Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › Why are there so few 2560x1440/2560x1600 monitors out there?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why are there so few 2560x1440/2560x1600 monitors out there? - Page 5

post #41 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Garnet;14478046 
How can you conclude I need to think something through if you aren't even getting my point?

Because I'm not getting your point, as it is jumbled. No offense, naturally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Garnet;14478046 
Where did I say this? I'd prefer 1920x1200 over 1920x1080, 1600x1200 over 1600x900, etc., so I don't see where you are drawing that from.

If you stretch 1080p video to 1440p, it will look "natural", as in, without black bars, but it will look, well.. stretched.

You claimed that 720p/1080p would look better (to you) on a 1440p screen.

So, I asked you whether you'd prefer pixelization (stretched) to having black bars.

Your response was "Yes", as far as I could detect. It was jumbled and unclear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Garnet;14478046 
This is true, and it's part of why 1080p became so mainstream. I do agree with this.

However, that doesn't mean there is no "support" or whatever for higher.
That is what I was saying.

Really, outside videos that have 1:1 pixel matching for the 1080p resolution, nothing prevents the higher resolutions from being "supported". Even then, those higher resolutions still run it fine (albeit not fullscreen, not without interpolation anyway, but again, unless you are doing alot of media/video use, everything else is still fine with it).

They are niche more so because they are high end and expensive.

No, they are high-end and expensive Because they are niche.

And that is because people don't want 1600p screen, nor 1440p.

They will, when there are 1600p movies.
White Phoenix
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600k Gigabyte P67A-UD7-B3 GTX 480 SLi G.Skill 16GB (4x4GB) 1600/CL7 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 256GB LG 6x BD-RW/HD-DVD Windows 7 SP1 Ultimate 64-bit Dell 'PLP' - 2007FP | 3007WFP-HC | 2007FP 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G510 Silverstone 1000w [80A]-Rail Antec p190 (Modded) Logitech G700 
Mouse Pad
Steelpad SteelSeries Experience I-2 
  hide details  
Reply
White Phoenix
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600k Gigabyte P67A-UD7-B3 GTX 480 SLi G.Skill 16GB (4x4GB) 1600/CL7 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 256GB LG 6x BD-RW/HD-DVD Windows 7 SP1 Ultimate 64-bit Dell 'PLP' - 2007FP | 3007WFP-HC | 2007FP 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G510 Silverstone 1000w [80A]-Rail Antec p190 (Modded) Logitech G700 
Mouse Pad
Steelpad SteelSeries Experience I-2 
  hide details  
Reply
post #42 of 78
Track, yet again, 720p is t he second native of 1440p, and therefore will not experience blurring like unnative resolutions would on a 1440p monitor.
Toki
(10 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
[i7 860] [XFX 5870] [4x2gb] [WD 500gb] 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
[W7] [HP LP3065 - CrossOver 27Q LED-P - Acer x243w] Ducky DK1087-CELLB Tenkeyless, MX Blue - Steels... [LC power 750W] 
Audio
[ATH-A700] + [Asus Xonar DG] 
  hide details  
Reply
Toki
(10 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
[i7 860] [XFX 5870] [4x2gb] [WD 500gb] 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
[W7] [HP LP3065 - CrossOver 27Q LED-P - Acer x243w] Ducky DK1087-CELLB Tenkeyless, MX Blue - Steels... [LC power 750W] 
Audio
[ATH-A700] + [Asus Xonar DG] 
  hide details  
Reply
post #43 of 78
720p (WXGA-H, min.)1280×720,16:9,1.778

HD 1080 (1080i, 1080p),1920×1080,16:9,1.778

WQHD (Dell UltraSharp U2711, Apple iMac),2560×1440,16:9,1.778,3,686,400


QFHD,3840×2160,16:9,1.778,8,294,400


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_aspect_ratio

ignore the line "Windows will run optimal on monitors with the aspect ratio of 16:9 to show off its new user face. For people using older 4:3 displays Windows 8 will show an old standard desktop.[18]"
coz any idiot can edit wikipedia.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
3770k (3233C Batch)  G1.Sniper 3 sapphire 7950 reference sapphire 7950 reference 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
ares 32GB Samsung 840 Pro 256GB 2.5" MZ-7PD256BW Crucial M4 CT128M4SSD2 128GB Western Digital WD1002FAEX  
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
usb iomega superslim dvd Zalman CNPS12X 7 ultimate x64 SP1 ZR30w 
MonitorMonitorMonitorMonitor
u2412mb u2412mb u2412m u2412m 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
V7 D24W33 LA2405wg E157FP dell sk-8115 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
SeaSonic Platinum-860 860W ATX12V RSV-R4000 Rackmount Server Chassis TeamScorpion X-Luca xtrac ripper xxl 
AudioOtherOtherOther
Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 logitech c920 webcam logitech C920 Webcam serato sl1 
Other
usb 2.0 hub 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
3770k (3233C Batch)  G1.Sniper 3 sapphire 7950 reference sapphire 7950 reference 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
ares 32GB Samsung 840 Pro 256GB 2.5" MZ-7PD256BW Crucial M4 CT128M4SSD2 128GB Western Digital WD1002FAEX  
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
usb iomega superslim dvd Zalman CNPS12X 7 ultimate x64 SP1 ZR30w 
MonitorMonitorMonitorMonitor
u2412mb u2412mb u2412m u2412m 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
V7 D24W33 LA2405wg E157FP dell sk-8115 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
SeaSonic Platinum-860 860W ATX12V RSV-R4000 Rackmount Server Chassis TeamScorpion X-Luca xtrac ripper xxl 
AudioOtherOtherOther
Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 logitech c920 webcam logitech C920 Webcam serato sl1 
Other
usb 2.0 hub 
  hide details  
Reply
post #44 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by De-Zant View Post
Track, yet again, 720p is t he second native of 1440p, and therefore will not experience blurring like unnative resolutions would on a 1440p monitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remix65 View Post
720p (WXGA-H, min.)1280×720,16:9,1.778

HD 1080 (1080i, 1080p),1920×1080,16:9,1.778

WQHD (Dell UltraSharp U2711, Apple iMac),2560×1440,16:9,1.778,3,686,400


QFHD,3840×2160,16:9,1.778,8,294,400


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_aspect_ratio

ignore the line "Windows will run optimal on monitors with the aspect ratio of 16:9 to show off its new user face. For people using older 4:3 displays Windows 8 will show an old standard desktop.[18]"
coz any idiot can edit wikipedia.
You both are making the same (I thought was basic) mistake.

There is a difference here.

If you have 1280x720 running on a monitor with a native resolution of 1280x1024, it will look blurry and unclear.

If you have 640x360 running on a monitor with a native resolution of 1280x720, it will run on a certain 1:x ratio, as in the pixels will all be the same size..

But they will STILL be stretched pretty drastically.

So, I would choose 1280x720 on 1280x1024 than 640x360 on 1280x720.

Now with video, it's actually an even easier decision.

If you run 1280x720 video on a 1280x1024 monitor, black bars will appear on the top and bottom to compensate for the 304 pixels missing.

So, like I said, the higher the resolution the better. 720p will not look better on a monitor with a resolution of 2560x1440 than, say, 1600x1200.
White Phoenix
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600k Gigabyte P67A-UD7-B3 GTX 480 SLi G.Skill 16GB (4x4GB) 1600/CL7 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 256GB LG 6x BD-RW/HD-DVD Windows 7 SP1 Ultimate 64-bit Dell 'PLP' - 2007FP | 3007WFP-HC | 2007FP 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G510 Silverstone 1000w [80A]-Rail Antec p190 (Modded) Logitech G700 
Mouse Pad
Steelpad SteelSeries Experience I-2 
  hide details  
Reply
White Phoenix
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600k Gigabyte P67A-UD7-B3 GTX 480 SLi G.Skill 16GB (4x4GB) 1600/CL7 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 256GB LG 6x BD-RW/HD-DVD Windows 7 SP1 Ultimate 64-bit Dell 'PLP' - 2007FP | 3007WFP-HC | 2007FP 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G510 Silverstone 1000w [80A]-Rail Antec p190 (Modded) Logitech G700 
Mouse Pad
Steelpad SteelSeries Experience I-2 
  hide details  
Reply
post #45 of 78
Uhh. At that final bit, yes it will. 1280x720 HAS to be stretched out as an unnative resolution through the 1600x1200 and it will blur the resolution quite a bit, whn it will simply be a native resolution of the 2560x1440 monitor, and thus looking better.

I am NOT saying that 1280x720 will look better on a 2560x1440 display than a 1280x720 display, however, technically there should not be a difference between the two if size remains the same, aside from the 2560x1440 one having lessened screen door effect.


My point here is that 1280x720 will look just as good on 2560x1440 as 1280x720 (if size is same) because it's a second native resolution, while something like 1920x1080 over 2560x1440 would lose quality, because it is an unnative resolution, where pixels are forced to utilize 1.3 pixels or something, which makes the image blurrier.

And thus it is wrong to say that 1280x720 will look "stretched out" or "distorted" on 2560x1440. 1920x1080 would, not 1280x720

You see, it's not about the stretching part when lower resolutions get blurry. It's about the fact that the pixel distribution cannot be divided evenly on the unnative resolution, thus blurrying the image quite a bit. In the case of 1280x720, no image quality loss would happen at 2560x1440, because it is second native and pixels can be divided neatly. In fact, it might look better, because it has lessened screen door. This is assuming size is constant. BUT that is a small consideration with no real relevance.
Toki
(10 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
[i7 860] [XFX 5870] [4x2gb] [WD 500gb] 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
[W7] [HP LP3065 - CrossOver 27Q LED-P - Acer x243w] Ducky DK1087-CELLB Tenkeyless, MX Blue - Steels... [LC power 750W] 
Audio
[ATH-A700] + [Asus Xonar DG] 
  hide details  
Reply
Toki
(10 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
[i7 860] [XFX 5870] [4x2gb] [WD 500gb] 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
[W7] [HP LP3065 - CrossOver 27Q LED-P - Acer x243w] Ducky DK1087-CELLB Tenkeyless, MX Blue - Steels... [LC power 750W] 
Audio
[ATH-A700] + [Asus Xonar DG] 
  hide details  
Reply
post #46 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shub;14464515 
There's a nice selection of them of course, but they're all IPS and thus expensive. I don't see why there can't be TN panels with those resolutions.

maybe because they're expensive to produce(2560x1600 monitors are even more expensive than 2560x1440 16:9 ones) and there's not too much market for them due to their not mainstream pricing? (800+)
post #47 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by De-Zant View Post
Uhh. At that final bit, yes it will. 1280x720 HAS to be stretched out as an unnative resolution through the 1600x1200 and it will blur the resolution quite a bit, whn it will simply be a native resolution of the 2560x1440 monitor, and thus looking better.
But it has to be stretched from 1280x720 to 2560x1400.

Is that not clear?

Quote:
Originally Posted by De-Zant View Post
I am NOT saying that 1280x720 will look better on a 2560x1440 display than a 1280x720 display, however, technically there should not be a difference between the two if size remains the same, aside from the 2560x1440 one having lessened screen door effect.
By your argument, no resolution above 160x120 improves picture quality.

If you take 320x240 and stretch it to 800x600, it will look horrible.

So yes, if you take 1,000,000 pixels and stretch them to 4,000,000 pixels, it will look much, much worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by De-Zant View Post
My point here is that 1280x720 will look just as good on 2560x1440 as 1280x720 (if size is same) because it's a second native resolution, while something like 1920x1080 over 2560x1440 would lose quality, because it is an unnative resolution, where pixels are forced to utilize 1.3 pixels or something, which makes the image blurrier.
There is no such thing as "second native resolution".

All LCD panels have a single native resolution.

The problem is that you think that stretching video while keeping the aspect ratio will not reduce quality no matter how high the outcome resolution is.

By your definition, you think that stretching pixels 1.3x looks WORSE than if you stretch them 4x.

Does that not sound insane to you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by De-Zant View Post
And thus it is wrong to say that 1280x720 will look "stretched out" or "distorted" on 2560x1440. 1920x1080 would, not 1280x720
It might not look "distorted", but it most certainly will look "stretched out."

Personally, I think both have equal effect, so 1080p would be preferable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by De-Zant View Post
You see, it's not about the stretching part when lower resolutions get blurry. It's about the fact that the pixel distribution cannot be divided evenly on the unnative resolution, thus blurrying the image quite a bit. In the case of 1280x720, no image quality loss would happen at 2560x1440, because it is second native and pixels can be divided neatly. In fact, it might look better, because it has lessened screen door. This is assuming size is constant. BUT that is a small consideration with no real relevance.
You're absolutely wrong.

Blurring and Stretching have the same effect on image quality. You might think that blurring makes it look worse than stretching, but I disagree.

But like I've being saying, your entire argument it moot:

If you run 1280x1024 on 2560x1440, it will have black bars to compensate, so it will STILL run 1:1 and no blurring will occur.

In fact, the only way "blurring" is possible is if you set the resolution of the monitor to non-native.

Video, in fact, will never have the blurring effect, as it will compensate with black bars.
White Phoenix
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600k Gigabyte P67A-UD7-B3 GTX 480 SLi G.Skill 16GB (4x4GB) 1600/CL7 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 256GB LG 6x BD-RW/HD-DVD Windows 7 SP1 Ultimate 64-bit Dell 'PLP' - 2007FP | 3007WFP-HC | 2007FP 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G510 Silverstone 1000w [80A]-Rail Antec p190 (Modded) Logitech G700 
Mouse Pad
Steelpad SteelSeries Experience I-2 
  hide details  
Reply
White Phoenix
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600k Gigabyte P67A-UD7-B3 GTX 480 SLi G.Skill 16GB (4x4GB) 1600/CL7 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 256GB LG 6x BD-RW/HD-DVD Windows 7 SP1 Ultimate 64-bit Dell 'PLP' - 2007FP | 3007WFP-HC | 2007FP 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G510 Silverstone 1000w [80A]-Rail Antec p190 (Modded) Logitech G700 
Mouse Pad
Steelpad SteelSeries Experience I-2 
  hide details  
Reply
post #48 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by De-Zant View Post
That is just a disclaimer. A LOT of 2+ years old LCD monitors start having that issue, regardless of the quality. It's only wise to put a disclaimer there.
it is also possible that ips monitors are designed to last only 2-3 yrs and the industry pushes for them coz it guarantees consumers will be back for more.

i can honestly tell you my V7 TN monitor has the best text sharpness. better than the zr30w, and the LP2465 which are both IPS. the v7 viewing angles are very good. of course the IPS monitors are way better in viewing angles but all monitors can be turned. i've had to make a very hard choice btwn the zr30w and the v7 as to which is gonna be main. as you see im not even quick to update my sig. sure the colors lack but imo only the 5%ers notice colors...

and the v7 i just picked up from ebay from some openbox seller.

the industry is good at pushing for products they want to sell. even pay "experts" to push for new technology and its not just in displays...

i have plenty monitors and 5 million thousand laptops and in my opinion ips monitors are over rated.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
3770k (3233C Batch)  G1.Sniper 3 sapphire 7950 reference sapphire 7950 reference 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
ares 32GB Samsung 840 Pro 256GB 2.5" MZ-7PD256BW Crucial M4 CT128M4SSD2 128GB Western Digital WD1002FAEX  
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
usb iomega superslim dvd Zalman CNPS12X 7 ultimate x64 SP1 ZR30w 
MonitorMonitorMonitorMonitor
u2412mb u2412mb u2412m u2412m 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
V7 D24W33 LA2405wg E157FP dell sk-8115 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
SeaSonic Platinum-860 860W ATX12V RSV-R4000 Rackmount Server Chassis TeamScorpion X-Luca xtrac ripper xxl 
AudioOtherOtherOther
Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 logitech c920 webcam logitech C920 Webcam serato sl1 
Other
usb 2.0 hub 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
3770k (3233C Batch)  G1.Sniper 3 sapphire 7950 reference sapphire 7950 reference 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
ares 32GB Samsung 840 Pro 256GB 2.5" MZ-7PD256BW Crucial M4 CT128M4SSD2 128GB Western Digital WD1002FAEX  
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
usb iomega superslim dvd Zalman CNPS12X 7 ultimate x64 SP1 ZR30w 
MonitorMonitorMonitorMonitor
u2412mb u2412mb u2412m u2412m 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
V7 D24W33 LA2405wg E157FP dell sk-8115 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
SeaSonic Platinum-860 860W ATX12V RSV-R4000 Rackmount Server Chassis TeamScorpion X-Luca xtrac ripper xxl 
AudioOtherOtherOther
Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 logitech c920 webcam logitech C920 Webcam serato sl1 
Other
usb 2.0 hub 
  hide details  
Reply
post #49 of 78
By second native, I mean the resolution where pixels are 2x2 instead of 1x1. This does not produce a loss in image quality if a resolution is scaled this way.

Stretching itself will produce no loss in image quality, it's when the pixels don't match up perfectly. It makes perfect sense. Not insane at all. You see, you can have perfect pixel scaling if one pixel of a lower resolution simply uses 4 pixels in a square on a larger resolution monitor. Don't know what you don't get in this. And again when it cannot divide the pixels properly, blurrying will happen.

My point is not moot, maybe you have misunderstood, or maybe I don't get your point here. I do NOT think that remaining in the aspect ratio will prevent blurrying. I'm talking about the second native. 1280x720, 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 are all 16:9, but 2560x1440 can only display 2560x1440 and 1280x720 without blurrying. 1920x1080 will experience blurrying.


My main confusion here is what you mean by "stretched out". If you mean the look of unnative resolutions on LCDs, it doesn't happen on running 720p on 1440p. Second native. (term doesn't refer to physical native, just the second resolution that can be natively displayed). If you mean size difference, you have a point, but if both displays are same size and panel quality, the only difference between the two running 720p content would be reduced screen door in 2560x1440. I'd like further clarification on what you mean by stretched out, because before that we have a miscommunication.


I'm saying there won't be an image quality difference (aside from screen door) between native 1280x720 and 1280x720 on 2560x1440. Stretching is a word you use that holds no content by itself, because in this case, the stretching is perfect. (of course, depending on the device that scales it)
Toki
(10 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
[i7 860] [XFX 5870] [4x2gb] [WD 500gb] 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
[W7] [HP LP3065 - CrossOver 27Q LED-P - Acer x243w] Ducky DK1087-CELLB Tenkeyless, MX Blue - Steels... [LC power 750W] 
Audio
[ATH-A700] + [Asus Xonar DG] 
  hide details  
Reply
Toki
(10 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
[i7 860] [XFX 5870] [4x2gb] [WD 500gb] 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
[W7] [HP LP3065 - CrossOver 27Q LED-P - Acer x243w] Ducky DK1087-CELLB Tenkeyless, MX Blue - Steels... [LC power 750W] 
Audio
[ATH-A700] + [Asus Xonar DG] 
  hide details  
Reply
post #50 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Track View Post
There's no justifiable reason to get a warranty on monitors.

They almost never "break" and if they do, it's usually not fixable.

Unless you're referring to "zero-dead-pixel" warranty - in which case, the seller would be frank with you about the amount of dead/stuck pixels.

Your U3011 costs 3-5x as much as your U2311H. I'm talking about monitors that are or were in t hat price range at some point in time. Obviously an eIPS sub-300$ panel wouldn't compete.

Not to say that a common person could tell the difference.



You don't understand what a free market is.

It's the opposite of politics. The people decide what they want, the companies apply their products to that demand.

Politics, in technicality, is supposed to be the same. But these days, it's more like AT&T - coming up with a product and giving them no other choice. That's a free-market failure, where they have all the power.

The reason there are no 30" TN panels or 1600p 22" monitors and there are going to be 10" 1600p panels is because that is what the people want.



So you're saying that having no black bars is more important than pixelization?

Yes, 1440p will be 1:1 compatible with 720p, but it will look stretched and mushy. Same goes for 1080p.

Until there is 1440p content, there will be no widespread demand no manufacturer 1440p displays.

The U2711 and U3011 and their predecessors are and have always been as niche as the flagship graphics cards on their launch dates.
If there was a 1440p 27" monitor in the 300 range, I would buy it. Its all about money...enough with the "people don't want it." Most gamers would like to game at a higher resolution...its just the market wants to gouge the **** out of customers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Monitors and Displays
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › Why are there so few 2560x1440/2560x1600 monitors out there?