Retina display for desktop?

[Concillian]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/

This suggests 180-200 ppi at ~20 inches

My work laptop is 8.5 x 13 on a 16 inch viewable diagonal. It's probably advertised at 17". For 180 ppi, that would need 2340 x 1530, and it's currently 1900x1200 (~145 ppi). So it would take ~2560x1440 on 17" screens to get there.

For 4k res (3840x2160) it would need to be 24.4" diagonal, probably advertised as 25" for 180 ppi. Seems like a good thing to shoot for... 4k on a 24-25" screen.

 

[fixbsod]

I'm thinking that the computer/tablet space will be pushing resolutions much faster than the TV space. TV forever was in horrible 360i or something similar until HDTV came around and smacked it up to 1080p. Now you can get computer monitors capable of 1440p, Apple's iMac w/the bigger monitor even does 1440p for under $1,700 soon 2k and 4k will be rolling out. It does seem like tablets will be one of those driving forces that kicks up computer monitor resolutions. As mentioned earlier, it's not just the resolution its PPI, and the bigger the monitor the lower the PPI. When the tablet heads get used to the higher PPIs and become disappointed in their computer monitors they'll start demanding higher and higher resolutions. And likewise monitor manufacturers will need to start bumping up resolutions to keep up with the tablet space.

Good times all around, I'll probably go to 1440p or 2k fairly soon and likely drop off my monitor at work as they have me strapped to some shitty 19" ws dell. 19" ?? Puhleeaze.

Can't wait for 4k / 8k tho ! Virtual Reality here we come!

 

[Mark R]

Not anytime soon, a 2048x1536 resolution on a 21.5 inch monitor would see be less than half the PPI than an iPhone.

I use 2048x1536 21" monitors as my main displays at work. At a sensible viewing distance (24", which is the minimum viewing distance recommened by ergonomists and occupational safety experts), like someone would normally sit at a desk, then this resolution is perfectly sufficient, and the individual pixels are not discernible.

If I want a closer look at something, if I peer up close to the screens (say about 12" away) then the pixels become visible - but this is not the position that you could normally work in.

 

[alfa147x]

I use 2048x1536 21" monitors as my main displays at work. At a sensible viewing distance (24", which is the minimum viewing distance recommened by ergonomists and occupational safety experts), like someone would normally sit at a desk, then this resolution is perfectly sufficient, and the individual pixels are not discernible.

If I want a closer look at something, if I peer up close to the screens (say about 12" away) then the pixels become visible - but this is not the position that you could normally work in.

It's not discernible pixels that high PPI betters. It making the over image look smooth

 

[Mark R]

It's not discernible pixels that high PPI betters. It making the over image look smooth

Fundamentally, these are the same thing. The reason an image won't look smooth is precisely because the individual pixels are visible.

 

[taltamir]

didn't we have a thread with identical name and subject of discussion a week ago?

 

[Concillian]

I'm thinking that the computer/tablet space will be pushing resolutions much faster than the TV space.

Definitely agree. Mainly because TV can't afford to be high resolution. Cable providers are already compressing the hell out of 720p on HD channels and in sports the compression artifacts are sometimes very noticeable. Imagine what they'd have to do if they had channels displayed in 4k res. There's not a lot of bandwidth to support it now that we have 400+ channels with half of them doing SD AND HD versions.

 

[wlee15]

I agree after all CRT tv were stuck at 480i for decades even though the technology had surpassed those limits. Only after the arrival of HD broadcast content did we see any real progress.