[ale] Video Resolutions

[Brian Mathis]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Ron Frazier (ALE)
<atllinuxenthinfo at c3energy.com> wrote:
> On 3/26/2012 3:09 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Chris Fowler
>> <cfowler at 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'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
>>
>>
> 1080p is good enough for what I do, and it works out nicely if I attach
> the computer to my flat screen TV, which is also 1080p.  However, I can
> see how more pixels could be very useful.  I'd rather not recommend an
> Apple product since they're so closed and controlling in philosophy.
> However, this is on their web site.  Hope you have a fat wallet, since
> it's only $ 999.  2560 x 1440.  Looks really cool though.  I don't know
> if there is any way to attach it to a standard computer.  One problem
> with hi res displays is that the print usually gets insanely tiny.
> Maybe someone else out there is sourcing these same panels and making
> something with compatible connectors.
>
[...]
> Ron


The corollary to using a hi-res display is tuning the DPI settings in
your OS.  I have a Full HD 15" laptop, and change the "Zoom" to about
115%.  This enlarges the text and it looks smoother, and images still
generally look fine.  Part of the high-resolution transition involves
abstracting the absolute size of screen elements in pixels vs. how
they are shown on the display.

The thing that killed hi-res last time was everyone whinging about how
a better monitor "makes everything too small" and subsequently
changing the resolution to 1024x768.


❧ Brian Mathis