"TVs should have jumped from 1080p ages ago, and so should PC screens..."

[Brandon J.F.]

It looks like Linus Torvalds and I have something in common, we both want to see higher resolution notebook displays. Torvalds has used his Google+ account to post about the subject, asking "can we please just make that [the 2560x1600-pixel] the new standard laptop resolution? Even at 11"? Please."


The problem is, as he says, is that we're seeing so many 1366x768 displays in this Full HD world of displays, and it really is just crap. He does state that "soon even the cellphones will start laughing at the ridiculously bad laptop displays".

I fully, 100% agree with Torvalds, and I think every sector needs a reality check. TVs should have jumped from 1080p ages ago, and so should PC screens. I had 1920x1200 displays when the first Dell FP2405W came out and that cost me $1500+, I upgraded to the HP LP3065 monitor as soon as it came out because I wanted the 2560x1600 res it offered. Now we're going backward with 90% or more of displays only offering 1920x1080.

We should see the 30-inch monitors at 4K, and the 24- to 27-inch screens sporting 2560x1xx0 (1440 or 1600). Notebook displays should sport 2560x1600 and the UI can be adjusted with fonts, accordingly. Consoles are holding back the leap in terms of game support, with the user interface in games built around the idea that you're sitting at a certain distance from your TV, and upscales from below 1280x720 to 720p, mostly on a 1080p HDTV.

Consoles need to jump to 4K, but then that would usher in a whole new generation of TVs, which is what we need. What do you think? Should notebook displays sport 2560x1600 resolutions?

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/26505..._2560x1600_displays_and_so_would_i/index.html

 

[Subhadip Sen]

The change is well under way. We have a 10 inch tablet with 2560x1600 and smartphones with 1920x1080 displays already. According to Intel, every premium >15 inch laptop will feature 3840x2160 displays come 2013, and there's no reason to argue against it.

 

[Victor Lazaro]

It's coming, don't worry. I believe it's both a technological reason as well as a political reason but its coming.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The quest for much higher resolutions kicked off to a good start in the mid '90s and there were a few entries to the market in the late '90s that had 200 to 260 dpi pixel densities. For some reason, they just didn't catch on, so display manufacturers moved on to other things. A few years ago, interest flared up and we started seeing QuadHD / 4K panels at CES and a few other venues, being promoted as "future tech". Samsung showed a 3840x2160 panel at CES as far back as 2005. But they have yet to release anything. Well, not true, their joint venture with Sony has produced the 84" UltraHD TV, which just went on sale in the USA a few weeks ago for $25K.

It seemed like the industry was poised to embrace the new high resolution displays about 5 years ago, but something happened.... Everyone started talking 3D. Many of the industry watchers and display makers now refer to it as the 3Detour. Looks like we're back on track, thanks to a few companies who have actually released higher resolution products to remind us that these are necessary developments and deserve to move beyond the dream section of their respective trade show exhibits.

As for why desktop computer monitors regressed about 12 years ago and have not progressed beyond the 100ppi, generally speaking, is somewhat of a mystery. People would have eaten it up if manufacturers had only released it. There seems to some amount of finger pointing between display makers and GPU makers. Claims of displays not doing it because GPUs couldn't drive them, GPUs not doing it because there were no displays, etc.. Both industries know full well that it just takes someone to do it and if it's a reasonable idea, others soon follow.

Anyway, I'm glad it's finally happening. Although, I think the resolution revolution is about 12 years behind where it should be. And I think much of the blame really comes back to the camera industry and HD acquisition becoming so entrenched. It's been hard to justify higher resolutions until recently with no real means to acquire content.

 

[L. Langer]

The real missing component is high-speed Internet. For a high-resolution Internet, you need high-resolution content, and that can only become a reality when high-speed Internet is the norm. Global fiber roll-outs need to occur and they have stagnated due to cost of installation where infrastructure already exists. Verizon cut their FIOS installs because it got too expensive to roll out the network when they have to tear up the sidewalk and replace it bit by bit and many cities required exorbitant costs for doing that not to mention they were not happy about the inconvenience. As for GPU's, well 1GB of video memory wasn't even standard until a few years ago and lots of memory is required to drive high-resolution content like games and whatnot. Several years ago, 512MB meant you had a Dirk Diggler gaming rig and then that jumped to 1GB and now we have 2-4GB cards becoming normal.

 

[Nick Morrison]

On a related note...I can see TV and PC screens, and the internet itself, jumping into 4k way faster than broadcast and cable TV.

I think it will be YEARS before our TV's even receive programming at 1080p.

The infrastructure just isn't there.

I work in cable tv and see it ever day.


The good news though is that A LOT of programming, for years, has been delivered and archived at 1080p. When the time comes, a lot of shows will be able to smoothly upgrade to 1080p, even the re-runs.

 

[Brian Merlen]

I don't know about you guys but I sometimes feel silly editing my 4k Scarlet footage on my 4 by 3 SD monitors...:banghead:

I am so bleeding edge, sort of...

 

[Jay Birch]

From what I have read.... It is quite cheap and easy to pack pixels onto a small screen.... This will probably explain the glut of UHD iphones, androids, tablets and even laptops upto 15".

I was hoping for the new iMac to be close to 4K... But it seems they are not there yet with the larger displays.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Personally I'm thankful that they've focused on viewing angles, contrast and color reproduction. My new tablet has nearly perfect color from every viewing angle. My old laptop had about 20* of acceptable viewing perspective.

 

[Craig Chartier]

IF my cable provider would actually deliver true 1080 I would be shocked to see that resolution, not the hammered stuff we get currently. I Also see no more than 2K res being used for broadcast shows for a long time. the work flow is still faster in 2K and under. and some shows refuse to up the budget for other departments in order to pull off the show. THE WALKING DEAD is shot in super 16mm, because they will not double the budget to have the makeup effects done for any higher format.

 

[Marc Wielage]

THE WALKING DEAD is shot in super 16mm, because they will not double the budget to have the makeup effects done for any higher format.

Correction: show creator Frank Darabont wanted the show to be in 16mm because it liked the grain and grunge of 16mm, which you couldn't fake in any other format. And the cameras are very light, small, and 16mm film stock is cheap. Money was not the sole reason; it was a deliberate creative choice.

Having said that: the show looks soft this season to me for some reason. And I've worked on a lot of Super 16mm shows that did post work in HD over the last 10 years.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Google has a 2560 tablet now!

 

[Marc Wielage]

Google has a 2560 tablet now!

I bet it's still 8 bits. And the contrast ratio, gamma range, and black detail on all tablets I've seen thus far is pretty awful.

Once again, pixel count isn't everything. Apple's iPad is 2048x1536, so it's not a whole lot worse. Fine for dailies, fine for judging performance, fine for presentations. Not fine for judging exposure, IMHO.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

I bet it's still 8 bits. And the contrast ratio, gamma range, and black detail on all tablets I've seen thus far is pretty awful.

Once again, pixel count isn't everything. Apple's iPad is 2048x1536, so it's not a whole lot worse. Fine for dailies, fine for judging performance, fine for presentations. Not fine for judging exposure, IMHO.

There's always a trade-off. My concern is that Nexus 10 in being a lot thinner and lighter than iPad uses a much smaller battery. These high resolution panels draw a lot of power, and 2560 is just an insane resolution for a 10 inch tablet. I suspect the new Cortex A15 cores use quite a bit more power too. From early testing the Nexus 10 has a 800:1 contrast ratio, which is under an iPad. However, Surface has far lower black levels (<0.3 nits at max brightness per some reviews) with a CR of 1500:1 or so, coming at the cost of a lower resolution. Whether this is a good tradeoff, I don't know. It is clear that Apple and Google are pushing the megapixel race though. For dailies or viewing movies, iPad's greatest weakness is not the pixel count, but the aspect ratio.

I would say the best overall tablet display is the Asus Transformer Pad Infinity. 1920 is plenty of pixels on a 10.1 inch display. Where it wins is on luminance - an astonishing 700 nits is Super IPS+ (other top displays are in the ~400 range) - and pretty low black levels too for a contrast ratio of about ~1300:1. Both these values put it well ahead of iPad and Nexus 10, though depending on panel lottery the iPad will get you a more accurate panel with greater color gamut coverage. (The Samsung panels are said to be most accurate) Surface Pro promises to be a killer display. The amazing black levels of the Surface RT with a high resolution to boot. (Samsung is making the Surface panels as well) I would expect the myriad of high-end Ivy Bridge based Windows 8 tablets / convertibles to sport similarly great displays too.

There are 5-inch smartphones going with LG's 1920x1080 panel in the East as well, particularly Oppo Find 5 and HTC J Butterfly. Can't wait to give those a try, though I doubt smartphones need to go above 300 dpi / 1280x768.

All that said, larger displays definitely need more than 1920 or 2048 resolution (which I think is "good enough" for 10 inch displays in most situations). Anything above 23 inches screams for 3840x2160, assuming desktop PC usage with viewing distances in the 2 to 4 feet range.

Edit: Anandtech pegs black level for Nexus 10 at 0.5 nits and contrast ratio at 750:1. Not good. GPU performance also suffers due to the huge resolution, even though it heads the charts in the offscreen resolution-balanced tests. Thankfully battery life is solid. (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6425/google-nexus-4-and-nexus-10-review/2)

 

[Petri Teittinen]

Samsung showed a 3840x2160 panel at CES as far back as 2005. But they have yet to release anything. Well, not true, their joint venture with Sony has produced the 84" UltraHD TV, which just went on sale in the USA a few weeks ago for $25K.

The 4K panel in that telly was created by LG and Sony. It's still big news and a clear sign of the times, because not too long ago it would have been unfathomable for Sony to work with a Korean competitor.

Sony is now spending $$$ by sending their engineers round the world on PR tours, telling media that while the panel is the same, Sony's 4K TV has better image quality than LG's because of better processing. While it's not said out loud, they sort of imply that's also the reason why Sony 4K TV is practically twice the price of the LG.

 

[L. Langer]

Sony decided to bail on panel making because of their poor TV sales. :cryin: They had excellent quality. I can't say the same of Samsung since their LED TVs are having massive failures after several months to two years of ownership even though they look great. Their panels are literally coming apart. :nono:

 

[Roger Valdes]

skip 4k and go straight to 8k.

4k is the new 720p.