When are we getting higher DPI monitors?

[natty1]

Like 24 inch LCD's with 3840x2400 instead of 1920x1200.

Scaling apps properly shouldn't be hard if the DPI is exactly 2x bigger.

Graphics look so much crisper with higher DPI than they do with anti-aliasing.

I was recently gaming on a 15" laptop screen at 1920x1200 and DAMN.

This is obviously the future. But when is it coming?

 

[mmnno]

Wouldn't expect it until 30" become common and displayport is nearly ubiquitous.

Also, if OLED gets here before displayport takes over there will be pressure against higher-res screens, as displayport limits them to 60Hz and OLED can do much more.

 

[toyota]

you will NEVER see general usage desktop monitors with that kind of dot pitch. theres no way in hell people are going to sit 6 inches from a 24inch monitor just to try to read the damn text. I hate topics like this because its like no one uses any common sense when they ask for super high dpi monitors. for general usage, the higher the res on a given monitor the closer you will have to be to it to read text therefore negating the whole damn reason in the first place. just buy a 23-24 incher and put it at the proper distance and voila you can read the text and things will look just as crisp.

 

[natty1]

Originally posted by: toyota
you will NEVER see general usage desktop monitors with that kind of dot pitch. theres no way in hell people are going to sit 6 inches from a 24inch monitor just to try to read the damn text. I hate topics like this because its like no one uses any common sense when they ask for super high dpi monitors. for general usage, the higher the res on a given monitor the closer you will have to be to it to read text therefore negating the whole damn reason in the first place. just buy a 23-24 incher and put it at the proper distance and voila you can read the text and things will look just as crisp.

obviously you would be able to scale text and programs so that they are normal size

that's why I wrote....

"Scaling apps properly shouldn't be hard if the DPI is exactly 2x bigger."

It's just a matter of adding the option to the software.

 

[Insomniator]

Not any time soon.. unless people suddenly want to pay 5x the money for something they wouldn't notice while surfing, email... etc.

Gamers wouldn't want it either as at least by todays standards you'd need SLI 285's to run a resolution that high.

No market + questionable usefulness = never!

 

[Forumpanda]

On the contrary I think it is really just a matter of production cost, when it comes down enough it will make sense to produce higher DPI monitors.

I can't see a good non economical reason not to increase DPI.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

What kind of machine would it take to max out crysis at 3840x2400? For the sake of my wallet, I wouldn't want that kind of ultra high resolution. Even if the monitor was free, I'd need to spend a fortune keeping my machine up to date, and it still probably wouldn't beable to max out game settings. I use 13x7 (would go 19x10 if buying a new monitor now). My PC is way out of date so I'm kind of grateful for the low resolution atm.

 

[vj8usa]

I'd obviously get a 3840x2400 24" over a 1920x1200 24" if their prices and other attributes were the same, but I wouldn't be able to justify spending a lot more for that high a dpi. For desktop use, the pixels would be so small that I'd have to scale everything up to be able to read anything, which would negate the higher resolution. For gaming, I wouldn't be able to afford enough GPU power to run any modern game at that resolution. It's definitely not a negative, though, since you'd be able to run games at 1920x1200 and scale them perfectly (4 physical pixels to each displayed pixel).

For me, gaming would pretty much be the only place the higher dpi would help, at least until movies start becoming available in 2160p or whatever (which won't happen for a while).

 

[AzN]

24" is probably too small. Get the next best thing. 21.5" 1920x1080 monitors. It has much smaller pixel pitch than the 24" equivalent.

 

[Kakkoii]

Originally posted by: toyota
you will NEVER see general usage desktop monitors with that kind of dot pitch. theres no way in hell people are going to sit 6 inches from a 24inch monitor just to try to read the damn text. I hate topics like this because its like no one uses any common sense when they ask for super high dpi monitors. for general usage, the higher the res on a given monitor the closer you will have to be to it to read text therefore negating the whole damn reason in the first place. just buy a 23-24 incher and put it at the proper distance and voila you can read the text and things will look just as crisp.

It's about adding more detail to the image, not cramming things in at a smaller size. We need higher resolutions than we have now if we want some truly realistic displaying videos/images. The pixels so small that it's like looking at the real thing, no matter how close you get you can't see the individual pixels, smooth like real life.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Kakkoii
It's about adding more detail to the image, not cramming things in at a smaller size. We need higher resolutions than we have now if we want some truly realistic displaying videos/images. The pixels so small that it's like looking at the real thing, no matter how close you get you can't see the individual pixels, smooth like real life.

You don't need higher resolutions to have realistic looking images. You just more pixels and proper details in those images. For example you can run COD2 at much higher resolution but it still wouldn't look good as Crysis at relatively low resolution.

What Toyota was saying is that you can't read text because text size would be literally half the size at that resolution with a 24" as the OP suggested resolution. People can't read these without getting closer to the monitor as Toyota suggested and would literally be pain in the ass to go back and forth looking at the text. Of course you increase your text size within windows but it doesn't look proper.

P.S Games might be cool but you would need a video card that could run at that resolution because video cards oriented for games only support 2560x1600.

 

[Modelworks]

Well vision tops out at 300ppi or pixels per inch before the human eye cannot discern the difference so on a 22" display you have to reach 5400 x 3540 before you reach that limit. A 15" screen only needs , 3600 x 2700 so we still have quite a ways to go before we hit the limits.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: toyota
you will NEVER see general usage desktop monitors with that kind of dot pitch. theres no way in hell people are going to sit 6 inches from a 24inch monitor just to try to read the damn text. I hate topics like this because its like no one uses any common sense when they ask for super high dpi monitors. for general usage, the higher the res on a given monitor the closer you will have to be to it to read text therefore negating the whole damn reason in the first place. just buy a 23-24 incher and put it at the proper distance and voila you can read the text and things will look just as crisp.

It's about adding more detail to the image, not cramming things in at a smaller size. We need higher resolutions than we have now if we want some truly realistic displaying videos/images. The pixels so small that it's like looking at the real thing, no matter how close you get you can't see the individual pixels, smooth like real life.

This. I am waiting for higher dot pitch monitors. They make 17" laptop screens that do 1920x1200. Why can't I get that on the desktop? The image quality on a monitor like that blows away what we have normally on the desktop. If you keep increasing the monitor size when you increase resolution, you're not getting anywhere image quality wise, you're just standing still. The goal is to make pixels smaller and smaller, not keep them the same size.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: toyota
you will NEVER see general usage desktop monitors with that kind of dot pitch. theres no way in hell people are going to sit 6 inches from a 24inch monitor just to try to read the damn text. I hate topics like this because its like no one uses any common sense when they ask for super high dpi monitors. for general usage, the higher the res on a given monitor the closer you will have to be to it to read text therefore negating the whole damn reason in the first place. just buy a 23-24 incher and put it at the proper distance and voila you can read the text and things will look just as crisp.

It's about adding more detail to the image, not cramming things in at a smaller size. We need higher resolutions than we have now if we want some truly realistic displaying videos/images. The pixels so small that it's like looking at the real thing, no matter how close you get you can't see the individual pixels, smooth like real life.

This. I am waiting for higher dot pitch monitors. They make 17" laptop screens that do 1920x1200. Why can't I get that on the desktop? The image quality on a monitor like that blows away what we have normally on the desktop. If you keep increasing the monitor size when you increase resolution, you're not getting anywhere image quality wise, you're just standing still. The goal is to make pixels smaller and smaller, not keep them the same size.

Why?

I'm not seeing any pixelization on my 24".

Theres plenty of other things to worry about with displays before we go to stupidly high resolutions.

 

[Kakkoii]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: toyota
you will NEVER see general usage desktop monitors with that kind of dot pitch. theres no way in hell people are going to sit 6 inches from a 24inch monitor just to try to read the damn text. I hate topics like this because its like no one uses any common sense when they ask for super high dpi monitors. for general usage, the higher the res on a given monitor the closer you will have to be to it to read text therefore negating the whole damn reason in the first place. just buy a 23-24 incher and put it at the proper distance and voila you can read the text and things will look just as crisp.

It's about adding more detail to the image, not cramming things in at a smaller size. We need higher resolutions than we have now if we want some truly realistic displaying videos/images. The pixels so small that it's like looking at the real thing, no matter how close you get you can't see the individual pixels, smooth like real life.

This. I am waiting for higher dot pitch monitors. They make 17" laptop screens that do 1920x1200. Why can't I get that on the desktop? The image quality on a monitor like that blows away what we have normally on the desktop. If you keep increasing the monitor size when you increase resolution, you're not getting anywhere image quality wise, you're just standing still. The goal is to make pixels smaller and smaller, not keep them the same size.

Why?

I'm not seeing any pixelization on my 24".

Theres plenty of other things to worry about with displays before we go to stupidly high resolutions.

Well perhaps your vision isn't that good. Because I can see the individual pixels of 1024x768 crammed into 13".

And even if you can't see pixelation, having more pixels crammed into an area will still improve the look of the overall image.

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Kakkoii
It's about adding more detail to the image, not cramming things in at a smaller size. We need higher resolutions than we have now if we want some truly realistic displaying videos/images. The pixels so small that it's like looking at the real thing, no matter how close you get you can't see the individual pixels, smooth like real life.

You don't need higher resolutions to have realistic looking images. You just more pixels and proper details in those images. For example you can run COD2 at much higher resolution but it still wouldn't look good as Crysis at relatively low resolution.

What Toyota was saying is that you can't read text because text size would be literally half the size at that resolution with a 24" as the OP suggested resolution. People can't read these without getting closer to the monitor as Toyota suggested and would literally be pain in the ass to go back and forth looking at the text. Of course you increase your text size within windows but it doesn't look proper.

P.S Games might be cool but you would need a video card that could run at that resolution because video cards oriented for games only support 2560x1600.

You misunderstood what I meant by realistic.

I meant realistic as in, whatever your screen is showing, looking more like it would if it were an actual existing object. The objects around us don't give off colors using pixels. They give off color from light bouncing off their molecular structures. But if those molecules we much bigger, lets say 1/20 the size of an average pixel, the quality, look and feel of the things around use would change, even though we can't actually see the individual molecules with our eyes, it's the overall images these molecules create that matters. And that's why we need smaller pixels, so our screens can show more lifelike looking images.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: toyota
you will NEVER see general usage desktop monitors with that kind of dot pitch. theres no way in hell people are going to sit 6 inches from a 24inch monitor just to try to read the damn text. I hate topics like this because its like no one uses any common sense when they ask for super high dpi monitors. for general usage, the higher the res on a given monitor the closer you will have to be to it to read text therefore negating the whole damn reason in the first place. just buy a 23-24 incher and put it at the proper distance and voila you can read the text and things will look just as crisp.

It's about adding more detail to the image, not cramming things in at a smaller size. We need higher resolutions than we have now if we want some truly realistic displaying videos/images. The pixels so small that it's like looking at the real thing, no matter how close you get you can't see the individual pixels, smooth like real life.

This. I am waiting for higher dot pitch monitors. They make 17" laptop screens that do 1920x1200. Why can't I get that on the desktop? The image quality on a monitor like that blows away what we have normally on the desktop. If you keep increasing the monitor size when you increase resolution, you're not getting anywhere image quality wise, you're just standing still. The goal is to make pixels smaller and smaller, not keep them the same size.

because like I just said, you sit right in front of your laptop. you dont put your 22 inch monitor right in front of your face now do you? a regular desktop 24inch monitor with twice the res as normal will never happen. people arent going to shove their face right in front of a huge monitor just to read text.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
[
Why?

I'm not seeing any pixelization on my 24".

Theres plenty of other things to worry about with displays before we go to stupidly high resolutions.

The goal is to have displays that are as good as our eyes are. If you print an image that is taken at 2400 x 3000 resolution and print that as an 8x10 print at 300 dpi, then hold the image beside the same image displayed at the exact same size in inches on a monitor, you will see that the print is far superior to what the monitor shows.

Until the monitor matches the printed work, resolutions will keep increasing.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Well vision tops out at 300ppi or pixels per inch before the human eye cannot discern the difference so on a 22" display you have to reach 5400 x 3540 before you reach that limit. A 15" screen only needs , 3600 x 2700 so we still have quite a ways to go before we hit the limits.

thats your logic? you dont have to be at the limits of what we can see for it not to be frustrating. a 24inch with 3840x2400 res would be beyond ridiculous for the average consumer to read text on.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Well vision tops out at 300ppi or pixels per inch before the human eye cannot discern the difference so on a 22" display you have to reach 5400 x 3540 before you reach that limit. A 15" screen only needs , 3600 x 2700 so we still have quite a ways to go before we hit the limits.

thats your logic? you dont have to be at the limits of what we can see for it not to be frustrating. a 24inch with 3840x2400 res would be beyond ridiculous for the average consumer to read text on.

Resolution will keep increasing until monitors can display as good as the eye can see. We just now are getting resolutions that can display at half of a good quality printed material.

Use a newer OS and resolution vs text size is not an issue.

 

[SonicIce]

in a perfect world microsoft would make an os where you can scale text freely without the programs getting out of shape

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
[
Why?

I'm not seeing any pixelization on my 24".

Theres plenty of other things to worry about with displays before we go to stupidly high resolutions.

The goal is to have displays that are as good as our eyes are. If you print an image that is taken at 2400 x 3000 resolution and print that as an 8x10 print at 300 dpi, then hold the image beside the same image displayed at the exact same size in inches on a monitor, you will see that the print is far superior to what the monitor shows.

Until the monitor matches the printed work, resolutions will keep increasing.

Yeah but what source are you wanting to look at?

Video? Video goes up to 1080.
Text? Text looks fine at the moment.

Maybe high end photo editing or medical imaging, but thats a small expensive market.

And printed pages look better than your screen image for more reasons than resolution.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Kakkoii
The pixels so small that it's like looking at the real thing, no matter how close you get you can't see the individual pixels, smooth like real life.

But I don't want to get that close to my monitor. Right now I'm at arms-length away from my 24" 1920x1200 and it is just fine.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The goal is to have displays that are as good as our eyes are.

Uh, okay, I'd better start shopping for a 32" 1920x1080 HDTV then.

You kids have it good with your perfect eyesight. Just wait another 10-20 years... :evil:

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
[
Why?

I'm not seeing any pixelization on my 24".

Theres plenty of other things to worry about with displays before we go to stupidly high resolutions.

The goal is to have displays that are as good as our eyes are. If you print an image that is taken at 2400 x 3000 resolution and print that as an 8x10 print at 300 dpi, then hold the image beside the same image displayed at the exact same size in inches on a monitor, you will see that the print is far superior to what the monitor shows.

Until the monitor matches the printed work, resolutions will keep increasing.

Yeah but what source are you wanting to look at?

Video? Video goes up to 1080.
Text? Text looks fine at the moment.

Maybe high end photo editing or medical imaging, but thats a small expensive market.

And printed pages look better than your screen image for more reasons than resolution.

It is not even available right now and will not be for quite some time. To display an image on a 42" lcd tv would require resolutions of 10,800 x 6000 . Still it will eventually get there it just takes time. TV started out with less than 400 lines of resolution and now we have it at 1080 and non interlaced. Cameras that can record at 300ppi already exist.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Zap


You kids have it good with your perfect eyesight. Just wait another 10-20 years... :evil:

I think my eyes are about to request that I stop abusing them
From all the years staring at surface mount components, and now staring at monitors all the time, they are ready to revolt.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
[
Why?

I'm not seeing any pixelization on my 24".

Theres plenty of other things to worry about with displays before we go to stupidly high resolutions.

The goal is to have displays that are as good as our eyes are. If you print an image that is taken at 2400 x 3000 resolution and print that as an 8x10 print at 300 dpi, then hold the image beside the same image displayed at the exact same size in inches on a monitor, you will see that the print is far superior to what the monitor shows.

Until the monitor matches the printed work, resolutions will keep increasing.

Yeah but what source are you wanting to look at?

Video? Video goes up to 1080.
Text? Text looks fine at the moment.

Maybe high end photo editing or medical imaging, but thats a small expensive market.

And printed pages look better than your screen image for more reasons than resolution.

It is not even available right now and will not be for quite some time. To display an image on a 42" lcd tv would require resolutions of 10,800 x 6000 . Still it will eventually get there it just takes time. TV started out with less than 400 lines of resolution and now we have it at 1080 and non interlaced. Cameras that can record at 300ppi already exist.

Thats going to take more than just new monitors :shocked: