Will we ever move away from 96DPI on monitors?

[Chaotic42]

I know there are a few very expensive monitors out there that do more than 96DPI, but will the mainstream displays ever get better? Does anyone have one of these displays? Are they really worth the money?

 

[AmdInside]

I don't know much about this subject but unless you do a lot of printing professionally, is there really a need for one?

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: AmdInside
I don't know much about this subject but unless you do a lot of printing professionally, is there really a need for one?

I find it difficult to read text on monitors. The grid really bothers me.

 

[Laminator]

Try ClearType.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Laminator
Try ClearType.

It's on.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I know there are a few very expensive monitors out there that do more than 96DPI, but will the mainstream displays ever get better? Does anyone have one of these displays? Are they really worth the money?

Most CRTs easily does greater than 96dpi.

 

[AmdInside]

I think "mainstream" is key here. There is no need for this for most customers so I don't see it happening. I am a wedding photographer so I wouldn't mind having higher DPI on my monitor.

 

[SonicIce]

How exactly do you measure DPI on a monitor?

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I know there are a few very expensive monitors out there that do more than 96DPI, but will the mainstream displays ever get better? Does anyone have one of these displays? Are they really worth the money?

Most CRTs easily does greater than 96dpi.

DPI is fixed. My monitor does 1920x1200 and is 20" across. There's no way to change the actual pixels in the monitor.

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: SonicIce
How exactly do you measure DPI on a monitor?

For an LCD:

W = Width of the viewable area in inches
H = Height of the viewable area in inches
X = Width of the native resolution in pixels (e.g. 1600)
Y = Height of the native resolution in pixels (e.g. 1200)

Vertical DPI = W / X
Horizontal DPI = H / Y

The two vary somewhat based on the monitor and the accuracy of your measurements, but most people just stick with common approximations like 72dpi, 96dpi, etc.

For a CRT, I suppose DPI depends on which resolution is currently being displayed.

EDIT: Here's a DPI calculator for those who don't feel like doing it manually.

 

[Griswold]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I know there are a few very expensive monitors out there that do more than 96DPI, but will the mainstream displays ever get better? Does anyone have one of these displays? Are they really worth the money?

What for? More is not always better. If you read alot, lower DPI is often better for Joe Average simply due to the font size it produces.

If you want higher DPI, you need higher resolutions on less screen real estate - and who really wants that?

 

[SonicIce]

Originally posted by: Griswold
If you want higher DPI, you need higher resolutions on less screen real estate - and who really wants that?

i think the goal is more pixels in the same amound of space for a more detailed image.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: SonicIce

Originally posted by: Griswold
If you want higher DPI, you need higher resolutions on less screen real estate - and who really wants that?

i think the goal is more pixels in the same amound of space for a more detailed image.

Absolutely. Not only would I like it for work, but it would make gaming even better. Of course, nVidia and ATI would have to get in gear.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I know there are a few very expensive monitors out there that do more than 96DPI, but will the mainstream displays ever get better? Does anyone have one of these displays? Are they really worth the money?

Most CRTs easily does greater than 96dpi.

DPI is fixed. My monitor does 1920x1200 and is 20" across. There's no way to change the actual pixels in the monitor.

DPI is fixed on an LCD, not a CRT.
A CRT's DPI depends on whatever resolution you set it to be.
According to the calculator nullpointerus linked, the DPI of your screen at 1920x1200 is 113dpi.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Griswold

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I know there are a few very expensive monitors out there that do more than 96DPI, but will the mainstream displays ever get better? Does anyone have one of these displays? Are they really worth the money?

What for? More is not always better. If you read alot, lower DPI is often better for Joe Average simply due to the font size it produces.

If you want higher DPI, you need higher resolutions on less screen real estate - and who really wants that?

Not true.
The font size will only be small if windows is set to 96dpi when you're using a much higher dpi screen.
If you're using a high dpi screen, you have to set the dpi settings in windows the accomodate the monitor. The text will not only be the same size, but it'll be crisper and more detailed.

 

[xtknight]

My LCD (20.1" widescreen @ 1680x1050) has a 0.258 mm dot pitch (98.4 dpi). It's good for some things, particularly pictures, but it sucks (relatively) for small text, simply because it's harder to see, not because there's something intrinsically wrong with having a high DPI and using small fonts. Large text can look beautiful though.

With CRTs I believe DPI is dictated by the shadow mask.

 

[SonicIce]

With a CRT I think it is actually fixed, in a way. There is a fixed number of phosphors on the screen be it shadow mask or aperture grille. I dunno why this number is never mentioned.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: astroidea
DPI is fixed on an LCD, not a CRT.
A CRT's DPI depends on whatever resolution you set it to be.
According to the calculator nullpointerus linked, the DPI of your screen at 1920x1200 is 113dpi.

113? Across is not the same as diagonal. 1920/20 = 96. If CRTs had no maximum DPI, you could set them to whatever you want. There has to be some limit.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: astroidea
DPI is fixed on an LCD, not a CRT.
A CRT's DPI depends on whatever resolution you set it to be.
According to the calculator nullpointerus linked, the DPI of your screen at 1920x1200 is 113dpi.

113? Across is not the same as diagonal. 1920/20 = 96. If CRTs had no maximum DPI, you could set them to whatever you want. There has to be some limit.

I'm guessing you have a 24" LCD.
Desktop LCD's never really had high dpi compared to CRTs.
If you had a pretty decent 19" CRT, it could do 2048x1536. A 19" CRT has a viewable of 18", and if you plug it into the calculator, that's a DPI of 142.
And I never stated that CRTs had no maximum dpi. I stated that the dpi isn't fixed. DPI of a CRT depends on whatever resolution you set it to.

 

[mercanucaribe]

My laptop is 1280x800 12".

DPI 125.8
Pixels 1,024,000
Dimensions 10.2 x 6.4 inches
Dimensions 258.4 x 161.5 mm
Aspect Ratio 1.6


There are 17" laptops with 1920x1200

DPI 133.2
Pixels 2,304,000
Dimensions 14.4 x 9 inches
Dimensions 366.1 x 228.8 mm
Aspect Ratio 1.6

And even 15" 1920c1200!

DPI 150.9
Pixels 2,304,000
Dimensions 12.7 x 8 inches
Dimensions 323.2 x 202 mm
Aspect Ratio 1.6

 

[zephyrprime]

Eventually, sure. I'm sure we'll have 300dpi monitors or whatever. But the problem is font sizes and image scaling. Even if windows or Osx or linux or whatever handles these issues alright by itself, individual applications usually ignore this issue. The entire industry will have to plan for increased dpi years before it actually is implemented in hardware and legacy apps will have to scaled by the OS.

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Eventually, sure. I'm sure we'll have 300dpi monitors or whatever. But the problem is font sizes and image scaling. Even if windows or Osx or linux or whatever handles these issues alright by itself, individual applications usually ignore this issue. The entire industry will have to plan for increased dpi years before it actually is implemented in hardware and legacy apps will have to scaled by the OS.

XP has rather poor (but usable) support for DPI adjustments. Vista has much better support although there are still "rough edges." I've always found Linux font adjustments to be a *huge* pain by comparison although they're probably technically superior when properly configured.

On a positive note, I heard that the next version MacOS X is supposed to have full support for this. Since third-party Mac developers tend to follow Apple's UI guidelines fairly closely--or at least seem very open to new UI revelations from Apple--the platform itself should be doing this in the near future.

I'm hoping that Vista SP1 will have major improvements in DPI scaling, but that's probably far-fetched.