There is nothing 'super' about them. I guess if you haven't used a refined monitor, you just don't know what you're missing.
Think about it. A 17" monitor is about 14.5" x 9". Color groups are 0.19 mm apart. If you cannot see that fine, then what's the point... at least for you.
The new iPones have a 960 x 480 resolution on a 3.5" screen. That would be smaller than half the pixil size of a 17" laptop at 1920 x 1200. If the iPhones resolution used the same dot pitch at 14", then it would be a 3840 x 1920 resolution.
I guess my Behold II is all the better anyone can see at 480 x 240 by the consensus here.
When will you all stop believing market hype of someone selling 1080p because they don't have 1200p?
I know for fact it is a true 1200 pixils high. You simply prove yourself the fool.After reading that if you think there is a significant difference between a 1200 and a 1080 or that it isnt a 1080 workaround then ...
Nevermind man, I don't want to deviate from the main point of the thread. Here, you are completely right and I admit I was wrong
True, but these people seem to think 1200p doesn't matter, and some think it doesn't exist.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 08-15-2010 at 12:25 AM.
Did you count them?
How large of a screen do you have to have that high of a resolution and still be able to see the details on the schematics that you're using?
You see, as we all know, the higher the resolution, the smaller things get on the screen. So if you're going 1200p on a 17" monitor, then everything is going to be so small, some zooming is going to be required to see details. Kind of defeats the purpose of having that high of a resolution.
Again, when I hook up my computer to my 32" 1080p TV, some details get lost in the upgrade, and that's 32". Not only that, but you're actually doing more damage to your eyes than good operating with such a high resolution, in a smaller screen than 32" and at that close a proximity. And if the screen is larger, that's even worse.
When it comes to watching movies, playing games and what not, the higher the resolution and the bigger the screen, the better it is because of the distance between you and the screen.
But when it comes to working on a computer, you're talking about a distance of less than 2 feet between you and the screen. That's just not healthy for your eyes, unless you have super eyes as someone else mentioned. I imagine this is what you must look like at work.
My home monitor is 24". I have seen the same files on the Mac Powerbooks, and the detail is still there.
Duh...
I listed the color groups at 0.19 mm apart. Didn't I.
Well, if you sent a proper signal to it, there wouldn't be that "upgrade distortion," would there...
Sure, with a tube monitor...
It depends on distance.
What good is watching a 1080p movie on a 900p, 768p, or smaller monitor?
Ha. ha.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 08-15-2010 at 09:39 PM.
OK, for s and giggles, I made a simple checkerboard type box, pixil by pixil in a small Paint window of 789 x 598. It takes up just less than half my screen height and much less than half the width:
I took a picture of it with my camera, and cropped the pertinent part to 1024 x 900:
As you can see, the detail is there. Not bad for a cheap camera that doesn't sync well to a raster.
Think of the detail you need to read a regular 8-1/2 x 11 sheet of paper. I can display two at 100% with room to spare. Now going to a 17" rather than my 24" just means I'm looking at the full sheets at about 75% size from lifelike.
We aren't happy with printer clarity unless we get 300 dots per inch (dpi). 120 dpi still gives legible printing. You can see the dots at 120 dpi, right? Well a 17" (16.2 viewable) 16:10 monitor at 1920 x 1200 would be about 140 dpi. Very clear, unless you are buying a cheaply made screen where the pixils overrun each other.
I'm not talking about distortion. Quite the opposite. You see, details gets lost because the print gets smaller. In order to see the detail, one must zoom. Kind of defeats the purpose. Not hard to figure out.Well, if you sent a proper signal to it, there wouldn't be that "upgrade distortion," would there...
I think at this point you're missing the point of what I'm telling you. Sure you can fit everything on the screen. However, the print gets shrunken with the increase in pixels. I can have a window open that is full screen on my 1440x900 monitor. I won't touch anything, transfer to my TV and increase the resolution to full 1080p. All of a sudden, the full screen isn't full screen and when I do enlarge the window, the text looks smaller and there's extra space on the sides. That's because there's more pixels, right?
A perfect example is when I pull up a webpage on my iPhone 4. Because Apple crammed so many pixels into the screen, some pages display with print too small to read. It's not due to screen size, but the amount of pixels. You know this.
And unless you have super eyes, you're going to have to zoom in or strain your eyes working with the smaller print. You may not realize it at first, but it is happening.
You just have poor eyes.
But detail isn't lost.
Maybe you don't consciously see the pixels, but it makes the difference for telling the differences of 5 and S. O and 0, etc. etc.
On my 24.1" monitor, I can clearly see the checkerboard pattern of the pixel by pixel. I have the same clarity as a 18" 1440 x 900, because the pixels are the same size. On a 17" laptop, the pixils would just be a little smaller. 70.8% the size. I don't see that being a dramatic difference.
Just how large are the pixels on a 42" 1080P TV? Well, there are only 52 per inch.
Another aspect.
1920 x 1200 at 24" means about 94 pixels per inch. (WUXGA)
1920 x 1200 at 17" means about 133 pixels per inch. (WUXGA)
1440 x 900 at 17" means about 100 pixels per inch. (WXGA+)
1280 x 1024 at 15" means about 109 pixels per inch. (SXGA)
1024 x 768 at 15" means about 85 pixels per inch. (XGA)
1024 x 768 at 13" means about 98 pixels per inch. (XGA)
What are common laptop screen sizes anyway?
What sizes (actual) and at what resolution do you all have?
Now the above isn't perfect. I calculated these at the viewable being the full monitor size, which rarely occurs. However, my 24" monitor is 24.1". 20.5" x 12.8" Perfect for 100% sized 17 x 11, or two 8-1/2 x 11 side by side.
The irony of this sentence coming from you in this context in this thread is so delicious.
So let's review:
Nearly 33% translates to "not a big difference" to you, but 1440x900 on a 15" laptop would be "unacceptable"?
Impressive. You only have super eyes when it involves resolutions that sound good to you.
I swear he's a ing idiot who warps what is acceptable so much. This is such blatant proof of that. Whats 1900x1200 reduced by 30%? Yeah, pretty much the resolution he's knocked in 2 threads now.
ing AMAZING.
do yourself a favor and just buy a mac already... hahahahahaha!
Tbh thanks for confirming, now I know for sure I DONT want a mac.
calf tats.
BadOdor, more like Dumb .
I don't get your laughter, or is it ignorance?
The irony of this sentence coming from you in this context in this thread is so delicious.
Thats ok. Everyone else reading gets it.
Not me. My resolution isn't good enough.Thats ok. Everyone else reading gets it.
you should get a macbook, the resolutions are out of this world!
CryBaby Cry! Boo Hoo!
Can a $300 laptop run Diablo III? You still haven't answered this question. Since you accused me of having a lack of reading comprehension, I will continue to ask this question until you answer it, as per the needs and post by the OP.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
