The 1920x1080 standard

[sleepylilazn]

Why do we still have this 1920x1080 resolution as a standard?

To get anything higher than this resolution and/or different aspect ratio, the price sky rockets. There aren't many options to choose from either.

When will 1920x1080 become obsolete and we embrace resolutions like 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 or others as the standard?

What can we do to help in this progress?

 

[Rastalovich]

Money talks, and I've ranted about this a good number of times.

The industry "snuck" this in as soon as they heard the term "HD". Cheaper monitors with the 1080 resolution, which are probably 1050 panels given an extra bit of life. Or in my opinion they're TV panels, which aren't as good a quality as computer monitors - for computers that is.

Agreed, we should have shunned this as the mock to the community that it was. 1680x1050 for 20", 1920x1200 for 24", and we should be basking in greater computer resolutions by now.

Good move for them, not so good for us. It's allowed them to keep the 1920x1200 at a premium price.

How can we help ? Don't buy the 1080 screens - but that's never going to happen.

 

[Zanc]

Im still in love with 1680x1050 myself ^^

 

[lewwatt]

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.

 

[marsey99]

why?

as its cheap for them to make.

higher standards have been around for a while, i mean dell has been selling its 25/1600 screens for over 5 years now but cost has stopped them from catching on imo.

lg and samsung are pushing 4k screens now which are around 10mega pixles compared to the 2mp image of 1080 which will be the next standard but idk if people on the whole are ready for another new tv and another new br media.

1920/1200 ftw baby :thumb:

 

[marsey99]

why?

as its cheap for them to make.

higher standards have been around for a while, i mean dell has been selling its 25/1600 screens for over 5 years now but cost has stopped them from catching on imo.

lg and samsung are pushing 4k screens now which are around 10mega pixles compared to the 2mp image of 1080 which will be the next standard but idk if people on the whole are ready for another new tv and another new br media.

1920/1200 ftw baby :thumb:

 

[Jade Topaz]

Well not to be of an intrusion or get off of topic, but you have to understand that the idea of a company is to produce money usually unless you really do want to revolutionize the world around you with your product which is very unlikely these days due to such a recession. Now as far as industry standards, I really don't know if it's our fault or the companies' fault for making 1080p this standard where as 1920x1200 as a post said is at a premium, it's almost the matter of meeting the standard (where I've seen now tremendously it's with LED back lighting which I won't argue about for the sake of the post) or it's IPS panels, but never do they really try to touch resolution. (Remember I'm ideally talking about the monitors not televisions)

They create this false security with an average consumer, as people do ask as many questions as you do which are completely relevant I might add would probably in their eyes not be one. But these "average consumers" let's say an unenlightened senior who has no experience with monitors or televisions (I can take into example televisions) who walks into a store and asks the staff what television is the best, and you will indefinitely see the marketer point out these key footnotes of "Oh this television is 1080p" or "This television is ready for 3D Blurary" never do they really just say they're all practically the same because in truth they are. Companies expand so do people, so when a new companies or product hits the horizon they really just try to hit the competition more than just go ahead of it with new products for instance 1920x1200 monitors or what I believe in my opinion is that they're way above that just not released to the public.

Life cycles change, vehicles aren't built to last as older vehicles some might say so that may be with monitors. If so much people are making drastic resolution heightening would the consumer just simply stop and try to pace himself, I think not. You remember people aren't still all converted to changes, there's still people recording films with tapes on their cable connection in the underground, but as long as the mass are in control it's really all up to us the community, so we could boycott 1080p monitors though surprisingly their sales are quite high so I doubt they really want to jeopardize the market when another company releases a better monitor and then they have to meet that standard, not saying they're in cahoots or whatnot but you know what I mean.

I just want to touch on a side note, I think it's completely irrational that they do not release long length monitors similar to some Alienware monitor shown in CES 2008 I believe why don't they expand on that? Then you ask well if they only buy one monitor instead of their 3 monitors for the surrounding experience they may very well loose money. Or a friend of mine talking about how his father invested in a new plastic solution for monitors that cut cost for the manufacturing costs? I watched a presentation at my school Friday of how the human race is so expansive and intelligent and whatnot, they really hold a lot of restrictions and never think outside of the box when it comes to such small things. Anyways everyone that is the end of my post.

 

[BaMb1N0]

for office/productivity use 1920x1200 IS the standard. haven't seen anything else being installed for our customers in the past two or three years. one or the other 30'', but those are for special use only.

usually better build quality, less bling-bling and shiny-shiny seems to be more expensive. Also because business customers have the ability to pay a little more for their screens. furthermore those business monitors usually come with pivot, hight adjustment and whatever ergonomic function you would need as well as imho better image quality or calibration functions.

you may see, I do not think of 1080p resolution as the standard or better: I refuse

I'll always buy business monitors for myself And that's the only way to keep them making those

Me personally, I am willing to pay up to 800$ for a good monitor. But it's become hard to spend that amount on a general purpose one, even IPS with LED backlight have become significantly cheaper the last 24 months. Think about what a good 19'' or 20'' CRT screen (for expample with a Mitsubishi Diamondtron tube) did cost not so long ago.

 

[UltraNEO*]

Why do we still have this 1920x1080 resolution as a standard?

To get anything higher than this resolution and/or different aspect ratio, the price sky rockets. There aren't many options to choose from either.

When will 1920x1080 become obsolete and we embrace resolutions like 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 or others as the standard?

What can we do to help in this progress?

OP... The 1920x1080 resolution isn't old, that's the new one...

Weirdly the industry jumped from 16:10 to !6:9, I'm pretty sure they should of kept 16:10 for desktop and 16:9 for Home Theatre, this would of made more sense!!!

Mmmm... I'm digging my triple 30" panels.

Only issues I'm having is the lack of high-end GPU's capable and powerful enough to run all three panels simultaneously at their native resolutions of 2560 by 1600) and obtain decent frame rates all whilst in-game! - I'm hoping Kelper will be the answer, if not then a few 7970's

[off topic]

@TinyTomLogan..

I loved your review with the 7970's and perhaps you're right that the average joe won't have four of them beasts... but would it be possible to do a test, and see how they run in-games with high resolution large panels? I'm aware these panels ain't as speedy as current displays but they still perform well

[/off topic]

 

[sleepylilazn]

OP... The 1920x1080 resolution isn't old, that's the new one...

Weirdly the industry jumped from 16:10 to !6:9, I'm pretty sure they should of kept 16:10 for desktop and 16:9 for Home Theatre, this would of made more sense!!!

Mmmm... I'm digging my triple 30" panels.

Only issues I'm having is the lack of high-end GPU's capable and powerful enough to run all three panels simultaneously at their native resolutions of 2560 by 1600) and obtain decent frame rates all whilst in-game! - I'm hoping Kelper will be the answer, if not then a few 7970's

[off topic]

@TinyTomLogan..

I loved your review with the 7970's and perhaps you're right that the average joe won't have four of them beasts... but would it be possible to do a test, and see how they run in-games with high resolution large panels? I'm aware these panels ain't as speedy as current displays but they still perform well

[/off topic]

Old is a relative word.

Off topic began at "Mmmm... I'm digging my triple 30" panels. "

 

[Terrifictez85]

What is happening with "HD 4K" is that still being marketed? Is meant to have a standard resolution of 4096 x 2304

 

[KING_OF_SAND]

I read an article, i think it was engadget talking about how the 4k will be pointless and that the human eye will not see much of a difference. In order for 4k to be effective it would have to be a 100+" screen or larger, and that if you were playing on a 32" it will look identical to a 2560x1600 display. 4k was designed for movie theaters, NOT home use.

 

[KING_OF_SAND]

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/

I think it was this article.

 

[sleepylilazn]

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/

I think it was this article.

Cnet is crap. That aside, the scope of this "review" is very limited as to be expected as this person wrote it in the tv and home theater section. Depending on how movies/shows are going to be presented, he may have a point. However, this is definitely not applicable to monitors in general. Essentially, anything outside of the scope of tv/movies his point is null and void.

 

[KING_OF_SAND]

Cnet is crap. That aside, the scope of this "review" is very limited as to be expected as this person wrote it in the tv and home theater section. Depending on how movies/shows are going to be presented, he may have a point. However, this is definitely not applicable to monitors in general. Essentially, anything outside of the scope of tv/movies his point is null and void.

not really. If you put 2 and 2 together you should be able to figure it out for yourself. What you think of the review or of Cnet is irrelevant. BTW a TV is a monitor, it just has a TV tuner in it.

 

[sleepylilazn]

not really. If you put 2 and 2 together you should be able to figure it out for yourself. What you think of the review or of Cnet is irrelevant. BTW a TV is a monitor, it just has a TV tuner in it.

What's your point? Sorry, that's a loaded question.

You have no point.

 

[KING_OF_SAND]

What's your point? Sorry, that's a loaded question.

You have no point.

LMAO, how outstanding, yet another troll who knows nothing of technology. My point is if a resolution is to high your eye will not be able notice if the resolution dropped a little. Just like your eye can only see a specific amount of frames per second, you eyes can also only see a finite resolution on specific scales. I bet you a 24" 2560x1600 display will look EXACTLY the same as a 4k 24".

 

[sleepylilazn]

LMAO, how outstanding, yet another troll who knows nothing of technology.

That's funny. I was just thinking the exact same about you, but I can back it up. As for the lack of knowledge, I challenge you to support that claim and the relevancy of that claim.

not really. If you put 2 and 2 together you should be able to figure it out for yourself.

Why can't you just say what you're trying to get at instead of claiming some vague statement? In this way, no one can exactly refute your post because you can just make it up what you actually mean later on. Page 3 in the book Art of Trolling.

What you think of the review or of Cnet is irrelevant.

It's actually very relevant. Cnet is well known source for its unreliability. It's an equivalent to citing wiki as your source for a formal write up. It's good info if you know what you are talking about instead of regurgitating someone's opinion and using it in a global sense.

BTW a TV is a monitor, it just has a TV tuner in it.

Claiming my irrelevancy while having this comment. That seems hypocritical.

Just like your eye can only see a specific amount of frames per second,

We won't go into the fps situation, but from what I inferred from this statement I am fairly certain your opinion on that is wrong too. Who lacks knowledge now?(Yay! More loaded questions)

My point is if a resolution is to high your eye will not be able notice if the resolution dropped a little... you eyes can also only see a finite resolution on specific scales. I bet you a 24" 2560x1600 display will look EXACTLY the same as a 4k 24".

Cnet is crap. That aside, the scope of this "review" is very limited as to be expected as this person wrote it in the tv and home theater section. Depending on how movies/shows are going to be presented, he may have a point. However, this is definitely not applicable to monitors in general. Essentially, anything outside of the scope of tv/movies his point is null and void.

Your claim doesn't exactly go against what I'm saying, but it seems like you want to make it that way. I'll assume that you're trying to say it's pointless to have higher resolution displays because you don't explicitly say it so I'll do it for you.

Let's talk about games. Many gamers do not think this is pointless. Most gamers don't sit 2 meters away from their screen. With a higher pixel count you will be able to see more in games without losing the quality of the picture. That's where I think games are heading towards, or should be heading towards. I'll equate it to saying Eyefinity and Nvidia Surround is pointless, which it is not.

In movies, depending on how movie makers produce their film and how they want you to view it, you may notice a difference which I have previously stated. Same logic as with games(copy paste). I'm not a movie expert so I don't have too much insight on the growth of movies aspect.

I know what you're thinking. "But I didn't say that. 24" slerbkdhjvhow sitting at this distance sdkjfwlovdsflhw 2560x1600 sdkflhwershjyy." Let me remind you how I started this thread.

Why do we still have this 1920x1080 resolution as a standard?

To get anything higher than this resolution and/or different aspect ratio, the price sky rockets. There aren't many options to choose from either.

When will 1920x1080 become obsolete and we embrace resolutions like 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 or others as the standard?

What can we do to help in this progress?

What's your point again?

P.S.

I did take it somewhat personally since you did take a jab at something I'm passionate about. So I'm willing to drop this right here and now and forget about it if you want. I'll let you make the decision.

 

[Nculver]

Personally i want the jump to OLEDs to happen before this. True black, extremely thin, very bright, crazy color contrast, and low power consumption. Although i would certainly not be against an uber-high resolution oled!

 

[KING_OF_SAND]

That's funny. I was just thinking the exact same about you, but I can back it up. As for the lack of knowledge, I challenge you to support that claim and the relevancy of that claim.

Why can't you just say what you're trying to get at instead of claiming some vague statement? In this way, no one can exactly refute your post because you can just make it up what you actually mean later on. Page 3 in the book Art of Trolling.

It's actually very relevant. Cnet is well known source for its unreliability. It's an equivalent to citing wiki as your source for a formal write up. It's good info if you know what you are talking about instead of regurgitating someone's opinion and using it in a global sense.

Claiming my irrelevancy while having this comment. That seems hypocritical.

We won't go into the fps situation, but from what I inferred from this statement I am fairly certain your opinion on that is wrong too. Who lacks knowledge now?(Yay! More loaded questions)

Your claim doesn't exactly go against what I'm saying, but it seems like you want to make it that way. I'll assume that you're trying to say it's pointless to have higher resolution displays because you don't explicitly say it so I'll do it for you.

Let's talk about games. Many gamers do not think this is pointless. Most gamers don't sit 2 meters away from their screen. With a higher pixel count you will be able to see more in games without losing the quality of the picture. That's where I think games are heading towards, or should be heading towards. I'll equate it to saying Eyefinity and Nvidia Surround is pointless, which it is not.

In movies, depending on how movie makers produce their film and how they want you to view it, you may notice a difference which I have previously stated. Same logic as with games(copy paste). I'm not a movie expert so I don't have too much insight on the growth of movies aspect.

I know what you're thinking. "But I didn't say that. 24" slerbkdhjvhow sitting at this distance sdkjfwlovdsflhw 2560x1600 sdkflhwershjyy." Let me remind you how I started this thread.

What's your point again?

P.S.

I did take it somewhat personally since you did take a jab at something I'm passionate about. So I'm willing to drop this right here and now and forget about it if you want. I'll let you make the decision.

LMAO!! This post is a sorry excuse to prove what little point you have made. What proof do you have of Cnet being unreliable? I think you just dont like what they say sometimes because you are a fanboy or the device they are opposing. As for the rest of the post... I just lol..