2560x1440 for an 11 inch screen seems... cool but kind of pointles si dont' think i could tell the difference between that and even 1080p or even 720 by much if anything... now in larger screens like 17" plus bring it on!
what we need is simply a generally higher demand for higher dpi/ppi in general. I am running a 28" monitor at 1920x1200, and thought the dpi was low when I bought it 4 years ago after coming from a CRT that was nearly the same resolution (but in 3:4 instead of 16:10). I am looking at these phones coming out now with 300+ dpi and the little elitiest nerd inside of my head keeps screaming "Why dont we see monitor resolutions increasing!!!!!"
So ya, we sit a little further away from our PC monitors than we do our phones, but something in the 150-225ppi range would be so much better than the ~96dpi we have grown accustomed to over the years. We just need to push it to the point where it is just beyond what the human eye can perceive as a pixel from 1.5 feet away.
[citation][nom]g00fysmiley[/nom]2560x1440 for an 11 inch screen seems... cool but kind of pointles si dont' think i could tell the difference between that and even 1080p or even 720 by much if anything... now in larger screens like 17" plus bring it on![/citation]
No, its certainly not pointless. You would easily be able to tell the difference in those resolutions even at that size.
just a thought.... but if we increase ppi to the 'retna' standard then we no longer need to run AA on games. May still need texture filtering, but at least we would not need to smooth out shapes of objects.
Ive had this resolution (2560 x 1600) 30" display for 2 years now and would never go back to 1920 x 1200 or worse 1080p displays. Gaming at this res cant be beat currently unless you run 3 displays in surround game mode. I dont get the rush to make this res or even higher for much smaller tablets though. Im waiting on a 4K display 30 inches or bigger for pc use. Gaming at 4K would be the beast!
Leave it to a stubborn euro/scandanavian nerd to keep pushing for an 8:5 ratio. If anything, 2,560 x 1,440 should be next. We need to meld together cinema and computer display standards. I personally think 3,840 x 2,160 needs to be next, and in the lower 20-inch arena. I don't want 8:5, I don't want 30" (I'll buy a TV, thank you), and I don't want to pay over $200. TVs need to be able to display their entire resolution when the picture moves, and they need to be able to display all color channels at full resolution. Displays in general seem to be stalled in development. There are only crazy concepts that cost more than the average car.
[citation][nom]Srap[/nom]F*ck 1600, I want UltraHD monitor for my 15.6" notebook![/citation]
You do realize that those extra 5 inches is where that extra 640x480 comes from? You're only gaining 8 PPI density from that switch. Viewing distance is the more likely reason that it looks less pixellated.
[citation][nom]ramicio[/nom]Leave it to a stubborn euro/scandanavian nerd to keep pushing for an 8:5 ratio.... We need to meld together cinema and computer display standards. [/citation]
Sorry, but you are an idiot. Why would you think that a TV and a computer should have the same display? TV is passive, where the peripheral vision makes the image more life like. Computers are interactive, and we can work better with the 16:10, especially those of use that do CAD or even video editing. You can see the video full screen with the extra space top and bottom filled with a ribbon type menu.