[ale] Video Resolutions
Chris Fowler
LCD. Currently I am using an Acer 21" wide screen. I started looking
at 27", but I'm confused about resolutions. I need as many pixels on
the screen as I can get. The more I get the more stuff I can view
without scrolling. What I do not understand is why as LCD screens get
larger the resolutions do not. The resolution difference between my 21
and the Acer 27 is not that great. I'm just curious what I can't get a
LCD with a 3K+x3k+ resolution.
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
A...@ale.org
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
Michael Trausch
Good question.
Please let me know if you find the answer. I want a screen with a bigger display where the pixels are exactly the same size or smaller. I don't think that's unreasonable...
Brian Stanaland
- The more laws and order are made prominent,
The more thieves and robbers there will be. -
Lao-tzu, The Way of Lao-tzu
Chinese philosopher (604 BC - 531 BC)
Michael Trausch
I am actually seriously considering an IBM laptop for the pix resolution of the display...
Calvin Harrigan
On 3/26/2012 10:43 AM, Brian Stanaland wrote:
> I know what you mean. Flat panels seem to max out at 1920x1080 AKA
> 1080p(or i). I had a 15inch Toshiba years ago with a 1600x1200 display.
> I want that again. I know with wide screens it would be 1920x1200 but
> that'd be great!
>
> Brian
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Chris Fowler
> <cfo...@outpostsentinel.com <mailto:cfo...@outpostsentinel.com>> wrote:
>
> After installing a (new to me) workstation I started looking for a new
> LCD. Currently I am using an Acer 21" wide screen. I started looking
> at 27", but I'm confused about resolutions. I need as many pixels on
> the screen as I can get. The more I get the more stuff I can view
> without scrolling. What I do not understand is why as LCD screens get
> larger the resolutions do not. The resolution difference between my 21
> and the Acer 27 is not that great. I'm just curious what I can't get a
> LCD with a 3K+x3k+ resolution.
You can buy 16:10 1920x1200 screens that tend to be based on IPS
technologies. They are very expensive. Something like this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001540
Michael Trausch
And it rotates!
I want!
Jim Kinney
--
James P. Kinney III
As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please, and those who survive will be left to contemplate the outcome.
- 2011 Noam Chomsky
http://heretothereideas.blogspot.com/
Brian Mathis
> After installing a (new to me) workstation I started looking for a new
> LCD. Currently I am using an Acer 21" wide screen. I started looking
> at 27", but I'm confused about resolutions. I need as many pixels on
> the screen as I can get. The more I get the more stuff I can view
> without scrolling. What I do not understand is why as LCD screens get
> larger the resolutions do not. The resolution difference between my 21
> and the Acer 27 is not that great. I'm just curious what I can't get a
> LCD with a 3K+x3k+ resolution.
You're really talking about achieving a specific DPI, which is
dependent on both size and resolution. There is a direct relationship
between price and resolution, and you have to be willing to spend the
money to get the higher resolution to maintain a good DPI.
Many people are simply spoiled with 24" screens that cost less than
$200. That is incredibly cheap and the reason they are cheap is
because they use the same panels and manufacturing process as HD TVs.
The display quality on cheap displays however is generally poor, and
anything outside that form factor is going to cost you.
I LOLed at the Newegg link for a "very expensive" monitor at $320.
I'm currently using a Dell Ultrasharp U2410, 24" WUXGA (1900x1200),
$550. This is a low-end professional quality display, and it still
doesn't have a very high DPI. I'm not an artist or anything, but I do
spend about 10 hours a day looking at this thing.
No matter what you think about Apple, they have finally kicked the
display industry in the pants and got them moving forward again. We
used to be getting improvements in display resolution every so often,
until HD TV came out and everyone got lazy and stuck with "Full HD".
Now that there's a good marketing term again ("retina display"), we
will all soon benefit when newer displays come out.
❧ Brian Mathis
mi...@trausch.us
> I LOLed at the Newegg link for a "very expensive" monitor at $320.
> I'm currently using a Dell Ultrasharp U2410, 24" WUXGA (1900x1200),
> $550. This is a low-end professional quality display, and it still
> doesn't have a very high DPI. I'm not an artist or anything, but I do
> spend about 10 hours a day looking at this thing.
I would *love* some higher-DPI screens. I have a very early-model Acer
display and a Samsung that is comparable; IIRC they are both 96 DPI (ick!).
I would much prefer to have a display that has 120 DPI or better, but I
fear that my pockets aren't at the moment deep enough to support that.
Oh, but to dream of the beautiful OpenType rendering on such a thing...!
:-)
--- Mike
--
A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic
than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense.
--- Carveth Read, “Logic”
Collin Pruitt
> No matter what you think about Apple, they have finally kicked the
> display industry in the pants and got them moving forward again. We
> used to be getting improvements in display resolution every so often,
> until HD TV came out and everyone got lazy and stuck with "Full HD".
> Now that there's a good marketing term again ("retina display"), we
> will all soon benefit when newer displays come out.
>
>
> ❧ Brian Mathis
>
the retina display, it blows away HD monitors or TV's completely. The
display industry has some serious catching up to do.
--
Collin Pruitt
Ubuntu Member
http://collinp.com/