Monitor pixel density

oxygene · 26 Jan 2013 at 21:55

I've been wondering this for a while actually, but I've noticed a few years back that laptop screens pixel density is way higher then pc monitors. And now with the latest tablets out and about you can get 10" screens at 2560x1440ish why cant we get 27" screens at even double that res?
Tell me I'm missing something important here lol

Anox · 26 Jan 2013 at 22:23

Because those evil monitor companies want to make lotsa dosh by varying their product line

Sasahara · 27 Jan 2013 at 00:07

Costs atm are insane, just look at the 4k (4096 x 2160) monitors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution#List_of_4K_monitors_and_projectors

Gaming at the res would require 3-4 of the top end GPUs and probably not max settings to be playable.

chaparral · 27 Jan 2013 at 13:19

oxygene said:
you can get 10" screens at 2560x1440ish why cant we get 27" screens at even double that res?
Tell me I'm missing something important here lol

Because there no market for it as most normal PC users would not pay out the extra money for a very high pixel density monitor...

Example
look how many people still only buy a 1920x1080 27" monitor
when there 2560x1440 27" ones available....

rolypolyman · 27 Jan 2013 at 14:49

yep, agree with the above, I couldn't afford 27" 2560x1440 much as I'd have liked one, however, nothing wrong with 1080p on 27", perfectly fine.

PorkPieCat · 28 Jan 2013 at 02:58

i had no idea screens were so good now, but a recent smartphone purchase prompted me to check out what might be possible if we had the money. with current technology we could potentially have imax, ~10000 x 7000, in somewhere between 27 and 28 inch monitors (based on 441 ppi displays found in some new/upcoming smartphones).

but screens obviously get a lot more expensive as you increase either size or resolution. a 441 ppi 28" monitor might cost >£x0,000? and just to watch 1080p blurays, or set your 4 gpus on fire while gaming..

Philip Perfect · 28 Jan 2013 at 08:04

The difference, of course, is that while we might look at our smartphone screens from a foot or so away, with a large monitor the distance is usually much greater, and so the effect of having all those pixels is reduced. That's not to say that a few more pixels wouldn't be nice, but it is just plain unnecessary to go to the same pixel densities as we're seeing on phones.

mranderson · 28 Jan 2013 at 08:10

You can always use the extra pixels. Apple did the right thing again and everybody else is going to follow.

fs123 · 28 Jan 2013 at 11:59

Higher densities need more gpu power which is a restriction for the majority of users. 1080P will be the standard for games for quite a while since the next gen consoles will not support anything higher.

I think an ideal screen will be a 8K (7680 x 4320) resolution which would be able to map 4 pixels to form a square 1080P pixel perfectly hence no loss in sharpness. Unfortunately these a long way away from the mass market due to costs.

Darg · 28 Jan 2013 at 12:32

mranderson said:
You can always use the extra pixels. Apple did the right thing again and everybody else is going to follow.

So you're willing to pay twice as much for a monitor and then four times as much for a GPU/CPU combo to be able to push 3D content through at that resolution?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current pace of resolution increase on PC monitors. It matches what the hardware is capable of without crippling framerates.

IMAX screens in 4K, That's 3840 × 2160 across a screen that in the london BFI measures 26m x 20m. Does this look absolutely hideously pixellated? No it doesn't, it actually looks pretty awesome. So why do we need that resolution on a screen that's 60cm wide?

At some point you just can't differentiate the pixels unless you hold it inches from your face. That's where any greater resolution is more of a hindrance given the power needed to render content.