no 30" 1440 144hz IPS

sybaris

sybaris

sybaris

Associate
Joined
21 Jun 2010
Posts
787
Location
infornt of my PC
Why are there no 30" 1440 144hz IPS screens?
27" to 32" is a big jump in the physical size of a display.
I've been using a 30" 60hz for years and I find the 27" noticeably smaller.
If I go to 32" it will just squeeze in to where I want it to go.
Its always the way, you can never get what you want and have to make a decision.
I guess I will upsize to 32"
 
I agree tho, 32" is just a few inches too big. 28-30" would seem a nice size for a monitor.

28" exists but only as 4K. 30" used to exist as a 16:10 option (1920x1200), but they were always really expensive.
 
Yeh what happened to 16:10 great for production /actual working.
Now we are stuck with wide but short screens for movies /cinema but are short...
 
mattyfez said:
Yeh what happened to 16:10 great for production /actual working.
Now we are stuck with wide but short screens for movies /cinema but are short...
Click to expand...
That was the manufacturers deciding they couldn't be arsed to support two different ratios; 16:9 had become standard for TVs so they forced monitors to 16:9 to save manufacturing costs, allegedly.
 
I think I got my apect ratios mixed up but a always preferred a slightly more square screen for productivity (for the extra height) even if it means watching films in 'letterbox' mode
 
sybaris said:
Why are there no 30" 1440 144hz IPS screens?
27" to 32" is a big jump in the physical size of a display.
I've been using a 30" 60hz for years and I find the 27" noticeably smaller.
If I go to 32" it will just squeeze in to where I want it to go.
Its always the way, you can never get what you want and have to make a decision.
I guess I will upsize to 32"
Click to expand...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yuqcfp1xxI is a good video that answers a lot of questions about why tv's and monitor's are the sizes they are, basically boils down to how many screens they can get out of a mother glass to be most economical for the manufacturer once they break it up
 
FoxEye said:
30" used to exist as a 16:10 option (1920x1200), but they were always really expensive.
Click to expand...
2560x1600, which makes current 2560x1440 panels lame.


FoxEye said:
That was the manufacturers deciding they couldn't be arsed to support two different ratios; 16:9 had become standard for TVs so they forced monitors to 16:9 to save manufacturing costs, allegedly.
Click to expand...
16:9 also has smaller surface area for diagonal size.
And of course bean counters and marketroids loved being able to sell less monitor as same.
 
Although I consider 16:10 to be superior to 16:9, what killed it for me was game devs implementing Horiz- rather than Vert+ on 16:10 displays. Nothing you can do about it either. So even tho you could literally fit a 16:9 display inside a 16:10 display, the 16:10 display will show less information than the 16:19.

So between the panel manufacturers and the game devs, 16:10 really was killed quite brutally :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom