So when are High-Res displays going to get smaller?

WeedRamen

WeedRamen

WeedRamen

Associate
Joined
14 Aug 2011
Posts
129
Location
London/Cambridge
Seriously? I was just looking at the new 4k displays and their massive 31 inch sizes. While I can understand this as they are new to the market and aimed at professionals who need a larger display I have the sneaking suspicion they never will go smaller than 30 inch when they become available for more casual consumers. Same with 1440p/1600p. When will we get competitively priced 24 inch versions of them?

I'm just really tired of high res displays being either really massive or being really tiny ( in mobiles/ipads etc).:rolleyes:

I imagine anyone who made these displays in the 22-24 inch range would make a killing due to the lack of options.
 
I don't think they'll go smaller, personally i'd prefer a 4k monitor to be closer to those 21:9 screens in shape with a slight curve.
 
My personal guess would be that the manufacturers don't yet see a valuable enough market to make higher res monitors for smaller sizes.

The reasons for this are:
1) Higher density panels are more difficult, and thus more expensive to manufacture. With more pixels, there's also a higher chance of failures (dead pixels, etc.)
2) The profits come from the masses, not the niche market. Usually only the younger people (15-25yo) have a good enough eye-sight to actually benefit from the higher resolution. But they are a relatively small portion of the market. And higher res panels cost a lot, and the above mentioned 15-25yo don't have this kind of money, let alone even always the knowledge to ask for a higher res, in the first place.
3) The oblivious masses will see the price tag of a 24" TN monitor for 100€, and compare it to 300-400€ of a 24" 2560x1440 (let's not even talk about 4k, yet) IPS/PLS monitor, and will simply go for the cheaper one, as they see no incentive to go for the more expensive one. They might even go for the 200€ 27" 1920x1080 IPS monitor.
4) Actually, the bulk of the masses aren't even interested in separate monitors, as they commonly purchase only laptops and tablets, which are mostly around 15-17" and 7-10", respectively. And in these sizes, the extra resolution is a waste, especially to a commoner.

But indeed:
Maybe after the technology becomes more common (as in, more native source material is available) and the manufacturing costs become more tolerable, then the manufacturers will show more interest. But for now, it's just not economical enough.
 
The bigger the PC monitor the higher the resolution that has been the normal for years...;)




PS:I no want a 4K display yet as I have nothing to run it...
 
Last edited:
When the price makes sense, and demand for it ramps up. The difference with phones and tablets is you don't get to pick what screen comes on it, I'm sure if some people where given the option to get the S4 with a 720p display and it would cost £150 less they would jump at the chance.

Also I have a 1440p 27" monitor and I actually get that 1440p space, on phones you actually really get 360p but its super sharp. On a monitor I don't need it too be any sharper, so any increase in res is just for the space.
 
Last edited:
WeedRamen said:
Seriously? I was just looking at the new 4k displays and their massive 31 inch sizes. While I can understand this as they are new to the market and aimed at professionals who need a larger display I have the sneaking suspicion they never will go smaller than 30 inch when they become available for more casual consumers. Same with 1440p/1600p. When will we get competitively priced 24 inch versions of them?

I'm just really tired of high res displays being either really massive or being really tiny ( in mobiles/ipads etc).:rolleyes:

I imagine anyone who made these displays in the 22-24 inch range would make a killing due to the lack of options.
Click to expand...

if there was a market for them, they would make them

most people who want hi res displays want them bigger

I have a 30inch 2560x1440, what I really want is a 39inch 4K

you can't see individual pixels on either of these displays, just like you can't on a 24 inch 1080p... for most people there would be absolutely no benefit from having a 4K 24 inch screen, so people wouldn't buy one, which is why no one makes one
 
Martini1991 said:
Ha, it is very frustrating to see tablets and phones (LG's 2560x1600? 5" panel for example) having crazy resolution at a low size.
Click to expand...

This bothers me to no end!

you would at least think they would bring out some kind of premium product at least, dell asus etc. A 2560x1600 at 24" shouldnt be too hard to achieve, whether its too high res or not for the distance is to be seen.

Aren't there some ridiculously high res IBM monitors?
 
andybird123 said:
if there was a market for them, they would make them

most people who want hi res displays want them bigger

I have a 30inch 2560x1440, what I really want is a 39inch 4K

you can't see individual pixels on either of these displays, just like you can't on a 24 inch 1080p... for most people there would be absolutely no benefit from having a 4K 24 inch screen, so people wouldn't buy one, which is why no one makes one
Click to expand...

Oh I agree there would be very little benefit from a 24 inch 4k but I definitely feel there's an improvement here from having a 27inch 4k display compared to the current 30 inch+ 4k's and 1440p's stand to benefit from a slight decrease in size to 24 inch (from my own experience with 27 inch 1440p'ers).

Sadly I feel like this is one of those moments I hope apple's ragin hard on for retina takes over to its imac and it makes at 27 inch 4k or or a 21-24 inch 'retina' imac. Just to cause a mad scramble amongst other manufacturers to compete as is what usually happens.
 
andybird123 said:
you can't see individual pixels on either of these displays
Click to expand...

Yes you can.

Just like you can't on a 24 inch 1080p
Click to expand...

Yes you can.

for most people there would be absolutely no benefit from having a 4K 24 inch screen, so people wouldn't buy one, which is why no one makes one
Click to expand...

Pixel density is very important 4K on a 24" display is getting close to the level of not requiring AA.

When you can't see jagged edges on geometry with AA turned off is when you can say you can't see the pixels on a display.
 
My 2c:

Whether a person can see the separate pixels is entirely dependent on his own eye-sight and viewing distance. There's no universal truth with regards to what is the optimal size/resolution combo.

For example, I'm more than happy with 42" @1920x1080 from a 1m distance. Meanwhile, some people seem to think 27" @2560x1440 is too grainy (from whatever distance they are looking at it).

Some of the most common pixels-per-inch examples:
55" + 1920x1080 == 41 PPI
42" + 1920x1080 == 52 PPI
32" + 1920x1080 == 69 PPI
27" + 1920x1080 == 82 PPI
24" + 1920x1080 == 92 PPI
24" + 1920x1200 == 94 PPI

29" + 2560x1080 == 96 PPI (21:9)

30" + 2560x1600 == 101 PPI
27" + 2560x1440 == 109 PPI
24" + 2560x1440 == 122 PPI

32" + 3840×2160 == 138 PPI
30" + 3840×2160 == 147 PPI
27" + 3840×2160 == 163 PPI
24" + 3840×2160 == 184 PPI

Ps. Remember, the above figures are meaningless without the viewing distance and your own eye-sight. But if someone can really benefit from 4k in 27" or 24" monitor size, from a "normal" viewing distance, then I would strongly advice them to look for a specialized job offering that requires a good eye-sight, as that level of eye-sight is indeed remarkable.
 
That level of eyesight really isn't remarkable. My eyesight isn't particularly good at all and I need glasses.

The issue is that people down play human sight.
 
I have terrible eyesight but even I can appreciate high ppi. It's not about seeing individual pixels - in fact it's the exact opposite. Many people don't like being able to see the pixel structure on LCDs, myself included. 1920x1080 @ 22" on my FW900 CRT looks so much nicer than the same resolution on a 22" LCD.
 
Here's a nice simple calculator for the interested:
http://www.openphotographicsociety....lators-and-utilities/monitors/characteristics

Select to calculate the Resolution. Type in your aspect ratio (16:9 equals to 1.7777, btw), monitor size, eye-sight (visual acuity) and viewing distance. Click somewhere on the empty space (or press Enter), and it will do the math with the given numbers.

The default Visual Acuity is left to 20/20. Thus it will calculate on the premise of which I would consider to equal quite a remarkable vision, especially for anybody beyond their teen years. And do note: this figure has a very noticeable effect on the calculation. So if you want realistic results, don't leave this at the default 20...

What the calculated resolution means:
You won't get any noticeable difference from going beyond this.
(Unless, of course, you change the other characteristics.)

Ps. If eyeing for a new monitor, a good rule of thumb for recommended minimum viewing distance is to use approximately the size of the monitor. But it's open to modify, as some people simply can't always do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom