[ale] Video Resolutions

[Brian Mathis]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Chris Fowler
<cfowler at outpostsentinel.com> wrote:
> After installing a (new to me) workstation I started looking for a new
> LCD.  Currently I am using an Acer 21" wide screen.  I started looking
> at 27", but I'm confused about resolutions.  I need as many pixels on
> the screen as I can get.  The more I get the more stuff I can view
> without scrolling.  What I do not understand is why as LCD screens get
> larger the resolutions do not.  The resolution difference between my 21
> and the Acer 27 is not that great.  I'm just curious what I can't get a
> LCD with a 3K+x3k+ resolution.


You're really talking about achieving a specific DPI, which is
dependent on both size and resolution.  There is a direct relationship
between price and resolution, and you have to be willing to spend the
money to get the higher resolution to maintain a good DPI.

Many people are simply spoiled with 24" screens that cost less than
$200.  That is incredibly cheap and the reason they are cheap is
because they use the same panels and manufacturing process as HD TVs.
The display quality on cheap displays however is generally poor, and
anything outside that form factor is going to cost you.

I LOLed at the Newegg link for a "very expensive" monitor at $320.
I'm currently using a Dell Ultrasharp U2410, 24" WUXGA (1900x1200),
$550.  This is a low-end professional quality display, and it still
doesn't have a very high DPI.  I'm not an artist or anything, but I do
spend about 10 hours a day looking at this thing.

No matter what you think about Apple, they have finally kicked the
display industry in the pants and got them moving forward again.  We
used to be getting improvements in display resolution every so often,
until HD TV came out and everyone got lazy and stuck with "Full HD".
Now that there's a good marketing term again ("retina display"), we
will all soon benefit when newer displays come out.


❧ Brian Mathis