Technical way of measuring screen resolution

[PTNLemay]

Sorry, I couldn't find the sub-category for just "Monitors", so I picked this as the best next alternative.

I was curious as to what monitors there might be out there that have more than the standard 1920 x 1080 16:9 specs. I had heard vague mentions of monitors with 1200 pixels in height, but I have never seen one. I found this on wikipedia and I was immediately confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_display_resolutions

I think it's safe to say that 1080p standard has become the most popular resolution on the market. Everyone either has it or wants it. Bluray uses it, and most high end games play at those specs. So... why is it nowhere on this list? The closest thing I could find is 1920x1200, and I haven't ever seen a monitor with 1200 vertial pixels. I would have called it "1200p", but a google search showed me a lot of techs raging about how that's not how you call it, it's WUXGA (or WOOKS'GAH! as I've been calling it, lol). What confuses me is why these tech-savvy people hate it when people use terms like 1200p, yet everyone else (from YouTube to popular graphics card manufacturers) use terms like 480p, 720p, and 1080p.

Also, does anyone know if there are actual monitors on the market right now with resolutions greater than 1080p? And if so, are they just bleeding edge? Or are there some that can actually be bought by people without huge funds backing them up.

 

[ksampanna]

Yes you are right. 1920 X 1080 is the most common full high definition resolution. Also called as 1080p.
1920 is the number of pixels in a horizontal line (or the number of columns), while 1080 is the number of pixels in a vertical line. The aspect ratio 16:9 is the most common widescreen format for television, movies, games, etc.

1920X1200 monitors do exist, but mostly in a professional environment (photographers, digital artists, etc) where the extra number of vertical pixels afford a larger view of screen real estate. There is no real reason why people don't call it 1200p, although logically, it's correct.

The highest resolution monitors commercially available have resolutions like 2560 X 1600 (16:10) or 2560 X 1440 (16:9).

 

[Zenthar]

That article (for some reason) really skims over all those "XXXXp" resolutions. I think the reason is that they were historically mostly TV resolutions. As for resolutions greater that 1080p yes there is and the possibly most known are of the Dell Ultrasharp brand; the U2412M is 1920x1200, the U2711 is 2560x1440 and the U3011 is 2560x1600. There is even a (mostly "experimental") 4Kx2K (actually 3840×2160) which is the equivalent of two by two matrix of 1080p monitors.

 

[benski]

1080p is a marketing term for the HDTV industry, not a resolution. 1200p is neither of those, its just something people made up because they were too lazy to type 4 more numbers and an X, which is why people probably don't like hearing the term. They have had monitors with higher resolutions than 1920x1080 since before they even had HDTVs. They aren't bleeding edge, just too expensive for the average consumer. It's not like there would be a big market for home users of 2560x1600 displays since there is no content available that high of a resolution.

 

[indianjoke]

technical way of measuring screen resolution is to count the horizontal & vertical pixels. that's it. im not being sarcastic here, dont get me wrong. i just answered the your question literally.

 

[PTNLemay]

@ ps3hacker12
Ah, excellent, thanks. Is there a way to get one of the forum moderators to move the thread there?

@ ksampanna
Yeah, I've seen the "1600p" ones, well... one of them anyway. Apple used to have a 1600p one, if I recall correctly, but it seems they've replaced it with a 2560 by 1440 pixels model (making it wide-screen). Apple's actually comes close to what I'm looking for, something that's wide-screen, sharper than normal 1080p, and not insanely expensive (999$ apparently). The only down-side is that 27-inches is a bit small if I want to use it as a TV. The only other one is this guy: http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/pa301w-bk And for 2600$... (counting taxes and all) I figure I should just stick to 1080p and get myself a nice 50-inch HDTV. lol

They aren't bleeding edge, just too expensive for the average consumer.

Oh... 'cause, for my purposes, that's the definition of bleeding edge. Though exactly what constitutes "Too Expensive" is a relative thing, for sure.

 

[benski]

They aren't bleeding edge, just too expensive for the average consumer.

Oh... 'cause, for my purposes, that's the definition of bleeding edge. Though exactly what constitutes "Too Expensive" is a relative thing, for sure.

I just mean they aren't new, they have been made for years, but are geared towards professionals who rely on them for work that they can bill out at houndreds of dollars an hour. They aren't cost effective for home use for sure, but I don't think that is the same as bleeding edge.

 

[holdingholder]

It can't be called 1200p since the horizontal size is still 1920and therefore the aspect ratio doesn't qualify as a standard resolution

 

[HugoStiglitz]

I have my Viewsonic 27" Monitor that does 1920x1200. very nice considering its nearly 4 years old now.

it’s just started to go funny on me now (have to unplug and plug back in to work occasionally) and I’m in the same boat. With 1080p being standardized no one is bothering to produce a large screen with better resolution (outside of the professional market)

Really disappointing.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

This topic has been moved from the section Graphics & Displays to section Computer Peripherals by Area51reopened