• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How 4 inch mobiles have resolution over 1k???Shocked

C

cool.dx.rip

Senior member
Todays modern mobiles normally have resolution like about 1024*768 or 1920*1080.But it is not possible in 18 inch monitor to get over 1366. or in 21 inch over 1920.How do they fit it in so small screens??
BYE
 
You are looking at some terrible monitors (or more commonly, laptop displays) if they don't have over 1366 x 768 resolution.

Cheaper monitors have low resolution because to keep costs down, but nearly all the good quality monitors have 1080p or higher now.
 
It's a lot cheaper to make a 300 pixel per inch screen that is 4-5 inches in size than it is to make a 300 pixel per inch screen that is 21 inches in size.
 
Crono said:
You are looking at some terrible monitors (or more commonly, laptop displays) if they don't have over 1366 x 768 resolution.

Cheaper monitors have low resolution because to keep costs down, but nearly all the good quality monitors have 1080p or higher now.
Click to expand...

People working for these companies should be executed for these resolutions. I remember my 14" laptop with 1400x1050 looked great. I can't believe we've gone backwards. Even with this whole retina push by Apple, we still have a lot of junk products out there.
 
DLeRium said:
People working for these companies should be executed for these resolutions. I remember my 14" laptop with 1400x1050 looked great. I can't believe we've gone backwards. Even with this whole retina push by Apple, we still have a lot of junk products out there.
Click to expand...

Meh, people want $300 laptops and $99 monitors.
 
DLeRium said:
People working for these companies should be executed for these resolutions. I remember my 14" laptop with 1400x1050 looked great. I can't believe we've gone backwards. Even with this whole retina push by Apple, we still have a lot of junk products out there.
Click to expand...

i have a dell from 2002 that runs 1920*1200 on a 15.4 inch i look at it and get sad at what happened to laptop screens
 
Its not that it's not possible, but it's not necessary to fit much pixel in a computer monitor. 1. hard to drive graphics at that resolution, 2. viewing distance of a computer monitor and mobile device is completely different.
 
DLeRium said:
People working for these companies should be executed for these resolutions. I remember my 14" laptop with 1400x1050 looked great. I can't believe we've gone backwards. Even with this whole retina push by Apple, we still have a lot of junk products out there.
Click to expand...

How much did you pay for that laptop?
 
Anubis said:
i have a dell from 2002 that runs 1920*1200 on a 15.4 inch i look at it and get sad at what happened to laptop screens
Click to expand...

I think you mean 1600x1200 as 1920 wasn't an option anywhere back then. I have always paid more to get the best displays possible and I had (still have actually) a Dell laptop of 2002 vintage and it's 1600x1200 -- the highest the offered.

I don't think we began to see 1920 much before about 2008 or so...

Also, making higher resolution displays isn't much more expensive than lower rez displays as they both require about the same number of process steps and occupy the same amount of the panel (area). Yield would be one factor affecting price and there would be some greater cost in the other electronics that go along with it but I doubt the net price difference for a the same sized panel at 1920x1080 versus 1280x720 is not much more than 10% and probably much less than that.


The development money seems to have been funneled into mobile displays for smartphones and tablets and the other displays for PC and laptops have stagnated.

I would love to have a 4K display now and would also love to have an 8K when those become available. Editing 36MP pictures and 500MP stitched images on a 55-65 inch 8K display would be sweet. Of course, it would be necessary to be able to color correct the display.

I've actually looked at the new Sony 4K TV and am hoping other get going soon and that a decent option develops for doing image editing with it -- again, so long as it can be color corrected and reasonably connected to my PC.


Brian
 
I used a 3840×2400 22" monitor in a research lab a decade ago. That's 204 ppi. Windows was nearly impossible to read on that thing. 😉

However, in general with current desktop OSes, 100ish ppi is usually fine, depending on the needs. That would be 1920x1200 in a 22" monitor (102 ppi). However, 200 ppi would be great if the OS (like OS X) could support it properly.
 
Eug said:
I used a 3840×2400 22" monitor in a research lab a decade ago. That's 204 ppi. Windows was nearly impossible to read on that thing. 😉

However, in general with current desktop OSes, 100ish ppi is usually fine, depending on the needs. That would be 1920x1200 in a 22" monitor (102 ppi). However, 200 ppi would be great if the OS (like OS X) could support it properly.
Click to expand...

Good point. So many people take the 720p monitors and run them at an even LOWER resolution to make the text bigger for their old eyes.
 
Computer monitors became an expendable item when PC manufacturers began looking for ways to cut costs.

The best selling monitors are 16:9 TN panels, which is the cheapest to manufacture. There's simply no demand from the consumer for a higher quality panel. Even with the rMBP, other manufactures are dragging their feet. That and the PC market is imploding.

In the smartphone arena, its a completely different story. If you don't have a quality screen you're pretty much in deep water. Whereas a quality computer monitor is foreign to most people.

4k 27" can't come soon enough.
 
The real issue there is 16:9 and that it's 13"

I like 16:9/10 for movies but it's just not great for documents unless it's 24" and you can do side by side.
 
Brian Stirling said:
I think you mean 1600x1200 as 1920 wasn't an option anywhere back then. I have always paid more to get the best displays possible and I had (still have actually) a Dell laptop of 2002 vintage and it's 1600x1200 -- the highest the offered.

I don't think we began to see 1920 much before about 2008 or so...
Click to expand...

The 2002 Dell Inspiron 8500 did indeed have a 1920x1200 display as an option. AnandTech reviewed the 8600 with the same option in 2003:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1175/2
 
A week ago, you could preorder the Samsung Ativ Book 9 Plus with a 3200x1800 display for $1200. The Lenovo Yoga 2 with the same display will be available next month starting at $1100. It seems very likely that ultrabooks will be 4K next year, and it doesn't look they'll be as expensive as I thought.
 
I don't understand the OPs question. Higher resolution on a bigger screen = greater cost.......??
 
Screen size and technology type (TN, IPS, OLED, whatever else) are the main factors in panel pricing.

Given shrinking PC market demand with cutthroat margins, even if the difference between a crappy panel and a good one is $10 that's still $10 more per sale than they would've had. Especially when it seems like the average consumer still doesn't care since laptop screens aren't moved around all the time like they would with phone/tablet usage.
 
dbk said:
I don't understand the OPs question. Higher resolution on a bigger screen = greater cost.......??
Click to expand...

I mean in 7 inch tablet its resolution is about 1920*1080.but in 18 led monitor it is 720p.How manufacture make it possible to fit large resolution in sooo small screen??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top