PCWorld Forums

PCWorld Forums: Where Are High Resolution Monitors? - PCWorld Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Where Are High Resolution Monitors? Lack of high-resolution displays

#1 User is offline   MoishePippik 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 09-July 09

Posted 09 November 2010 - 06:09 PM

Though my camera takes 3000 x 4000 pixel photos, one rarely sees a display with better than 1900 x 1080. The few high-resolution LCD monitors advertised are from many hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars. The ancient Compaq CRT monitor I use is capable of 1200 x 1600 display.
1. Why has there been negative progress in display resolution?
2. Why is it difficult to find monitors in the traditional aspect ratio?
For me, there is no reason to downgrade to the current crop of displays designed for the old Cinerama format.
Any suggestion for reasonably-priced LCD displays with resolution as good as the old cathode ray tube?
0

#2 User is offline   Abandon 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 151
  • Joined: 28-August 10

Posted 10 November 2010 - 06:59 AM

In my opinion, higher reolution monitors have become harder to obtain because they are harder to look at (Just my opinion). The larger the monitor, the harder they are on the eyes. Even if you have a small screen, and you set the resolution REALLY high, it's a strain to read the small text. I can see where photoshop and artists would like high res screens, but for the average person, they arn't needed. Most people (including myself) just set the res at the native default.


---Brad---

This post has been edited by Abandon: 10 November 2010 - 07:00 AM

  • Motherboard: ASUS M2N68-AM SE2
  • Processor: AMD Phenom x4 9850 @ 2.6 MHz
  • Physical Memory: 4096MB (2 x 2048 DDR2-SDRAM )
  • Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (Overclocked)
  • Hard Disk: Maxtor 6L160P0 (160GB)
  • DVD-Rom Drive: PHILIPS DVD+-RW DVD8801
  • Operating System: Windows 7 64bit Ultimate
  • Sound Card: X-fi Sound Blaster xTreme Gamer Edition
  • Case: Thermaltake Armor A90
0

#3 User is offline   coastie65 

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 20,650
  • Joined: 02-April 07
  • Location:Henrico, Va.

Posted 15 November 2010 - 07:28 AM

View PostAbandon, on 10 November 2010 - 06:59 AM, said:

In my opinion, higher reolution monitors have become harder to obtain because they are harder to look at (Just my opinion). The larger the monitor, the harder they are on the eyes. Even if you have a small screen, and you set the resolution REALLY high, it's a strain to read the small text. I can see where photoshop and artists would like high res screens, but for the average person, they arn't needed. Most people (including myself) just set the res at the native default.


---Brad---


Heck, my native res ( as high as the monitor will go; 1900x1050 or something to that effect ) makes for some really small print. I have to go in and adjust for larger print. :P
Coolermaster HAF 912 Case....ASUS Z87Pro MOBO.....Intel Core i7 4770k Haswell ( OC'd to 4.6 Ghz ) .... Gelid Tranquillo cooler.... Samsung 830 256 GB SSD.... Primary HDD- WD 1TB Caviar Black SATA III /6.0 .... SECONDARY HDD - WD 1TB Caviar Black SATA II / 3.0....16Gb GSkill Ripjaws Series X 2133 Mhz Memory....Corsair AX850w PSU....EVGA GTX 680 Super Clocked Signature 2 Gb GDDR5 Video Card....Samsung CD/DVD RW, DL, DVD-Ram, w/ Lightscribe Optical Drive....Samsung SyncMaster 2243BWX 22" Monitor..... Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bit OS




______________________________________________________________

Gateway FX6800-01e----Intel Core i7 960 ( 3.2 GHz)---- Seagate Barracuda 750 Gb SATA II / 3.0 Hdd---- 6 Gb Crucial 1066 Mhz memory, running in Tri Channel conf-----Corsair TX650w PSU----- EVGA Nvidia GTX 560Ti 1gb GDDR5 Vram ----DVD +/- RW / CD ,RAM/DL Optical drive w/ Label Flash-----Gateway TBGM-01 Motherboard.... Vista Home Premium 64 bit OS w/ SP2; Samsung Synch Master 2243BWX 22" Monitor.
0

#4 User is offline   volcanoblack 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 25-January 09

Posted 17 January 2011 - 02:59 AM

Ageee with Moishe the resolution of LCD and LED monitors is really poor. My 17" laptop has a resolution of 1920x1200 so I would need any external monitor of 20" to have at least the same resolution of 1920 while most are at 1680 or lower.

Also, as a photo editor, the widescreen format 16:9 sucks. We also shoot vertical images! Monitor manufacturers take note please!

Thanks.
vbmica
0

#5 User is offline   LiveBrianD 

  • Elite
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,210
  • Joined: 31-December 09
  • Location:::1

Posted 20 January 2011 - 03:50 PM

View Postvolcanoblack, on 17 January 2011 - 02:59 AM, said:

Ageee with Moishe the resolution of LCD and LED monitors is really poor. My 17" laptop has a resolution of 1920x1200 so I would need any external monitor of 20" to have at least the same resolution of 1920 while most are at 1680 or lower.

Also, as a photo editor, the widescreen format 16:9 sucks. We also shoot vertical images! Monitor manufacturers take note please!

Thanks.
vbmica


Not only that, but for web browsing it also sucks. I'm glad that my monitors, which are a few years old, are standard ratio (5:4, 1280x1024). They're great for web surfing, and there's no stupid glossy finish. It's too bad that they aren't LED backlit. I doubt that you can find a matte standard-aspect-ratio screen with LED backlighting nowadays. It's all glossy widescreen. :( On the other hand, I imagine it'd be nice on ultraportable laptops since you can fit a full keyboard in a compact frame.

I remember about a year ago it was all 16:10. At least that wasn't quite AS wide as the newer 16:9. Do manufacturers think that people only use their computers to watch video? WRONG. Gaming and video is all widescreen is good for.
Spoiler
"The Internet will be used for all kinds of spurious things, including fake quotes from smart people." -Albert Einstein
Need a Windows ISO image?
0

#6 User is offline   waldojim 

  • Elite
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 16,412
  • Joined: 29-October 08
  • Location:Texas

Posted 20 March 2011 - 07:21 PM

View PostMoishePippik, on 09 November 2010 - 06:09 PM, said:

Though my camera takes 3000 x 4000 pixel photos, one rarely sees a display with better than 1900 x 1080. The few high-resolution LCD monitors advertised are from many hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars. The ancient Compaq CRT monitor I use is capable of 1200 x 1600 display.
1. Why has there been negative progress in display resolution?
2. Why is it difficult to find monitors in the traditional aspect ratio?
For me, there is no reason to downgrade to the current crop of displays designed for the old Cinerama format.
Any suggestion for reasonably-priced LCD displays with resolution as good as the old cathode ray tube?


I agree with you on this one... I had an old Viewsonic CRT that would do 2560x1600. It was a beast. And when it died, the best I could realistically get my hands on was the Samsung BWX2343. This guy does 2048x1152. Beyond that, you are generally looking at 30" pro-grade displays. One of the big reasons for this, is the LCD technology itself just hasn't caught up enough to make them affordable. That, and many people today don't understand the options in Windows to make text more readable on higher resolution displays.
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov

Steam Machine: MSI 970A-G46, AMD Phenom 955 @ 4.0Ghz, 8GB Gskill ram @1600mhz, 128GB Plextor M5s, EVGA GTX 550Ti
Laptop: Alienware 14, Intel i7-4700MQ, 8GB DDR3 ram, Nvidia GTX 765M 4GB DDR5, Plextor M3 256GB SSD, 1080P IPS display, Killer GigE, Killer 1202 wifi
Hackintosh: Gigabyte H61m-HD2, Celeron G1610, 4GB Patriot ram @1333Mhz, Asus GT210, WD 1TB Black, Silverstone ES50 500watt PSU, OS-X Mountain Liion
0

#7 User is offline   LiveBrianD 

  • Elite
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,210
  • Joined: 31-December 09
  • Location:::1

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:06 PM

View Postwaldojim, on 20 March 2011 - 07:21 PM, said:

That, and many people today don't understand the options in Windows to make text more readable on higher resolution displays.


It would be nice if things were exactly to-scale with large screen sizes - like the iphone retina display vs the older one. Everything's the same size, but crisper. That's why, on my grandmother's monitor (which is a 17" CRT btw), I used the resolution 1024x768 instead of 1280x1024 and a higher DPI setting (also it's less load on the computer that way). For instance, on a 11" laptop, I wouldn't mind the small text (with my young eyes), but some people might. For some, it would be nice if it didn't have the blurry effect that LCDs have when run at a non-native resolution while still having larger text (that's proportional to how things look at 100% DPI) while using those extra pixels to enhance sharpness in images, text, etc.

For instance:
Attached File  XP.jpg (321.28K)
Number of downloads: 4

Notice how the image displayed in it is perfectly sharp while windows elements are bigger than usual. Granted, I took the screenshot at 800x600 and blew it up to 1024x768 and then photoshopped the image copy in, but that's an example of how it could be (with the text clearer, of course).
Spoiler
"The Internet will be used for all kinds of spurious things, including fake quotes from smart people." -Albert Einstein
Need a Windows ISO image?
0

#8 User is offline   crazy4laptops 

  • Expert
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,169
  • Joined: 20-November 07
  • Location:USA

Posted 22 March 2011 - 06:56 AM

Mac/Apple, that is all ;) Apple is pretty much one of the elite few that is pushing high-res without subminiature text. Or maybe I'm just young with really good eyesight...
But maybe one of the reasons is that manufacturers are lazy and the average joe isn't interested in anything but internet and isn't techie enough to want to change. Plus, with home theaters & smartphones getting better, Joe will be spending more time on the TV and Android/iPhone than on his computer.

I personally love widescreen high-res! And I am a photographer with a 1680x1050 15" screen on my MacBook Pro. Photoshop doesn't mind, IMO, 1440x900 and 1280x800 are too low-res for me...

But yes, a screen for the vertical shots would be amazing for us photographers.
Even the experts started out as beginners
0

#9 User is offline   LiveBrianD 

  • Elite
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,210
  • Joined: 31-December 09
  • Location:::1

Posted 22 March 2011 - 02:55 PM

View Postcrazy4laptops, on 22 March 2011 - 06:56 AM, said:

Mac/Apple, that is all ;) Apple is pretty much one of the elite few that is pushing high-res without subminiature text. Or maybe I'm just young with really good eyesight...
But maybe one of the reasons is that manufacturers are lazy and the average joe isn't interested in anything but internet and isn't techie enough to want to change. Plus, with home theaters & smartphones getting better, Joe will be spending more time on the TV and Android/iPhone than on his computer.

I personally love widescreen high-res! And I am a photographer with a 1680x1050 15" screen on my MacBook Pro. Photoshop doesn't mind, IMO, 1440x900 and 1280x800 are too low-res for me...

But yes, a screen for the vertical shots would be amazing for us photographers.


You could get a desktop LCD and rotate it (and then change the graphics driver's setting). I've seen that in offices before. However, a 9:16 monitor might be a bit TOO tall though.
Spoiler
"The Internet will be used for all kinds of spurious things, including fake quotes from smart people." -Albert Einstein
Need a Windows ISO image?
0

#10 User is offline   waldojim 

  • Elite
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 16,412
  • Joined: 29-October 08
  • Location:Texas

Posted 26 March 2011 - 08:47 PM

View PostLiveBrianD, on 21 March 2011 - 06:06 PM, said:


It would be nice if things were exactly to-scale with large screen sizes - like the iphone retina display vs the older one. Everything's the same size, but crisper. That's why, on my grandmother's monitor (which is a 17" CRT btw), I used the resolution 1024x768 instead of 1280x1024 and a higher DPI setting (also it's less load on the computer that way). For instance, on a 11" laptop, I wouldn't mind the small text (with my young eyes), but some people might. For some, it would be nice if it didn't have the blurry effect that LCDs have when run at a non-native resolution while still having larger text (that's proportional to how things look at 100% DPI) while using those extra pixels to enhance sharpness in images, text, etc.

For instance:
Attachment XP.jpg

Notice how the image displayed in it is perfectly sharp while windows elements are bigger than usual. Granted, I took the screenshot at 800x600 and blew it up to 1024x768 and then photoshopped the image copy in, but that's an example of how it could be (with the text clearer, of course).


There actually is an option in Windows to change how the elements are scaled. Meaning if 2048x1156 is too small for you, scale it to 125, or 150%. Make it larger - Windows will take care of keeping it looking good.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 26 March 2011 - 08:49 PM

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov

Steam Machine: MSI 970A-G46, AMD Phenom 955 @ 4.0Ghz, 8GB Gskill ram @1600mhz, 128GB Plextor M5s, EVGA GTX 550Ti
Laptop: Alienware 14, Intel i7-4700MQ, 8GB DDR3 ram, Nvidia GTX 765M 4GB DDR5, Plextor M3 256GB SSD, 1080P IPS display, Killer GigE, Killer 1202 wifi
Hackintosh: Gigabyte H61m-HD2, Celeron G1610, 4GB Patriot ram @1333Mhz, Asus GT210, WD 1TB Black, Silverstone ES50 500watt PSU, OS-X Mountain Liion
0

#11 User is offline   LiveBrianD 

  • Elite
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,210
  • Joined: 31-December 09
  • Location:::1

Posted 27 March 2011 - 11:23 AM

View Postwaldojim, on 26 March 2011 - 08:47 PM, said:

View PostLiveBrianD, on 21 March 2011 - 06:06 PM, said:

It would be nice if things were exactly to-scale with large screen sizes - like the iphone retina display vs the older one. Everything's the same size, but crisper. That's why, on my grandmother's monitor (which is a 17" CRT btw), I used the resolution 1024x768 instead of 1280x1024 and a higher DPI setting (also it's less load on the computer that way). For instance, on a 11" laptop, I wouldn't mind the small text (with my young eyes), but some people might. For some, it would be nice if it didn't have the blurry effect that LCDs have when run at a non-native resolution while still having larger text (that's proportional to how things look at 100% DPI) while using those extra pixels to enhance sharpness in images, text, etc.

For instance:
Attachment XP.jpg

Notice how the image displayed in it is perfectly sharp while windows elements are bigger than usual. Granted, I took the screenshot at 800x600 and blew it up to 1024x768 and then photoshopped the image copy in, but that's an example of how it could be (with the text clearer, of course).


There actually is an option in Windows to change how the elements are scaled. Meaning if 2048x1156 is too small for you, scale it to 125, or 150%. Make it larger - Windows will take care of keeping it looking good.


Oh good point... I think it did look a little different from 1024x768 and 100% DPI though. (Compared to 125% DPI and 1280x1024)
Spoiler
"The Internet will be used for all kinds of spurious things, including fake quotes from smart people." -Albert Einstein
Need a Windows ISO image?
0

#12 User is offline   waldojim 

  • Elite
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 16,412
  • Joined: 29-October 08
  • Location:Texas

Posted 27 March 2011 - 04:48 PM

different, yes. But truth be told, it does still look good... almost natural.
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov

Steam Machine: MSI 970A-G46, AMD Phenom 955 @ 4.0Ghz, 8GB Gskill ram @1600mhz, 128GB Plextor M5s, EVGA GTX 550Ti
Laptop: Alienware 14, Intel i7-4700MQ, 8GB DDR3 ram, Nvidia GTX 765M 4GB DDR5, Plextor M3 256GB SSD, 1080P IPS display, Killer GigE, Killer 1202 wifi
Hackintosh: Gigabyte H61m-HD2, Celeron G1610, 4GB Patriot ram @1333Mhz, Asus GT210, WD 1TB Black, Silverstone ES50 500watt PSU, OS-X Mountain Liion
0

#13 User is offline   LiveBrianD 

  • Elite
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,210
  • Joined: 31-December 09
  • Location:::1

Posted 28 March 2011 - 07:37 PM

View Postwaldojim, on 27 March 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:

different, yes. But truth be told, it does still look good... almost natural.


Both look kinda blurry (with the icons). On the other hand, I have pretty good eyesight.

This post has been edited by LiveBrianD: 28 March 2011 - 07:37 PM

Spoiler
"The Internet will be used for all kinds of spurious things, including fake quotes from smart people." -Albert Einstein
Need a Windows ISO image?
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users