Why can't I find a 22 Inch 1440p monitor?

[Deleted member 1272578]

I was looking for a 22 - 24 Inch 1440p monitor and it appears they don't make them. So how come there are 13 Inch notebooks with 2560x1600 Displays?

 

[noidea_77]

Because the typical viewing distance for a laptop display is much less compared to a desktop monitor.

 

[spdragoo]

First, there is no such thing as "1600p" for resolution purposes. Not sure if you're referring to the older UXGA standard (1600x1200, 4:3 aspect ratio) or its widescreen cousin UWXGA (1600x768, 16:9 aspect ratio), but neither one of those is truly HD. I suppose you could have maybe meant the WQXGA standard (2560x1600, 16:10 aspect ratio)...but again, although used for home projector systems, it's not a true HD standard.

"1440p" exists (aka QHD/Quad HD, 2560x1440, 16:9 aspect ratio), with 4 times the pixel density of 720p (1280x720, 16:9 aspect ratio), & there are 27" or larger monitors/TVs that can display that resolution. However, for HD formats the number portion shows the number of vertical pixels...& there are no HD formats with 1600 vertical pixels; the closest is WQXGA+/QHD+ (3200x1800, 16:9 aspect ratio), but that's so far been limited to laptops.

The problem for you, though, is that with a 22-24" monitor you won't really see a whole lot of difference between 720p & the higher standards. You need a bigger screen to really see any differences. Which is why I find it really ridiculous when they talk about a 7-10" tablet or a 4-6" smartphone screen having a higher resolution than my 32" TV set: you can't really see the difference that you're paying the extra premium for.

 

[Deleted member 1272578]

First, there is no such thing as "1600p" for resolution purposes. Not sure if you're referring to the older UXGA standard (1600x1200, 4:3 aspect ratio) or its widescreen cousin UWXGA (1600x768, 16:9 aspect ratio), but neither one of those is truly HD. I suppose you could have maybe meant the WQXGA standard (2560x1600, 16:10 aspect ratio)...but again, although used for home projector systems, it's not a true HD standard.

"1440p" exists (aka QHD/Quad HD, 2560x1440, 16:9 aspect ratio), with 4 times the pixel density of 720p (1280x720, 16:9 aspect ratio), & there are 27" or larger monitors/TVs that can display that resolution. However, for HD formats the number portion shows the number of vertical pixels...& there are no HD formats with 1600 vertical pixels; the closest is WQXGA+/QHD+ (3200x1800, 16:9 aspect ratio), but that's so far been limited to laptops.

The problem for you, though, is that with a 22-24" monitor you won't really see a whole lot of difference between 720p & the higher standards. You need a bigger screen to really see any differences. Which is why I find it really ridiculous when they talk about a 7-10" tablet or a 4-6" smartphone screen having a higher resolution than my 32" TV set: you can't really see the difference that you're paying the extra premium for.

I wrote 1600p because it's shorter than 2560x1600, but whatever.

I can see a difference between 1440x900 and 2880x1800 on a 15 Inch screen so I should be able to tell the difference between 1280x720 and 2560x1440.

 

[guyroch]

First, there is no such thing as "1600p" for resolution purposes. Not sure if you're referring to the older UXGA standard (1600x1200, 4:3 aspect ratio) or its widescreen cousin UWXGA (1600x768, 16:9 aspect ratio), but neither one of those is truly HD. I suppose you could have maybe meant the WQXGA standard (2560x1600, 16:10 aspect ratio)...but again, although used for home projector systems, it's not a true HD standard.

"1440p" exists (aka QHD/Quad HD, 2560x1440, 16:9 aspect ratio), with 4 times the pixel density of 720p (1280x720, 16:9 aspect ratio), & there are 27" or larger monitors/TVs that can display that resolution. However, for HD formats the number portion shows the number of vertical pixels...& there are no HD formats with 1600 vertical pixels; the closest is WQXGA+/QHD+ (3200x1800, 16:9 aspect ratio), but that's so far been limited to laptops.

The problem for you, though, is that with a 22-24" monitor you won't really see a whole lot of difference between 720p & the higher standards. You need a bigger screen to really see any differences. Which is why I find it really ridiculous when they talk about a 7-10" tablet or a 4-6" smartphone screen having a higher resolution than my 32" TV set: you can't really see the difference that you're paying the extra premium for.

Wow, you are obviously blind. The difference is huge, full stop. You should probably refrain from posting if you don't see the difference instead of providing an unfounded opinion!!!

Once you get a 1440p or above display (I have a 3200x1800 packed in a 13" Lenovo Yoga) and boy you get spoiled very quickly with how crisp everything is.

A user speaking from experience, not guess work!

 

[maxalge]

The problem for you, though, is that with a 22-24" monitor you won't really see a whole lot of difference between 720p & the higher standards. You need a bigger screen to really see any differences. Which is why I find it really ridiculous when they talk about a 7-10" tablet or a 4-6" smartphone screen having a higher resolution than my 32" TV set: you can't really see the difference that you're paying the extra premium for.

I don't know if this is on purpose or not but, elder rank with a name that sounds like Mr Magoo ... HAHAH!~

Poor guy...

Yes there are portable devices that can play HD, look a lot better than your tv too. It's all about pixel density.


Also if you can't tell the difference going higher than 720p please go to an eye doctor, I'm serious.

 

[spdragoo]

In terms of icon size, yes, you'll obviously see a difference. But that's going to happen whether you're looking at a 4" screen or a 100" screen.

But if you're only worried about the clarity of the picture, then picking 720 vs 1080 for a 24" monitor is not going to have a major difference. At that small of a screen, even a 720p resolution means you'll have multiple scan lines per vertical millimeter (720 scan lines / 300mm vertical screen size = 2.4 scan lines per millimeter, or about half the width of a 0.7mm mechanical pencil lead).

And before you say I don't know what I'm talking about, I've watched TV on my 22" computer monitor before... not only at the "standard" resolution, but also using the 720 & 1080 options. The only difference between 720 & 1080 options was how many times it would stop midstream to refill the buffer, which happened much more often at 1080 than it did at 720. The picture quality, however, was identical when sitting 3 feet away from the screen (well within the 44-inch "optimal viewing distance" for that size of monitor).

Now, if we were talking about 30-40" monitors, or one of those monster 60"+ widescreen TVs, then you would start to see a significant difference between them. But we're not. And while a smaller screen -- like, say, my iPod Touch 4th generation -- can offer higher pixel density, that doesn't mean it's a "clearer" picture: watching Netflix on my iPod is just as "clear" as watching it on the 32" widescreen TV in the living room, except that I don't have to squint & sit 5 inches away from the TV to have a "watchable" picture... & why I generally don't use my iPod to watch TV (except to hook it up to an HDTV in a hotel room when I'm on vacation).