The 1920x1080 standard

[yassarikhan786]

I don't like C-net reviews either. Very crap reviews imo.

 

[Cyanide89]

Im still in love with 1680x1050 myself ^^

Dude... that's so not cool.

 

[lewwatt]

I bet you a 24" 2560x1600 display will look EXACTLY the same as a 4k 24".

I disagree, some people wont notice the difference while others will. This is like saying 60Hz and 120Hz look exactly the same and you can't tell them apart - quite a few can, varies case by case.

 

[KING_OF_SAND]

I disagree, some people wont notice the difference while others will. This is like saying 60Hz and 120Hz look exactly the same and you can't tell them apart - quite a few can, varies case by case.

I think this will end up being something that no one will notice a difference. The pixels will be so small on a 24" 2560x1600 that there will be no difference from a 4k display. There is a little bit of difference from smooth motion and the size of a pixel. once pixels get to the point of not being visible to the human eye, it would be completely unnecessary to move to a higher res. My example was if a 2560x1600 display had pixels so small that you needed a magnifying glass to see them (20/20 vision of course) and a 4k display was the same, you would not be able to see the difference unless you were playing 3" from your screen with a magnifying glass.

 

[lewwatt]

I think this will end up being something that no one will notice a difference. The pixels will be so small on a 24" 2560x1600 that there will be no difference from a 4k display. There is a little bit of difference from smooth motion and the size of a pixel. once pixels get to the point of not being visible to the human eye, it would be completely unnecessary to move to a higher res. My example was if a 2560x1600 display had pixels so small that you needed a magnifying glass to see them (20/20 vision of course) and a 4k display was the same, you would not be able to see the difference unless you were playing 3" from your screen with a magnifying glass.

I hear this claims of not being able to see the pixels quite often with mobile screens which have very high pixel densities. A 24" 2560x1600 monitor doesn't come close to the densities that are common on mobile screens - I can see the pixels (if I look for 'em) on a 'retina display'. I'm pretty sure I can see them on a qHD monitor too.

Another thing we can benefit from is with 4k resolutions we wont even need anti aliasing to the extent we do now.

I agree there will come a time when we wont need to go any further but qHD isn't that time.

 

[daDonn]

I really want to see 2560x1440/1600 displays but unfortunately the only company that wants to push them out is Apple. Massive speculation here but I think Apple will release a TV (which everyone will go buy so they look cool) with qHD resolution, other manafacturers would follow the lead and quickly surpass it with better displays. Voila we have our qHD displays. I told you it was massive speculation xD

I hope we see a shift within the next few years so we can stop being so dependent on anti-aliasing.

Did you check out the Samsung S27A850D PLS Panel?

It's the one I'm looking at for the system I'm currently composing for myself.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/samsung-s27a850d-sa850-27in_Monitor_review

It's a high resolution - so you can see tonnes of content on a screen at once.

It's also still 16:9, which means movies/games/etc created for good ol' 1080p can still scale perfectly.

 

[Stevo]

I disagree, some people wont notice the difference while others will. This is like saying 60Hz and 120Hz look exactly the same and you can't tell them apart - quite a few can, varies case by case.

I agree some people have an eye for quality, where as others simply can't tell. I know from personal experience viewing higher 120Hz on screen compared to the standard 60Hz. But yes I can defiantly tell the difference in quality and smoothness especially in films. where as my partner would be none the wiser, lol and lets face it doesn't honestly care !

 

[Cyanide89]

I'm going to be honest, when I first plugged in my 120Hz monitor... I couldn't notice anything. The mouse seemed to move the same, UI moved and looked the same... and games only seemed slightly smoother.

I can tell you this: while the jump from 60Hz to 120Hz may not seem like a big difference, the step down will kick you in the balls.

The moment I plugged in my 60Hz monitor (after getting used to my 120Hz), I could not believe how noticeable the movement was. Even my mouse cursor moved like crap! It was mind boggling.

120Hz is amazing, and I will never go back.

 

[sharps_87]

I've just moved to a 120Hz monitor in the last week and the difference from my old 60Hz monitor is amazing, everything just looks so much more smooth and crisp.

I really don't think I could go back to using a 60Hz again, then again my old monitor may have just been terrible!

 

[Rastalovich]

I hear this claims of not being able to see the pixels quite often with mobile screens which have very high pixel densities. A 24" 2560x1600 monitor doesn't come close to the densities that are common on mobile screens - I can see the pixels (if I look for 'em) on a 'retina display'. I'm pretty sure I can see them on a qHD monitor too.

Another thing we can benefit from is with 4k resolutions we wont even need anti aliasing to the extent we do now.

I agree there will come a time when we wont need to go any further but qHD isn't that time.

You wait til a pixel goes bright green on you - then you'll see it, at any resolution

Love to find one of these 2560x1600 24" screen yall are talking about. Might prefer that to a 30".

Linky !!

 

[seumasbeathan]

Im still on a 1366x768 monitor

Should be upgrading soon though, Up until now I have really concentrating on getting the actual computer up and running