Display resolution question
-
3 years ago 1920x1200 screen resolution was common. Now they are uncommon and you will be hard to find a laptop with that resolution. (for whatever mysterious reason). Now, on the same line, here is a story[^] where MS spokes person proudly boast that surface with its 1366x768 resolution has better display than iPad with its 2048x1536 resolution (for some convoluted marketing bullshit reason) I wonder... What is it with all those company wanting to sell ever lower resolution? What happen to high resolution screen?
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
-
3 years ago 1920x1200 screen resolution was common. Now they are uncommon and you will be hard to find a laptop with that resolution. (for whatever mysterious reason). Now, on the same line, here is a story[^] where MS spokes person proudly boast that surface with its 1366x768 resolution has better display than iPad with its 2048x1536 resolution (for some convoluted marketing bullshit reason) I wonder... What is it with all those company wanting to sell ever lower resolution? What happen to high resolution screen?
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
Cheaper?
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
3 years ago 1920x1200 screen resolution was common. Now they are uncommon and you will be hard to find a laptop with that resolution. (for whatever mysterious reason). Now, on the same line, here is a story[^] where MS spokes person proudly boast that surface with its 1366x768 resolution has better display than iPad with its 2048x1536 resolution (for some convoluted marketing bullshit reason) I wonder... What is it with all those company wanting to sell ever lower resolution? What happen to high resolution screen?
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
Also makes it appear faster as it doesn't have to move so much graphics memory about, icons, sprites etc. are smaller due to lower res etc.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Cheaper?
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
what about exponential improvement in computing gear's power?! well it is for CPU, perhaps display suffer from the opposite law.. (exponential devolution!! :( )
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
-
what about exponential improvement in computing gear's power?! well it is for CPU, perhaps display suffer from the opposite law.. (exponential devolution!! :( )
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
Thing is it is cheaper to have less powerful processor/video chip (last gen is always cheaper, esp if you can buy tens of thousands up front). As loong as the display looks good, people don't mind the resolution specs, I think.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
3 years ago 1920x1200 screen resolution was common. Now they are uncommon and you will be hard to find a laptop with that resolution. (for whatever mysterious reason). Now, on the same line, here is a story[^] where MS spokes person proudly boast that surface with its 1366x768 resolution has better display than iPad with its 2048x1536 resolution (for some convoluted marketing bullshit reason) I wonder... What is it with all those company wanting to sell ever lower resolution? What happen to high resolution screen?
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
Display modules, like most electronic components, are bought according to their capabilities, their availability and their price. And I think the lower resolution is mainly to lower the price. I have not looked at the source of their claims to have a better image despite the lower resolution. In scanners, digital cameras or graphics processors there always have been methods to either interpolate a higher resolution from a lower resolution or enhancing the image by reducing the resolution (like antialiasing). Or you could apply some kind of software filter, provided the CPU is strong enough. It may even be, that such filters are now built into the chipset of the display and applied automatically. What the marketing guys don't tell you: You always have to pay a price for using a filter. They are not magic. Raising the resolution by interpolation prevents the appearance of huge pixels, but it cannot magically determine the correct colors for the pixels inbetween. It's just a mathmatical guess. Antialiasing obviously requires the image to be prepared at a much higher resolution, resulting in a quadratic increase of the rendering effort. And it softens the edges along lines, but it also makes everything else (like text) fuzzier. Whatever kind of filtering algorithm they use, it would be interesting to take a look at it, find out where it is applied and then study its performance cost and its advantages or disadvantages. Unfortunately they will probably not be happy to let us have a look at it.
-
3 years ago 1920x1200 screen resolution was common. Now they are uncommon and you will be hard to find a laptop with that resolution. (for whatever mysterious reason). Now, on the same line, here is a story[^] where MS spokes person proudly boast that surface with its 1366x768 resolution has better display than iPad with its 2048x1536 resolution (for some convoluted marketing bullshit reason) I wonder... What is it with all those company wanting to sell ever lower resolution? What happen to high resolution screen?
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
Since we are talking about portable devices, Fewer Pixels -> Less power consumption -> Longer battery life.
All of my software is powered by a single Watt.
-
Since we are talking about portable devices, Fewer Pixels -> Less power consumption -> Longer battery life.
All of my software is powered by a single Watt.
-
what about exponential improvement in computing gear's power?! well it is for CPU, perhaps display suffer from the opposite law.. (exponential devolution!! :( )
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
Moore is soooo last century.
-
Since we are talking about portable devices, Fewer Pixels -> Less power consumption -> Longer battery life.
All of my software is powered by a single Watt.
Says Paul Watt. :cool:
-
3 years ago 1920x1200 screen resolution was common. Now they are uncommon and you will be hard to find a laptop with that resolution. (for whatever mysterious reason). Now, on the same line, here is a story[^] where MS spokes person proudly boast that surface with its 1366x768 resolution has better display than iPad with its 2048x1536 resolution (for some convoluted marketing bullshit reason) I wonder... What is it with all those company wanting to sell ever lower resolution? What happen to high resolution screen?
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
I'm not buying a new machine until I can find one that's at least 1280×1024, as they used to be 5 years ago. I don't want to 'upgrade' to a worse screen! Even a lot of standalone flat panel LCD screens are 1366×768 these days ... a big downgrade from my 10 year old 1280×1024 one!
-
3 years ago 1920x1200 screen resolution was common. Now they are uncommon and you will be hard to find a laptop with that resolution. (for whatever mysterious reason). Now, on the same line, here is a story[^] where MS spokes person proudly boast that surface with its 1366x768 resolution has better display than iPad with its 2048x1536 resolution (for some convoluted marketing bullshit reason) I wonder... What is it with all those company wanting to sell ever lower resolution? What happen to high resolution screen?
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
Considering the 'Retina' technique used by Apple, this means that you'll actually have MORE things shown on a Surface RT display than on an iPad 3. The Retina is using 4 pixels to make 1 point, this is a kind of awesome supersampling which dramatically improves text and line rendering (sharp instead of fuzzy antialiasing), but it means you don't get more stuff on screen than on a pre-Retina iPad, ie you still get 1024x768 points. If you want higher definition, wait for the Surface Pro :)
'I'm French! Why do you think I've got this outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
-
3 years ago 1920x1200 screen resolution was common. Now they are uncommon and you will be hard to find a laptop with that resolution. (for whatever mysterious reason). Now, on the same line, here is a story[^] where MS spokes person proudly boast that surface with its 1366x768 resolution has better display than iPad with its 2048x1536 resolution (for some convoluted marketing bullshit reason) I wonder... What is it with all those company wanting to sell ever lower resolution? What happen to high resolution screen?
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
Super Lloyd wrote:
What happen to high resolution screen?
HD. 1920x1200 helps developers (and others who need screen real-estate). 1920x1080 allows displays to be marketed as "HD" and costs less. No surprise that we have to pay a premium to get a 1920x1200 display, assuming that it's even offered. :( /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
Moore is soooo last century.
-
Display modules, like most electronic components, are bought according to their capabilities, their availability and their price. And I think the lower resolution is mainly to lower the price. I have not looked at the source of their claims to have a better image despite the lower resolution. In scanners, digital cameras or graphics processors there always have been methods to either interpolate a higher resolution from a lower resolution or enhancing the image by reducing the resolution (like antialiasing). Or you could apply some kind of software filter, provided the CPU is strong enough. It may even be, that such filters are now built into the chipset of the display and applied automatically. What the marketing guys don't tell you: You always have to pay a price for using a filter. They are not magic. Raising the resolution by interpolation prevents the appearance of huge pixels, but it cannot magically determine the correct colors for the pixels inbetween. It's just a mathmatical guess. Antialiasing obviously requires the image to be prepared at a much higher resolution, resulting in a quadratic increase of the rendering effort. And it softens the edges along lines, but it also makes everything else (like text) fuzzier. Whatever kind of filtering algorithm they use, it would be interesting to take a look at it, find out where it is applied and then study its performance cost and its advantages or disadvantages. Unfortunately they will probably not be happy to let us have a look at it.
CDP1802 wrote:
And I think the lower resolution is mainly to lower the price. I have not looked at the source of their claims to have a better image despite the lower resolution.
They were just talking about text on the screen, that it wouldn't need more...because of ClearType.
No dogs or cats are in the classroom. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
I'm not buying a new machine until I can find one that's at least 1280×1024, as they used to be 5 years ago. I don't want to 'upgrade' to a worse screen! Even a lot of standalone flat panel LCD screens are 1366×768 these days ... a big downgrade from my 10 year old 1280×1024 one!
Same here!! ^^ Except I might buy one of those tablet for the sake of testing my home grown software on it! ;)
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
