[citation][nom]kyuuketsuki[/nom]Ugh, FFS. I don't mean to be rude, and I'm not talking to anyone specifically, but I'm so tired of this "logic" of "we have 1080p on phones now, so what's with monitor resolutions?" getting bandied about every time I see an article about monitors anywhere.Bigger panels are more expensive. No, it doesn't matter that we have "$200 phones" (actually $700+ without subsidies) with 1080p screens. That doesn't mean that we can magically have good quality $200 1440p/1600p monitors. There's no conspiracy or weirdness going on. Sure, it costs more to push more PPI. I'm sure those 1080p phone screens probably cost more per square inch to make than larger panels. But they're still very small compared to a 20"-30" computer monitor. Bigger panels are going to cost a lot more. You can get your 1440p/1600p monitors, but they're going to cost you.And yes, if you insist on sticking with 16:10, you're going to have to pay more. I have nothing against 16:10 or people who prefer it, mind you. However, most consumers, including enthusiasts and myself, just don't give much of a crap about a little bit of vertical space. 16:9 panels are made in volume, are cheaper to produce, and therefore cheaper to buy. Sure, if I could get two monitors that were exactly the same in all other respects, including price, I'd probably opt for the 16:10. Why not? But I've never once, for a second, found myself wishing my 16:9 monitor had a few extra vertical pixels.[/citation]
^this guy is right.
Panels, just like CPU's, come from "wafers" (for lack of a better word), and the bigger the panel, the less panels you get from each "wafer". So of course bigger and odd shaped panels are going to be more expensive to manufacture. And if you think of tiny smartphone screens using the same "wafers", then it's obvious why it's easier and probably cheaper to push out panels with higher resolutions and more ppi than panels 6+ times bigger.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram