HDTV Has Ruined the LCD Market 952
alvin67 writes "Microsoft Evangelist Pete Brown rants about the lack of pixels available in today's LCD screens: 'OK, that's it. I've had it. I want my pixels, damn it! For a while, screen resolution has been going up on our desktop displays. The trend was good, as I've always wanted the largest monitor with the highest DPI that I could afford. I mean, I used to have one of the first hulking 17-inch CRTs on my desk. I later upgraded to a 21-inch job that was so huge, that if you didn't stick it in a corner, it took up the whole desk. It was flat-panel, though and full of pixels. It cost me around $1,100 at the time."
After some years of improvements, we've regressed, in Brown's opinion: "At the rate we were going for a while, we should have had twice or three times the DPI on a 24- or 23-inch screen. But nooo."
Higher DPI and Gamut, please! (Score:5, Interesting)
Gamut is already here (Score:3, Interesting)
You can get high gamut monitors all over the place. The problem is that very few apps deal with colour management. Windows Vista and 7 have powerful colour management built in so they can be aware of the gamut of different devices and let apps know. However most apps don't check, and even some of those that can don't by default (Firefox can, but doesn't unless manually told to).
Now if you mean panels with greater bit depth for smoother colour gradients, those are here though pretty scarce. The problem is th
Re:Higher DPI and Gamut, please! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because NeXT is dead... :(
Re:Higher DPI and Gamut, please! (Score:5, Informative)
Because NeXT is dead... :(
An explanation, for those who don't know:
NeXT supported "Display PostScript," which is basically what it sounds like. Thus, unlimited scaling and DPI, splines, fonts, etc.... Basically, applying laser printer techniques to your screen.
Re:Higher DPI and Gamut, please! (Score:4, Insightful)
And of course, OS X uses "Display PDF" which should still do all that stuff too... yet it doesn't, for no good reason.
Re:Higher DPI and Gamut, please! (Score:4, Interesting)
OS X does do all that stuff and has been resolution independent under the hood since at least 10.5. If you have Developer Tools installed, Quartz Debug can alter the UI resolution.
Most apps have issues, even some Apple apps are still glitchy. Interestingly, in 10.6, I noticed that iTunes will actually zoom the whole window, indicating that they have an upgrade path for non-resolution independent apps. So we'll probably see it working smoothly by 10.7.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OS X uses "Display PDF", Display PostScript's successor. It basically does the exact same thing, but with rather more flexibility, unfortunately, apple's 3D accelerated implementations are a bit buggy at the moment :(. Changing the base resolution in 10.6 actually gets surprisingly close to what it should do though, so there's hope yet.
Re:Higher DPI and Gamut, please! (Score:4, Insightful)
Second this. Vista / Windows 7 were both scheduled to handle resolution-independent UI rendering, and neither of them can. Until the OS can render icons at 3/4ths of an inch at super-high DPI, most people will want a screen appropriately sized for their inputs. Similarly, web pages and other rendering will need to be resolution-independent... though the OS comes first.
I'm a bit surprised this rant is coming from a Microsoft Evangelist, considering that this is something that Microsoft has promised to fix for years.
Re:Higher DPI and Gamut, please! (Score:4, Informative)
Second this. Vista / Windows 7 were both scheduled to handle resolution-independent UI rendering, and neither of them can. Until the OS can render icons at 3/4ths of an inch at super-high DPI, most people will want a screen appropriately sized for their inputs. Similarly, web pages and other rendering will need to be resolution-independent... though the OS comes first.
Have you tried it in Vista/Windows 7? It's really, really good... I'm not sure exactly how they could improve it, frankly, except maybe increasing the possible magnification factor. (IIRC, it stops at 200% now.) Whenever I see complaints like yours, I have to kind of wonder if you've actually tried using the feature, or if you're just ranting from habit...
Either way, I think you're being really unfair, especially compared to Apple who has been promising the same thing in OS X since version freakin' 10.2 and hasn't shown the teeniest bit of progress in all that time.
Make sure you turn off "XP-style DPI scaling" when you set it-- the XP-style scaling still leaves layout up to the app, which is why apps that don't use native layout tools (like Adobe apps and GTK+ apps) will still look correct.
Re:Higher DPI and Gamut, please! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I used to hunt for pixels too, but after about 1280x1024 I stopped caring.
I don't like my desktop at much higher resolution than that, it becomes uncomfortable. I know gamers and drafters really want giant screens at massive resolutions, but besides them who else really wants it? 2560x2048 resolution doesn't exactly help me see my web pages or documents any better - in fact it can make them downright hard to see, so why do I need it?
Unfortunately for Pete Brown, I think more people fall into my category than do his, or he wouldn't have anything to complain about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People with good eyesight who use complicated applications or requirements.
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:5, Funny)
People with good eyesight who use complicated applications or requirements.
How does one use a requirement?
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:5, Funny)
How does one use a requirement?
Well, some people often abuse requirements, so using a requirement is probably similar to that.
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it's opposite. If you have higher DPI you use more pixels to describe each element on screen. So typical 10 pt font that is perhaps 12 pixels high would be 24 pixels high on a 2 times higher DPI screen. This means more, smaller pixels to finely define edges of complex things which means less aliasing for everything.
This is the same as printing with dot matrix printers of old vs printing with modern laser printer at 2000 DPI. Which one looks better? Laser of course. Same height letter is described with hundred times more smaller pixels.
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know gamers and drafters really want giant screens at massive resolutions, but besides them who else really wants it? 2560x2048 resolution doesn't exactly help me see my web pages or documents any better - in fact it can make them downright hard to see, so why do I need it?
This is a combination of bad UI in operating systems and programs, and user cluelessness about how to make use of high resolution displays. What you want to do is configure your system to display things larger. The OS and programs should make sure they either default to that on a high res display, or at least make it really apparent that you should with popup boxes when you first set up the machine/program.
Some OSes and programs also don't always work well with very large size fonts, though modern ones should.
You really WANT super-high res displays with 'normal' size letters - your text will be far crisper that way than even font smudging, err, anti-aliasing, at lower resolutions.
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a combination of bad UI in operating systems and programs, and user cluelessness about how to make use of high resolution displays.
It is mostly bad UI.
Changing the font size or DPI settings in Windows wreaks havoc on many programs. Some mainstream applications handle it nicely, but a change to either setting destroys a number of industry applications that my clients use.
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:5, Informative)
This is a lot better on Vista/7. Legacy programs at high DPI are bitmap enlarged to maintain correct proportions. (Although yes, this does make some programs look fuzzy.) Smarter programs that handle DPI properly can set a flag in their application manifest if they handle different DPI properly. .NET programs written using WPF are entirely vector based, and so scale to any resolution.
This was wonderful for my grandparents - they had been running XP at 640x480 because of their poor vision. When they got a Windows 7 computer, we ran the screen at its native resolution and just turned the DPI settings way down.
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:4, Informative)
.NET programs written using WPF are entirely vector based, and so scale to any resolution.
This is mostly correct, but (having worked on a large real-world WPF application) there is a catch. There's nothing precluding a WPF application from using bitmaps in its UI - there is full support for that - and, of course, the bitmaps can't be scaled smoothly. They will be scaled, but you'll get the same "blurred pixels" effect.
This is why VS2010 doesn't scale perfectly, to give an example. In contrast, Expression Blend uses XAML vector images for its icons - and therefore scales everything smoothly.
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is something that drives me crazy. I bought a screen with a relatively high DPI, and on half the websites I visit now the content is provided on some kind of fixed size (in pixels) flash thingee. It sits in the upper left corner of my monitor and I need a magnifying glass to read it. A higher DPI makes for some ultra-smooth fonts and allows for detailed images, but only if the moron creating content didn't decide to do everything in pixels.
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:5, Informative)
This is just another in a long line of examples of why Flash is Evil.
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:5, Funny)
This is just another in a long line of examples of why Flash is Evil.
This is just another in a long line of examples of why the word 'kneejerk' is 50% 'jerk'.
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't have as much problem with pictures as I have with text. I'm not saying people should design different versions of web sites based on the screen resolution. What I *am* saying is don't make a site that's rendered in such a way that the text is too small to read on a monitor with a lot of DPI. Any reasonably well written HTML can be adjusted on my end - I'm used to hitting to increase the text size.
But to make a website that can only be read without a magnifying glass on the wrong monoitor... yea
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe your ilk of web designers should stop getting so defensive and start finding solutions. You know, kind of like how engineers find solutions.
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:5, Funny)
Ahhh, web developers -- the Wal-Mart cashiers of the computing industry...
Re: (Score:3)
Unless we find a way to scale those pictures, and sometimes backgrounds, up in size without any reduction in quality (impossible)
Uhh, it's called SVG - Scalable Vector Graphics. If IE didn't suck it'd be more widespread already. I hear they're finally getting onboard in the next release or something.
Anyway, you're right it doesn't help with photo images, but a lot of website graphics are just rasterized vector images, and it's perfect for those. The photos can be given point sizes and the browser will just scale them as needed.
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
We are expected to make a website that renders 99.99999999% the same on all browsers
No, you aren't. You are expected to make a website that renders correctly on all browsers, which doesn't mean the same. The latter is clearly impossible, because there are too many things you don't control with respect to layout.
For example, fonts - you cannot guarantee the presence of any particular font on the user's machine, and even if it is there, depending on the OS and its settings, the exact metrics of the font can be different (e.g. OS X uses ideal layout for fonts, while Windows snips vertical lines to pixel boundaries - so text is wider on Windows, and the difference can be as high as 20%).
If that were not enough there are web standards we have to deal with and browsers that still cannot handle everything we want do because they don't fully support CSS3/HTML5 yet.
There's no browser today that claims, much less truly supports, 100% of CSS3/HTML5. It would be rather tricky, anyway, given that they're still not finalized.
Given that, the only sane course of action is to design the website such that, for any reasonable font size - and with images not scaled up/down - the layout remains consistent and accessible. If you do that, then you may as well use DPI-independent units for font sizes.
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:4, Funny)
We are expected to make a website that renders 99.99999999% the same on all browsers, and now... we must cater to YOU or be called a moron too?
That is correct. Additionally, I'll require you meet my needs as well as him, though I'll think of something more creative than moron to call you if you don't. Also, I won't tell you my needs unless you fail to meet them. ;)
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:5, Informative)
For example, the relevant application(s) has to be DPI aware as well as either have additional higher resolution raster based graphics or use something like SVG [slashdot.org]
Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (Score:4, Informative)
Some apps just plain ignore the DPI setting, while others display funny, such as chopped-off text because it "grows" outside of intended sizing-box boundaries.
In Vista and above, the application has to explicitly say in its manifest that it's DPI-aware (i.e. the author has to claim that he understands the issues). This is a new manifest setting that wasn't present in XP. Any application that doesn't have that setting in its manifest will be treated as non-DPI-aware (even if it really is).
What this means in practice is that Windows will tell it to render at 92 DPI (the old default, to which everyone normally codes), and then scale the produced bitmap as needed - as a bitmap. The result is pixellated, of course, but at least the layout is completely preserved, so you won't see chopped-off text on controls etc.
Companies don't seem to test their apps very well at higher DPI, perhaps because they are multi-language apps, which means testing at both common and high DPI for every language.
Actually, multi-language apps are more likely to be handling high DPI better, because most languages have longer words compared to English. So those apps would either have to use flexible layouts (so that controls auto-adjust size to text labels) - which means that they will just scale up with more text; or they use fixed layouts, but upsize controls so that extra text on any localization would still fit - which means that text enlarged via DPI is more likely to fit, as well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
People do care. Just not about resolution. People care about price.
How many 1080i/p TVs are sold for every WUXGA (1920x1200) display? 10-1? 50-1? I don't know but I'm betting there are a lot more TVs being shifted. The LCD manufacturers have most of their capacity allocated to HDTV panels. This makes for low, low prices.
So when Joe Blow waddles his 290lbs ass into Best Buy to pick up a display he has a choice; he can get the super-cheap on-sale rebated HDTV that works just fine with his 'puter d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
30" screens are great for developers, too. Everybody knows how useful multiple displays are, but nobody seems to realize just how much better a 30" 2560x1600 screen is than a couple of 21" screens, even though you're pushing about the same number of pixels and display area.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think for people who are mostly a "consumer" of information (and that is most people) you are pretty much spot on, there are diminishing returns.
On the other hand if you are in some way producer, especially of something remotely complex, then the increased resolution is definately useful as it provides room to both see what you are producing and have the relevant tools available (eg an IDE or photoshop) and possibly so
To the guy in the adjacent cube... (Score:5, Funny)
...Because I know you spend all day reading Slashdot instead of what you are supposed to be doing...
Would you please stop making disgusting sounds with your dentures???
Please?
Re:To the guy in the adjacent cube... (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, I'll stop now
Laptop pains too (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel your pain. I have a 17" laptop screen that is 1920x1200. By that token a high dpi 30" screen should be a lot more than ~2500x1600
I would also love a second display for my laptop but good luck finding a desktop monitor of any size with the same DPI as the laptop. As a result I've got small windows and big windows.
Sheldon
Not everyone wants more pixels, but better aspect (Score:5, Interesting)
What I do want is more vertical resolution. The 16:9 craze means today we buy displays that are physcially larger and have more pixels overall than ten years ago, yet do not provide any more area for vertical display. You still have to scroll down far too much. It would be nice if someone still made decent, affordable 4:3 displays; a 1600 X 1200 in 21" format is going to be a killer!
Re:Not everyone wants more pixels, but better aspe (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly for most people the existing 'HDTV' resolution has more than enough pixels
Yeah and 640k was enough for everyone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed - I'm using a pair of 1600x1200 20" LCDs and as much as I'd like to upgrade, there's just nothing out there which really feels like an upgrade for sensible money. Oh well!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also if you rotate a 1920 X 1200 display into vertical position you get what you want.
I'll second that. I keep a second monitor, rotated to 1200x1920, dedicated to web browsing on my main system.
It totally rocks, I hardly ever have to scroll. However, I am constantly reminded that far too many web designers have their heads firmly stuck in a box of about 800x600 and do the multiple page thing forcing me to click "next" every couple of paragraphs and leaving around half of my screen wasted on empty space.
Need small native resolution screens too! (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with increasing DPI on a screen, to a point.
I find a 22" screen with 1680x1050 is perfect. The new 21.5" screens with 1920x1080 are a bit too "small" when dealing with XP and the native resolution.
Most business users I deal with still want 4:3 screens. 16:9 and 16:10 screens are far too short vertically. Many people still want to see a full page of text on a screen. Widescreen works well for spreadsheets and databases.
I would also like to see more screens with a lower DPI for older users. I have yet to set a 20", 21.5" or 22" screen at native resolution for older workers. Most tend to move to a ~1440x900 or even ~1280x800 from the 1680x1050 or 1920x1080. When I move to those resolutions, or any resolution that keeps the same aspect ratio, but is not the native resolution, the LCDs are blurry (even more troublesome for older users).
Not everyone watches movies on their computers all day, in fact, I would believe most people view more vertical than horizontal documents for the better part of the day - both at work and at home.
Re:Need small native resolution screens too! (Score:4, Informative)
Most programs and websites(in terms of sidebars and toolbars and stuff) are still laid out for screens that are wider than they are tall, so you do usually need one monitor in the usual configuration.
Your second monitor, though, you just rotate so that it is now taller than it is wide, and offers rather more horizontal resolution than any but the nicest 4:3 monitors ever did.
All but the cheapest video cards support dual monitors(and we are talking really cheap here. the 20-30 dollar card might not; but for $50 you'll have a hard time not getting dual monitor support, albeit often 1VGA, 1DVI), and the software is mature enough(you'll have to suffer through looking at your BIOS bootup sideways on one of the screens; but you'll survive).
Unless your environment is quite space constrained, or has to fit in a laptop bag and go with you, a second monitor, rotated so that its dimensions closely match those of your common paper document, is a fairly cheap way to make an office-type worker's life more pleasant and productive.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bloody luxury. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bloody luxury. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bah! Decadence! I have no tongue.
one big pixel? (Score:5, Funny)
My monitor has ONE BIG PIXEL. It ain't easy to use but I get by.
Actually that's just the disk activity light.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try adjusting the contrast.
Which do you want? (Score:4, Interesting)
The 2560 monitor that sells for $1200 or the 1920 monitor that sells for $200-300? the market has decided.
The 1080p standard is beneficial to both computer users and tv watchers in driving prices down.
1440p is probably the next stepping point thats 2736x1440, its less of a step than 2160p.
Do we really WANT higher resoltuion displays? (Score:5, Informative)
Why aren't we all using WQUXGA, WHSXGA, or even WHUXGA display right now?
Simple, there's no demand for it.
Why isn't there any demand for it?
Because 90% of the consumers are still watching 480p DVD and DTV broadcasts.
Because lots of websites are still designed to be optimally viewing in 1024x768.
Because most operating systems and applications have their font sizes hardcoded (Windows 7 only allow system fonts to be enlarged by 150% while OSX cannot adjust its system font size at all).
Re:Do we really WANT higher resoltuion displays? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why aren't we all using WQUXGA, WHSXGA, or even WHUXGA display right now?
Hopefully regardless of our opinions of pixel density, we can *all* agree to STOP USING THOSE RETARDED ABBREVIATIONS. How is a mortal human being supposed to know what the holy shit "WHUXGA" means in a practical sense? Just give us the actual resolution (in NUMBERS) and call it good. Thank you.
Ahem.
Anyway, I agree with your general sentiment about OS support for high-res displays, although it's getting much better. Progress has been slow. Maybe in another 5-10 years it literally will not matter what your DPI is, and desktops will all look the same regardless.
I also want to add that is Pete Brown wants higher-res displays, he's perfectly welcome to start up a business providing same and seeing how well he does. If he's right, and there's a huge demand for these, he'll make a killing. (My guess is he's not and there isn't and he'll go broke.)
Re:Do we really WANT higher resoltuion displays? (Score:5, Funny)
How is a mortal human being supposed to know what the holy shit "WHUXGA" means in a practical sense?
I'm pretty sure WHUXGA is a volcano in Iceland.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's worse then that even, they can't even decide what they mean. I've seen WXGA mean 1366x768, 1280x768, 1280x800, and 1280x720. I have even seen a projector that had a resolution that was a 17:10 aspect ratio. It probably wouldn't even bother me that much, except that many times, the only thing listed in the spec sheet is "WXGA" with no actual resolution listed.
Re:Do we really WANT higher resoltuion displays? (Score:5, Informative)
Windows 7 only allow system fonts to be enlarged by 150%
Not true. The Set Custom Text Size setting allows up to 500%, i.e. 480dpi.
Re:Do we really WANT higher resoltuion displays? (Score:5, Interesting)
According to a friend of mine who worked at Apple and did a white paper for them on resolution independence, you need ~200 DPI on the display before you can get away with scaling all the UI elements without them jumping around by 1/2 pixels, etc and it being annoying to the user. That's why the iPhone as a ~200 DPI screen. So, the IBM T-221 display would be awesome for resolution independence, but typical monitors, "not so much".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
According to a friend of mine who worked at Apple and did a white paper for them on resolution independence, you need ~200 DPI on the display before you can get away with scaling all the UI elements without them jumping around by 1/2 pixels, etc and it being annoying to the user.
I don't understand this part at all. A button misplaced by 1/2 pixel will hardly be noticeable (especially on 150dpi and above!), and it's not like it will jump back and forth all the time - it will only happen once when user changes DPI setting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's assuming brain-dead "nearest-neighbor" scaling (only whole-pixel steps). Plenty of other methods perform far better. bicubic is the first one that comes to mind.
Re:Do we really WANT higher resoltuion displays? (Score:4, Interesting)
According to a friend of mine who worked at Apple and did a white paper for them on resolution independence, you need ~200 DPI on the display before you can get away with scaling all the UI elements without them jumping around by 1/2 pixels, etc and it being annoying to the user.
Whitepaper or not, that's total bunk. Hasn't he heard of subpixel rendering? The font guys at Apple do that every day, maybe he should talk to them about it. Now, you might use the argument that widgets might become a bit blurry, but they sure wouldn't "jump around" unless you're doing something crazy-wrong.
Also, the iPhone doesn't have a 200 DPI screen, so in addition to being conceptually wrong, you're factually wrong. Apple's own webpage says it's 163: http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html [apple.com]
Besides, even if icons "jumped around" by half a pixel, why can't I set the DPI in OS X anyway and just decide to take that risk? Could it be because (gasp) Apple doesn't have the fucking feature working yet, despite talking about it since 10.2? Ask your friend what the hold-up is... we all saw a mostly-working demo in the 10.3 dev tools, where's the finished feature?
get bigger displays (Score:4, Informative)
The market is getting there. New 22" and 24" displays are coming out that have 1920x1080 (or 1200) resolutions, and recent 27" displays like on the latest iMac and a Dell 27" display have 2560x1440 (the 16:9 version of the 16:10 2560x1600 30" displays). You should be careful about some of these monitors, as many of them are large gamut displays that require calibration, and they're generally not going to be for gaming, as they're H-IPS panels. But they're really beautiful. I'm waiting for some detailed reviews on the new HP zr24w display - 1920x1200 (16:10 FTW!) with regular color gamut. I want the wide viewing angles, but I'm not _that_ picky about color. $425, I think.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
what the TV industry learned from the PC industry (Score:4, Insightful)
high-DPI displays (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with high DPI displays is bad software support. Two things need to happen for this to work:
1) Applications need to work properly with high DPIs.
2) The OS needs to do a good job scaling old applications that don't respect DPI. That may include lying to them about the resolution and DPI, and stretching the window.
For #1, we are getting better. But many modern apps *cough*iTunes*cough* completely botch it. In some cases text on buttons gets bigger but the button does not, so instead of "Configure" you get the top half of the letter C. Or maybe the text gets bigger, and it spaces just fine, but the column sizes still default incorrectly. It would be better if they just ignored DPI than supporting it half-way.
For #2, you basically need to scale the window and adjust the mouse coordinates to compensate. There's gonna be quirks, but it sure beats an app that is just too small to be usable. Also, scale it well (not bilinear!) so it isn't a blurry blob.
Another stupidity in the LCD display market (Score:5, Insightful)
... and even the LCD TV market, is the lack of a guarantee of NO DEAD OR STUCK PIXELS. Very few displays have any pixel issues. The industry says that fewer than one percent have problems with any pixels. Yet when you read the warranty details, they will treat a few (usually somewhere from 3 to 8 depending on manufacturer and pixel location on the screen) bad pixels as not covered by the warranty. OK, so they are cheap skates and want to screw over the fewer than 1% of the buyers that luck out and get one of their lemons.
If the figure really is less than 1%, why not offer one of those "extended warranty"-like deals the retailers like to offer ... for a cost of say 3% to 5% of the purchase price ... but in this case an "absolutely zero dead or stuck pixels no matter what ... warranty"? If only 1% of units are bad, then they should make a killing at 3% to 5% of purchase price.
Of course, not everyone would buy that. But if I'm going to plunk down big dollars for a 76 cm 2560x1600 display, I sure don't want to get a lemon with a bad pixel. I'd pay the 5% more to be sure I don't get one.
They could even test units and segregate the stock, selling the flawless ones for more, and the flawed ones for a little less. Even if this price span is break even, this can attract more buyers ... some wanting the perfect units ... some wanting a discount. Come on you MBA bozos ... go after that market.
I have a big problem with everything (Score:5, Funny)
On a computer screen, I want as much resolution as possible! And.. even on my hdtv, I want as much resolution as possible. Even in my living room, watching a Bluray at 1080p, I still see the pixels from 10-12 feet away on the couch. Maybe I'm more picky than the average person.. or maybe I have better eyes (not really.. i wear contacts)...
But here's where I really get mad.. Half the people are posting that too high of resolution causes web pages to look too small.. or GUI's to look to funky.. That is where I have a problem! Why the hell don't we have vector graphics gui's by now? First, I blame Intel.. Intel sucks so bad at graphics that they cannot even run Aero properly.. still.. in 2010. Intel, your engineers are of average intelligence. And yet, your goddamn graphics chips are in half our computers. (Maybe some of you think Intel runs Aero fine.. but I'm still not happy with it.) Second.. WTF is Aero? It's a piece of shit GUI band-aid.. that's what it is. It adds like one 3d feature just so the dumbass consumer goes 'ohhh.. pretty candy'. Weren't we promised a vector-based GUI with Vista? So Microsoft, you suck too. Your management is incompetent and your programmers lack talent. Third.. Why the hell can't I take advantage of the contrast of a computer monitor and just have a black background? Why the hell am I pretty much forced with a white background and black text whether I'm running linux, Windows, FreeBSD, Apple, OS2, YourMom (an OS I wrote in like 5 minutes that's better than Windows 7.) Seriously.. every OS basically forces white background/black text.. Why not have vector-based black background with bright green text.. like in the 80's.. back when it was hilariously easy to read text on a crappy 14" CRT monitor? Fourth, fuck you both Firefox and Opera. You both should do a better job of seperating the CONTENT (read.. the fucking text) from the rest of the bullshit on the webpage. Let me, the viewer, decide what color I want for the background and text.. and figure out how to make it look halfway decent! IE, you don't even count because you are from Microsoft and therefore cannot innovate. Apple, do not think you're getting out of this.. You're still living in pixel land. Come on, Steve Jobs, force your overworked minions to develop the best goddamn vector graphics GUI in existence.. Then open the new OS to all platforms.. Then dominate the entire marketplace. Seriously.. the entire world will be scrambling to develop the highest resolution monitor.. Steve, if you don't do this, you have tiny balls. OMG, I almost forgot the monitor companies.. God you suck. I am using a Samsung 1920x1200 26" TV as my monitor right now.. Don't think I didn't notice you went from 16:10 to 16:9 behind my back.. I found the one TV on clearance that still had the 0:+1 more than everyone else.
So, imo, where the entire computer industry is screaming, "Look at me.. I'm soo great.. I have multitouch or I have a stupid 3d feature.. or I have 1080p!", remember that you still have a lot to do.. Please hurry up and get it done..
AMD, you get a free pass.
I have a lot more to bitch about.. but I'm busy.. and I only have so much karma to blow.
Re:I have a big problem with everything (Score:5, Interesting)
We actually do have a vector-based GUI in Vista/7.
It works quite well on apps that are written to use it.
Aero is also a desktop compositing engine, which means that the GPU handles a lot more of the screen redraw and such.
It also handles such things as... raster-scaling GDI applications to the appropriate size (rather than relying on the GDI app to get the size right, they never do,) when you've got the DPI increased in Vista/7.
Re:I have a big problem with everything (Score:4, Interesting)
... Fourth, fuck you both Firefox and Opera. You both should do a better job of separating the CONTENT (read.. the fucking text) from the rest of the bullshit on the webpage. Let me, the viewer, decide what color I want for the background and text.. and figure out how to make it look halfway decent!
That's funny I can right now go to View -> Page Style -> No Style, and Firefox will display slashdot as linear context using my font and color settings in Tools -> Options -> Content tab. Of course this only works if the site only decorates the page using CSS. I think there's a Firefox add-on that allows you to override the site's CSS and replace it with your own in a user friendly manner.
BS: Or you have a ridiculously huge TV. (Score:4, Insightful)
"On a computer screen, I want as much resolution as possible! And.. even on my hdtv, I want as much resolution as possible. Even in my living room, watching a Bluray at 1080p, I still see the pixels from 10-12 feet away on the couch. Maybe I'm more picky than the average person.. or maybe I have better eyes (not really.. i wear contacts)..."
Really that is shenanigans worthy. 12 feet away and you see pixels??? Just how big is your TV?
I have 20:15 vision and pixels are invisible at 5 feet on my 40" TV (I just broke out a measuring tape).
I want my VERTICAL resolution back (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck this moronic pandering to people who want to do nothing with a computer but watch 1080p videos: I want my vertical resolution back. Stop stealing pixels from the top and bottom and tacking them onto the sides where I don't need them for document work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Especially with applications that put row after row of junk buttons along the top and bottom and never on the sides, making the vertical space crunch even worse. Everything from Firefox to OpenOffice has this issue. We need to knock some developer heads around.
Re:I want my VERTICAL resolution back (Score:5, Insightful)
monitor.RotateInDegrees(90);
Pete Brown is an idiot (Score:5, Interesting)
The 24-inch 600dpi display he so desperately wants requires a resolution of 12,000 x 7,500 pixels. A 600dpi, 24-bit colour 12,000 x 7,500 @ 60Hz display requires a 129.6Gbps communications bandwidth, which well and truly exceeds any (currently available) display bus connectivity.
HDMI 1.4 has a maximum video bandwidth of 8.16Gbps. Even a 4-lane DisplayPort connection has a maximum bandwidth of only 17.2Gbps. It's not HDTV that's limited the progress of desktop display resolutions, it's the lack of a decent high-bandwidth display communications link.
All this is academic, though. How many people would *really* be able to tell the difference between a 96dpi and 200dpi display on their desktop (IBM makes 200dpi displays, by the way), let alone a 600dpi display.
Re:Pete Brown is an idiot (Score:4, Interesting)
All this is academic, though. How many people would *really* be able to tell the difference between a 96dpi and 200dpi display on their desktop
Basically all of them. The difference is extremely noticeable when it comes to fonts and other things that require pixels smaller then what a 96dpi display can produce to render properly. The difference between 200dpi and 600dpi might be a little trickier, as with 200dpi you can already start to render a font that looks like a print font, not like a screen font.
But 96dpi is really extremely low and its a little depressing that computer power has increased by orders of magnitude, while the last big dpi jump was back when things switched from 320x200 to 640x480, everything after that has mostly about larger displays, not higher dpi displays.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Mr 'Evangelist' Brown should accept the fact that cramming more and more pixels into displays will make them more and more expensive. Since LCD displays have become commodity items in the PC market people want them to be good quality and cheap, not super duper mega high quality & pixel count and very very expensive. The normal consumer doesn't have a need for a shit load of pixel so he needs to find an HDTV maker who will deliver on to his desk so he can stop whining about it.
BTW, if this is h
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:30 inch HP LP3605 here @ 2560x1600 (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you bother to read his reason why he wants a ridiculous 300dpi display? "I don't want the super high DPI to fit more info, I want super high DPI so I can get extra smooth text and screen elements. "
Did he seriously just say he wanted a 6000x4000 24" LCD with a 0.08mm dot pitch (compared to average CRTs with 0.22-0.28mm) so he could look at smooth text?
Also, does he realize this is all his employers' (Microsoft) fault? XP was set by default to 96 DPI. Sure you could set it to "large size" 120 DPI when running high, but that usually ended up distorting everything. Websites didn't look right, text would be all over the pages, some text would be larger but other things wouldn't be, like text in Flash or on images. What looked normal on your screen looked huge on other's meaning you couldn't do web design any word processing. So why would manufactures offer 300dpi when customers would just set them back to the 96 DPI they're use to?
Further proof that no one cares: Steam's Hardware Survey March 2010 [steampowered.com]. Most prevalent resolution amongst gamers? 1280x1024, at 19%. Second place is 1680x1050, at 18%. Neither of those are particularly high, with the highest resolution in the survey being 1920x1200 at 6% and "Other" is only 3.4%.
Besides when his eyes go in a few years he won't care about the high resolutions anymore.
Re:30 inch HP LP3605 here @ 2560x1600 (Score:5, Insightful)
Further proof that no one cares: Steam's Hardware Survey March 2010 [steampowered.com]. Most prevalent resolution amongst gamers? 1280x1024, at 19%. Second place is 1680x1050, at 18%. Neither of those are particularly high, with the highest resolution in the survey being 1920x1200 at 6% and "Other" is only 3.4%.
Since when were gamers ever a good measure of display resolution? Gamers have *never* pushed their hardware up to really high resolutions because high frame rates are more important to them (which makes a lot of sense - you can't appreciate high resolutions on fast moving video anyway).
The people you should be paying attention to are graphic designers, programmers, people using CAD, publishers, etc. These are the people who were using 21" 1600x1200 CRTs when "normal people" were happy with their 15" 800x600 displays and gamers were trying to squeeze high frame rates out of 320x240.
96dpi is crap, we need better. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes he did, and he's absolutely right. In print media (color or black&white) 300dpi is considered a bare minimum, yet on computer displays we get a measly 96dpi? Yuck! We have to employ all sorts of anti-aliasing tricks to mask the problem but if we had 300dpi we wouldn't need anti-aliasing at all. And text would be much easier on the eyes.
In my experience this simply isn't true --whenever I specify a custom dpi for windows it handles it pretty well (I have noticed that you some apps look janky until you reboot, but fine afterwards).
Ironically, this is one UI issue that XP/Vista handles way better than OSX, I just got the 15" macbook pro with the optional 1680x1050 display, and the only way to change the dpi is with the developer tools (and when you do the UI is a total mess).
This *is* annoying but hopefully will be getting better. Shitty web developers are finding out that if they specify "pt" instead of "px" their content is still readable on high-dpi devices like iPhone/Droid.
Sadly, you've got a point. I would love a 300dpi display, and I think people would come around if they saw the potential, but until the OS and content can maximize that potential the manufacturers won't be motivated.
Re:30 inch HP LP3605 here @ 2560x1600 (Score:4, Informative)
According to this calculator [thirdculture.com], 4000x2000 on a 56" is only 80ppi. He's already complaining about 96ppi so I'm sure he won't like 80.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"I think Mr 'Evangelist' Brown should accept the fact that cramming more and more pixels into displays will make them more and more expensive."
Just for the fuck of it I did a physical pixel count on my screen. Turns out 27 RGB subpixels create a 3x3 grouping of 3 RGB subpixels per section to make one pixel. I used mspaint to drop a white pixel on a black background to check.
That's for 1080p. Imagine if I could just render at the TRUE native resolution of the panel, which is higher than the 1080p it is limit
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think Mr WrongSizeGlass should accept the fact that cramming more and more gigabytes into hard drives will make them more and more expensive. Since HDDs have become commodity items in the PC market people want them to be good quality and cheap, not super duper mega high capacity & low latency and very very expensive. The normal consumer doesn't have a need for a shit load of gigabytes so he needs to find an HDD maker who will deliver on to his desk so he can stop whining about it.
BTW, if this is his biggest complaint about things then he's got it pretty easy and obviously doesn't have enough to worry about.
do you realize how weak/stupid your argument is?
Re:30 inch HP LP3605 here @ 2560x1600 (Score:4, Insightful)
There's actually a lot wrong with displays these days, and the trend towards shrinking resolutions, especially with the shortscreen (16:10) and shorterscreen (16:9) fads taking off is only one of the problems. The other problem is the overwhelming majority of panels produced now are TN, meaning they have outrageously bad viewing angles and only 6-bits of colour per channel instead of 8. It wouldn't be so bad if you could actually tell what type of panel an LCD used, but the manufacturers don't list it anywhere, so it's basically impossible to tell unless you can see one in person. Good luck finding any laptop nowadays that doesn't come with a TN panel, Thinkpads and Apples included.</rant>
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's only 100dpi. His complaint is specifically that we're still stuck at around 90dpi or less. 100dpi is still in that ballpark. When you get a 150dpi, 200dpi, or better monitor, let us know.
Re:30 inch HP LP3605 here @ 2560x1600 (Score:5, Insightful)
The reality is that the only place you see 200DPI or better is in cell phones and MP3 players.
As many programmers will tell you, the DPI setting in Windows is a problematic farce.
The most important thing to understand is that it lies. It has absolutely nothing to do with the DPI of the display. If the setting happens to match the displays actual DPI then its merely a coincidence. This value is actually used both in practice, and as a matter of policy, as a global scaling factor. So people with bad eyesight are EXPECTED to have this value set to completely lie its ass off.
Instead of blindly betting the farm on higher DPI displays becoming common, they should have solidified what this value means, to an actual DPI setting (with prominent warning that if its set incorrectly that some programs may not render themselves in a satisfactory manner.)
If I am expected to make "DPI aware" programs (and I am, thanks Microsoft), then at least give me access to an actual god damn DPI. If you want a global scaling factor, you can have one of them in addition to the DPI setting.
WARNING: *** Text in this post may appear larger, or smaller, than it is.
It's Phillip / Sony that lead the let down ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you know what causes the regression?
Phillip and Sony !
Unlike the great job Phillip / Sony team did for the CD, they have led a big let down on the LCD.
Sony didn't even want to go LCD - they thought LCD TV is just a temporary fad !
And Phillips? They pulled out of the LCD business (production side) altogether and sold their 50% shares to LG of Korea.
Which resulted in the Koreans (Samsung and LG) became the de-facto leaders of LCD manufacturing business and there were no competition for couple of years.
With
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Resolution of the human eye: about 570 Megapixels (Score:5, Interesting)
Making many assumptions, the human eye has about 500 to 600 megapixels of resolution.
But determining visual acuity is nontrivial. Lots of physics, physiology, and neuroscience enter into it.
Visual acuity depends on a number of physical limitations set by the optics of the lens of the eye as well as the sampling on the retina.
For example, the point spread function of the lens roughly matches the sampling of the retinal mosaic (well, within a factor of 3 or so). A nicely evolved system!
Our eyes' acuity are influenced by
- Refractive error (out of focus lens, often correctable by glasses or contacts)
- Size of the pupil (physical optics tells us that a wide open iris will reduce diffraction)
- Illumination (brighter scenes give more photons, and our neuroprocessing can do more
- Time of exposure to the field
- Area of the retina exposed
- State of adaption of the eye (night [scotopic] vs day [photopic] vision.
- Eye motion & object motion in scene
See http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html [clarkvision.com]
For a good review of visual acuity, see:
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/KallSpatial.html [utah.edu]
Can you tell the difference (Score:3, Informative)
between a 300dpi printed sheet of paper, and a 1200dpi glossy magazine page? Most people can, pretty easily. By comparison, the standard 24" WUXGA monitor is a pathetic 94dpi.
The IBM T220 (22" @ 3840 x 2400, released 2001) was 204 dpi, and looked glorious. Modern phone screens are 250-270dpi, so we can potentially manufacture a 24" 5230 x 2940 screen, and it would look amazing, like a quality printed brochure but with full interaction, though still less than anyone with 20/20 vision can perceive.
This would
Re:couldn't agree more: 1920x1080 sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of this is of course due to currency fluctuations, I think... never seen a piece of hardware increase in price over time before.
Haven't priced a Ford Mustang made in the 1960s lately, have you? :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because the stigma associated with the 32-bit LBA fields in the MBR [wikipedia.org] (MS-DOS) partition table format. While a nearly-4TB drive could still be utilized in full, it would have to be divided up with the last partition starting at just under the 2TB mark, and be a size of 2TB. And this may not even work unless the implementing OS or partitioning tools handle the arithmetic with more than 32 bits. Windows 7, Linux, and most BSDs support the newer GUID Partition Table [wikipedia.org] format (and even provide for an easy 128 pr
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, 17'' Macbook pro with 1920x1200 has 133 DPI, while 30'' ACD is only 107 DPI by comparison.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
6 CRT monitors: $300.
Cheap Shelving from Ikea: $120
Chiropractor for back problems: $12,000
Watching the whole thing collapse under it's own weight because you cheaped out and went to Ikea: priceless.
Re:Microsoft Evangelist, Pete Brown (Score:5, Insightful)
err... since your ssh terminal session is all text, it's probably the thing that'll benefit most from higher resolution. assuming you're not using bitmap fonts.