Retina/High PPI Displays. The Return of Non-native Resolutions?

[iaco]

So I have 1680x1050 22" display and the pixel density high enough that text is too small at native resolution, but not high enough that using a lower resolution is acceptable. So I've used high DPI setting in Windows, but some many programs including Windows itself make graphics blurry and ugly so what I really am hoping for is the ability to use non-native resolutions.

How high does PPI need to be so that running non-native resolutions is not a compromise like it wasn't when CRTs were used?

 

[lavaheadache]

not to be a jerk but, when was the last time you had your eyes checked?

1680x1050 is fine for a 20 inch, actually great. On a 22, nah.

 

[Greenlepricon]

not to be a jerk but, when was the last time you had your eyes checked?

1680x1050 is fine for a 20 inch, actually great. On a 22, nah.

I just replaced my 1680x1050 monitor this year, and I have to say the difference is pretty amazing, even just to 1080. Part of the reason is my monitor was old and the input lag and contrast made some things pretty miserable to do.

Op's 22 inch might have the same problems. I don't find anything wrong with the lower resolution screens, even my laptop is fine for most applications, and this thing is approaching 6 years old. Comparing it to my desktop monitor is a completely different story though.

 

[masteryoda34]

Running at non-native resolution is not the real solution for LCDs because a) What's the point of having that high resolution in the first place then? and b) you still have to interpolate pixel values which will create fuzziness. (unless you are using a non-native res. that is an integer multiple smaller, which would be very low res)

The real answer is that we need operating systems to pick up the ball and offer better font size options. Linux and Mac seem to be leading Windows here again. (I'm not sure if Windows 8 addresses this. Maybe it does.)

 

[iaco]

not to be a jerk but, when was the last time you had your eyes checked?

1680x1050 is fine for a 20 inch, actually great. On a 22, nah.

Have you used a retina display on anything larger than an iPhone? Everything else is garbage in comparison.

My display is usable, but I prefer a lower resolution. Thankfully I don't use it that much.

There are other benefits to non-native resolutions, esp. for gaming.

 

[iaco]

Running at non-native resolution is not the real solution for LCDs because a) What's the point of having that high resolution in the first place then? and b) you still have to interpolate pixel values which will create fuzziness.

a) Gaming. Get an extra year or two out of an expensive graphics card.

b) "fuzziness": Extremely doubtful if the pixel density is high enough.

 

[Greenlepricon]

b) "fuzziness": Extremely doubtful if the pixel density is high enough.

A quick google search for you to find this. Hope that helps. There are better articles but it's a quick and simple read.

 

[iaco]

A quick google search for you to find this. Hope that helps. There are better articles but it's a quick and simple read.

I already know how non-native resolutions work. The question is, how high does pixel density have to be so that fuzziness is nearly unnoticeable or equivalent to what we got in CRTs?

I guess I chose the wrong forum for this question.

 

[Greenlepricon]

I already know how non-native resolutions work. The question is, how high does pixel density have to be so that fuzziness is nearly unnoticeable or equivalent to what we got in CRTs?

I guess I chose the wrong forum for this question.

Ah I see what you're saying. I read somewhere that there are ratios to go by. Those are your best bet. The density that you're looking for is going to be individual to you. I don't know if your eyes are better/worse than mine. The only downside is it still probably won't look as good as running at the native resolution. LCD monitors just aren't good at that.

 

[Sheninat0r]

a) Gaming. Get an extra year or two out of an expensive graphics card.

b) "fuzziness": Extremely doubtful if the pixel density is high enough.

"High enough" is pretty vague, and we should also consider the cost of making a large, high-density display. Even if it's technically viable, no one will make it if they can't sell it.

 

[iaco]

Ah I see what you're saying. I read somewhere that there are ratios to go by. Those are your best bet. The density that you're looking for is going to be individual to you. I don't know if your eyes are better/worse than mine. The only downside is it still probably won't look as good as running at the native resolution. LCD monitors just aren't good at that.

In short my guess is that somewhere near 300 PPI, interpolation will not be a big deal. CRTs didn't have crazy high PPIs but it was a different tech. I'll probably search to see how well rMBP cope at lower resolutions.

"High enough" is pretty vague, and we should also consider the cost of making a large, high-density display. Even if it's technically viable, no one will make it if they can't sell it.

Supposedly IGZO displays have lower cost. I'm confident that by the end of the decade 300 PPI displays will dominate the market. Installed base is something else.

 

[Arkaign]

Windows, even Windows 8, is generally terrible at scaling content. A lot of that is probably lax standards for apps due to the must for a new app to work seamlessly with Vista, 7, and 8 (and often XP as well due to the massive installed base).

OSX is a million times better for that, and I say that as someone who only grudgingly uses OSX from time to time (I bootcamp my MBA, use it in Win7 99% of the time).

You could get one of those 27" 2560x1440 displays, and run at at 1280x720 Heheh. Just kidding. That would be expensive and look ridiculous, even if it was pixel perfect (1/4 exact native resolution is just as good as native, it just makes 4 pixels appear as one pixel).