail is signifigantly better. I guess you have to see it to appreciate it, obviously some here haven't seen it. 2560x1600 on a 23 inch screen is a fantasy and is not happening anytime soon for desktop monitors, feel free to look at LG and samsung's lineup for 2013.

I'm not sure what your idea of soon is, but I don't give a shit about the 2013 line up. It will happen right around the time 4K starts pushing it's way into mass produced TVs, which is probably around 2014-2015. I still consider that soon, it's not like we're talking 10 years from now.

You can argue about how great iOS is but the fact of the matter is, that resolution is not usable for windows environments at that size, period.

I SUPPOSE you can make it usable in windows 8 with 7 inch by 7 inch tiles, but it is completely unusable in any windows version prior to that. Since windows 8 isn't liked by the vast majority of desktop users, you can see why panel makers would be hesitant to create such a product. Nevermind the fact that 99% of users don't have a GPU capable of supporting 2560x1600.

For now. Just like OSX has a scaling algorithm, windows will have one too in the future. People aren't going to use low PPI monitors in 2050 you know, and fonts aren't going to become microscopic, so microsoft will come up with an algorithm to render everything internally at higher resolution and scale down, just like OSX does for the retina displays.

 

[blackened23]

I'm not sure what your idea of soon is, but I don't give a shit about the 2013 line up. It will happen right around the time 4K starts pushing it's way into mass produced TVs, which is probably around 2014-2015.

I still consider that soon, it's not like we're talking 10 years from now.

Okay, let's back up here. Let me be clear in that i'm greatly looking forward to ultra HD and 4k2 monitors/TVs. I will be the first in line to buy such a product. I don't disagree with you that this needs to happen sooner rather than later.

I am all for higher PPI, pushing pixels and higher resolutions. However, I strongly disagree that the _gaming_ industry is trying to push smaller screens. That is definitely not the case. For the mass market, gamers want big screens. They do not want tiny 13/15 inch screens. So while that is suitable for mobile (ie macbook) users, it is not what the gaming market wants. Furthermore, the next gen consoles are still targetting 1080p with higher detail so that will have a "trickle down" effect on PC gaming as well. (I don't like this, but it will happen - i'd much prefer games take advantage of PC hardware rather than console hardware)

 

[Fx1]

Let's review:

1) FX1 complains about 8x MSAA causing a performance loss.

2) FX1 then suggests that "higher PPI" and 2560x1600 would have less performance loss than 8x MSAA.

Reading these first 2 ridiculous arguments presented by you should clue anyone in as to who's "spouting crap". Argument #2 is not remotely close to being accurate.

Let's keep going:

FX1 then apparently wants a 23 inch monitor crafted just for himself, because, you know, he wants a 23 inch 2560x1600 screen so that he won't notice aliasing 2560x1600 is great! but it can't be 30 because then he will notice aliasing. And his 460s can't handle AA.

FX1 goes on to state that the gaming industry wants smaller screens. Guess what. That isn't true. The next gen consoles are all using 1080p @ 30 fps with higher detail. Furthermore, high resolution screens are great, i'm all for it. But suggesting that this is where gaming is headed is just lunacy because that is not the case.

I guess LG is going to make a 23 inch 2560x1600 screen just for you, so that you won't notice aliasing. By the way, higher resolution doesn't eliminate aliasing (anyone who has used a 2560x1600 screen will testify to this, obviously YOU haven't used a u3011 or anything of the like). Of the people here who own u3011s (including myself) they all know that AA is still necessary. You still see jaggies. And no, the industry is going to tailor design a 23 inch screen just so you don't see aliasing. Gamers want bigger. Not smaller.

You are literally to stupid to insult. You clearly dont understand my point "By the way, higher resolution doesn't eliminate aliasing (anyone who has used a 2560x1600 screen will testify to this" - This proves it all.

Just for the record i dont use 8xMSAA i dont even use 2xMSAA in Far Cry 3.

I still use my 460 GTX SLI setup because im looking to start a new build from the ground up. I was planning on Haswell but it looks delayed if you believe the rumours. No point in spending on the 670 GTX SLI i wanted until i upgrade the i7 950 which has become unstable at 4ghz. No point upgrading to 670 GTX if the 780 GTX will be out when the new CPU lands in Q2.

Quite frankly id want a high PPI monitor in my new build rather than the boring 130 PPI monitors that are for sale today. You clearly dont understand the reasons why so please just piss off.

Re: "You are literally to stupid to insult", please find other ways to get your point across instead of personally insulting people.

Super Moderator BFG10K.

 

[JAG87]

Okay, let's back up here. Let me be clear in that i'm greatly looking forward to ultra HD and 4k2 monitors/TVs. I will be the first in line to buy such a product.

The OP made the argument that gamers want smaller screens with higher PPI. Since consoles aren't targetting that, and most gamers want big screens - that is where my point of contention lies. Gamer's dont' want small. Mobile users (ie MACBOOK PRO USERS) want small.

Well never mind what he said about wanting smaller screens. That's silly. Although everyone does have a different threshold, and I myself stepped down from a 30" to a 27" just to enjoy the higher PPI. But I wouldn't go below 27", as I feel it's too small. But someone else might not, my GF for example hated the 27" thunderbolt display when I put it on her desk the first day. She was coming off a 22" Dell, and the 27" was "too big". I was like, WTF do you mean too big, it's what you had before that was too small. So you see, different strokes for different folk.

But the demand for higher PPI is there, you know it's there.

 

[blackened23]

edit: dp

 

[Fx1]

Okay, let's back up here. Let me be clear in that i'm greatly looking forward to ultra HD and 4k2 monitors/TVs. I will be the first in line to buy such a product. I don't disagree with you that this needs to happen sooner rather than later.

I am all for higher PPI, pushing pixels and higher resolutions. However, I strongly disagree that the _gaming_ industry is trying to push smaller screens. That is definitely not the case. For the mass market, gamers want big screens. They do not want tiny 13/15 inch screens. So while that is suitable for mobile (ie macbook) users, it is not what the gaming market wants. Furthermore, the next gen consoles are still targetting 1080p with higher detail so that will have a "trickle down" effect on PC gaming as well. (I don't like this, but it will happen - i'd much prefer games take advantage of PC hardware rather than console hardware)

YET AGAIN OMFG!?

No one says we want 13/15" gaming monitors JESUS CHRIST. Are you mentally handicapped or something? Where does this crap come from???

Do you just make stuff up to support your very badly thought out and poorly structured argument.

 

[Fx1]

Yeah, obviously 2560x1600 doesn't require anti aliasing. Guess what? you're the only one here who hasn't used a 30 inch 2560x1600 screen. Everyone on this forum who owns a 2560x1600 screen will assuredly tell you that AA is still necessary. I know I own a u3011, and groove does as well. Many others i'm missing i'm sure.

AA is still necessary. But with all of your scientific data and the fact that you don't have a 2560x1600 monitor, apparently AA isn't needed. If you say so pal.

LET ME EXPLAIN THIS IN A SIMPLE WAY FOR YOU OK?

"If you increase ppi you reduce the visibility of aliasing."

This is why you put 2560x1600 in a 22" screen and not a 30" one.

Do you understand the words "PIXELS PER INCH" ???

 

[blackened23]

YET AGAIN OMFG!?

No one says we want 13/15" gaming monitors JESUS CHRIST. Are you mentally handicapped or something?

How mad are you ?

 

[kache]

you can already get 30" 2560x1600 monitors. thats about as big as they need to be on a desk.

Increased strain? Seriously i thought this was an enthusiasts forum.

I can fit a 56" on the desk just fine, thank you.

And yeah, the performance hit wouldn't be worth the advantages. While we are enthusiasts (although, I suppose not all people on the forums are) we don't waste resources, we invest them. :whiste::biggrin:

 

[Fx1]

How mad are you right now ? :whiste:

Id prefer to be irritated for a few minutes by reading your crap than have to live with your issues for life like you must do.

Samsung and Toshiba made a 1800p 15" screen for Apple. Did you see that on their product plans?

I think its likely we will see 2160p screens in 27" monitors in the not so distant future. Quite frankly because its already happening.

EDIT i can also see you removing some of the stupid posts you make when you get found out.

 

[Fx1]

I can fit a 56" on the desk just fine, thank you.

And yeah, the performance hit wouldn't be worth the advantages. While we are enthusiasts (although, I suppose not all people on the forums are) we don't waste resources, we invest them. :whiste::biggrin:

I guess we should have just stayed with 800x600 screens then? obviously no benefit moving to HD at all.

 

[kache]

Holy crap, westinghouse:

The new Westinghouse lineup of UHDTV (also called 4k) displays feature the highest picture quality currently achievable in consumer-level video equipment at 3840 x 2160 pixels of resolution. This is double the resolution (both horizontally and vertically) of todays best 1080p HDTVs, or 4 times the number of pixels. In addition to conventionally sized 50-inch, 55-inch and 65-inch models with native 120 Hz refresh rates, the lineup will be spearheaded by an enormous 110-inch display that will literally put a theatrical experience into the home.

I hope there will be a hack to use that panel at 3840x2160@120hz!! :biggrin:

 

[Fx1]

Holy crap, westinghouse:

I hope there will be a hack to use that panel at 3840x2160@120hz!! :biggrin:

Seriously dude you dont need a monitor you need a TV.

 

[kache]

I guess we should have just stayed with 800x600 screens then? obviously no benefit moving to HD at all.

Well, 15" CRT were perfect at 800x600. I remember some of my friends were using theirs at 1600x1200, and for me was far too much. I was driving even my 17" CRT at 800x600. :biggrin:
When I moved to the 19" CRT I increased to 1024x768. :biggrin:

Anyway, can't wait for the 55"+ 4k displays, especially at 120hz. Those are gonna be my paradise. Big screens (=better immersion) and higher res (also scales perfectly to 1080p (2160/2) and 720p (2160/3) so no problems there either). :biggrin:

 

[kache]

Seriously dude you dont need a monitor you need a TV.

My current 27" 1080p monitor is fine, thank you very much.

 

[Fx1]

Well, 15" CRT were perfect at 800x600. I remember some of my friends were using theirs at 1600x1200, and for me was far too much. I was driving even my 17" CRT at 800x600. :biggrin:
When I moved to the 19" CRT I increased to 1024x768. :biggrin:

Anyway, can't wait for the 55"+ 4k displays, especially at 120hz. Those are gonna be my paradise. Big screens (=better immersion) and higher res (also scales perfectly to 1080p (2160/2) and 720p (2160/3) so no problems there either). :biggrin:

Glad your happy.

 

[Arkaign]

If you go about in the VC&G section telling people to piss off, that they must be mentally handicapped, and so on, you're going to end up with the banhammer. It's one thing to firmly disagree, it's quite another to resort to insults and outright hostility.

As for the topic, I think the final obstacle will be the dramatically higher GPU grunt we're going to need to make 4K @ 60fps feasible even with zero AA. And that's not even taking into account the more complex modeling and effects that will be coming down the pipe.

It'll happen, it will just take time. We'll probably see the screens well before we see the average PC anywhere near able to game at native 4K. Even high end PCs with $1k+ in current GPUs struggle a bit with 2560 in some respects with the most detailed games (ie Crysis w/mods, Metro, etc).

 

[Fx1]

If you go about in the VC&G section telling people to piss off, that they must be mentally handicapped, and so on, you're going to end up with the banhammer. It's one thing to firmly disagree, it's quite another to resort to insults and outright hostility.

As for the topic, I think the final obstacle will be the dramatically higher GPU grunt we're going to need to make 4K @ 60fps feasible even with zero AA. And that's not even taking into account the more complex modeling and effects that will be coming down the pipe.

It'll happen, it will just take time. We'll probably see the screens well before we see the average PC anywhere near able to game at native 4K. Even high end PCs with $1k+ in current GPUs struggle a bit with 2560 in some respects with the most detailed games (ie Crysis w/mods, Metro, etc).

Quite frankly if someone acted the way he does in person then he would be lucky to only get told to piss off.

He clearly comes into this thread just to crap all over the discussion.

9 out 10 on this thread openly discuss the topic with value and one person has a different objective.

Best part is that 5 pages into this thread he still doesn't understand PPI.

 

[blackened23]

Quite frankly if someone acted the way he does in person then he would be lucky to only get told to piss off.

LOL? Still mad.

He clearly comes into this thread just to crap all over the discussion.

I joined because your original argument was and still is wrong. Let's review your original statement:

It must be simpler to drive more pixels than figure out all the complicated algorithms to improve the image on current resolutions.

This statement is wrong. 1080p with more detail is far more efficient than doubling the pixel count to 2560x1600 (regardless of screen size). 2560x1600 will perform substantially worse, perhaps you forgot how you angled your original argument. Furthermore, as i'm sure you're aware, next gen gaming systems are still targetting 1080p at 30 fps. That will have a trickle down effect on PC games.

No matter how badly you want to believe otherwise, increasing the polygon count, AA, and detail at 1080p is more efficient than doubling the pixel count to a 2560 resolution. Two times the pixel count is far more demanding on a GPU than MSAA. Do I like this? No. Is this where gaming is headed due to consoles? Yes.

Best part is that 5 pages into this thread he still doesn't understand PPI.

I understand PPI just fine. It's a moot point because 2560x1600 will not exist on a 23 inch panel any time soon, pretty sure i've stated this 10 times. There is no demand for a desktop panel that isn't usable in windows - perhaps iOS/OSX can make that work but 2012 is the last year that apple will make the iMac. Obviously the current iMac uses a 27 inch 2560x1440 display, and the iMac will not be refreshed in 2013. The 2012 model is the last one that will be produced.

Second point, what you want is not what the average joe gamer wants. Higher PPI is great for mobile devices with an operating system specifically tailored to handle fonts in that manner. That is not what gamers want. Gamers want bigger screens, more detail, more pixels, and more polygons. Sorry, your assertion that every gamer wants a 23 inch screen at 2560 is wrong.

Higher resolution will happen. I want it to happen. Believe me, i'm anxious for 4k2 ultra HD monitors/TVs. But it won't happen on a cheese 23 inch panel like you're saying - 4k screens will be 50 inches or larger for TVs, and 30 inches or larger for the PC form factor.

 

[zebrax2]

While i do agree that high PPI displays would be good i doubt will see it eliminate AA anytime soon. 250+PPI requires greater than 4k for a 24 inch display which will probably be damn hard to drive even with future GPUs. As for games being playable remember though that we are held back by quite a while by consoles and by the time the next gen of console gets released next year i expect a resurgence of demanding games.

 

[moonbogg]

I still say give me a 30" 4k monitor, like right now. If I don't get it soon, then clearly the reason is because non of you understand PPI. What FX1? You want to go to WAR!?!? You wanna go to war with the BOGG?!?!? BF3. Name Moonbogg. Find me. I have yet to lose to a guy with a GTX 460. BOOM OWNED!

 

[Fx1]

LOL? Still mad.



I joined because your original argument was and still is wrong. Let's review your original statement:



This statement is wrong. 1080p with more detail is far more efficient than doubling the pixel count to 2560x1600 (regardless of screen size). 2560x1600 will perform substantially worse, perhaps you forgot how you angled your original argument. Furthermore, as i'm sure you're aware, next gen gaming systems are still targetting 1080p at 30 fps. That will have a trickle down effect on PC games.

No matter how badly you want to believe otherwise, increasing the polygon count, AA, and detail at 1080p is more efficient than doubling the pixel count to a 2560 resolution. Two times the pixel count is far more demanding on a GPU than MSAA. Do I like this? No. Is this where gaming is headed due to consoles? Yes.



I understand PPI just fine. It's a moot point because 2560x1600 will not exist on a 23 inch panel any time soon, pretty sure i've stated this 10 times. There is no demand for a desktop panel that isn't usable in windows - perhaps iOS/OSX can make that work but 2012 is the last year that apple will make the iMac. Obviously the current iMac uses a 27 inch 2560x1440 display, and the iMac will not be refreshed in 2013. The 2012 model is the last one that will be produced.

Second point, what you want is not what the average joe gamer wants. Higher PPI is great for mobile devices with an operating system specifically tailored to handle fonts in that manner. That is not what gamers want. Gamers want bigger screens, more detail, more pixels, and more polygons. Sorry, your assertion that every gamer wants a 23 inch screen at 2560 is wrong.

Higher resolution will happen. I want it to happen. Believe me, i'm anxious for 4k2 ultra HD monitors/TVs. But it won't happen on a cheese 23 inch panel like you're saying - 4k screens will be 50 inches or larger for TVs, and 30 inches or larger for the PC form factor.

I have seen the edited posts you wrote earlier that you removed. You are fooling nobody. You clearly don't understand the point and your incoherent babble of utter jibberish is tiring.

So the imac is discontinued in 2013? Is this another one of your so called facts? Last time I checked it was getting a big update in 2013 with possible retina display. Oh wait that would prove my point correct that people want high pixel density screens. I guess that's why you invented that bull crap about no more imacs.

Apple just put a retina display in both its mac book pros and it couldn't supply stock for 6 weeks on launch? Oh wait that's because nobody wanted to buy them?

 

[crisium]

I agree with the OP. I have a laptop that is 17.3 inches at 1920x1080. 27 inch 2560x1440 is a reduction in PPI compared to this. Now, because there are 75% more pixels you don't need quite as high PPI, true, but I would like to see a 24-inch 1440 monitor as it would be sharper and lesson the need for AA compared to a 27-inch 1440. I think they'll come eventually, either due to Apple Retina or 4k TVs. I'm so used to a small, sharp display, I would even love a 21.5 inch 1440 monitor. 17.3 inches is too small for long range FPS games, but I'm so used to it that even a 21.5 inch monitor seems like a huge improvement in size to me, but I do notice the inferior PPI on a 21.5 1080 display. Bring on the sub 27-inch 1440 - my body is ready.

 

[blackened23]

I still say give me a 30" 4k monitor, like right now. If I don't get it soon, then clearly the reason is because non of you understand PPI. What FX1? You want to go to WAR!?!? You wanna go to war with the BOGG?!?!? BF3. Name Moonbogg. Find me. I have yet to lose to a guy with a GTX 460. BOOM OWNED!

Its on. I'll even take a 4k monitor at 32 inches. I also haven't lost to anyone in bf3 with a 460

 

[BFG10K]

Fx1,

We’ve received multiple examples of you personally insulting people who don’t agree with you.

I infracted one post to get your attention, but I really can’t be bothered infracting the rest, so this is your lucky day.

Please find other ways to get your point across instead of personally insulting people.

Super Moderator BFG10K.