Negative progress in monitor technology?

[slayernine]

The reason they don't make "good" monitors anymore is because people like you do not care enough about your monitor. When I say you what I mean is people who look at screen size as being more important than DPI, those who think HD is enough, and those who just don't give a damn.

We should have better resolutions than 2560x1600 by now and there should be support in Windows to properly scale the interface in a way that takes proper advantage of such progress in display technology. Imagine a world where fonts look as smooth as they do on paper and games that provide a field of view comparable to real life. It can happen, we just need to get loud and all up in the face of industry giants that make these crappy HD panels.

Speak with your wallet, buy proper non TN monitors at proper 4:3 or 16:10 resolutions.

 

[Grooveriding]

It's got to be a good part in lack of demand. Most users are happy with a 1080P TN POS.

Would like to see some higher resolution monitors myself too. I don't think I'd want one much bigger than 30" though, it's already a bit too big to sit in front of. Definitey would like smaller dot pitch and higher resolutions on what we have.

If we're talking higher resolutions and bigger screen real estate, I'd only like to see that on HDTVs. That will definietly be coming at some point, probably in five years or so.

 

[Cogman]

That could work. But why would you use it? These are last-foot links, there's no reason they need to be lossy. HDMI has plenty of bandwidth if manufacturers actually used it (it's enough to match dual-link DVI), and it wouldn't be particularly hard to further improve it.

Mainly to support ultra high resolutions (and maybe even higher fps). Though, now that I think about it, more and bigger wires would probably be a much more convenient solution. You could easily send large portions of the screen in parallel. Heck, you could have several frames in flight.

 

[Cogman]

The reason they don't make "good" monitors anymore is because people like you do not care enough about your monitor. When I say you what I mean is people who look at screen size as being more important than DPI, those who think HD is enough, and those who just don't give a damn.

We should have better resolutions than 2560x1600 by now and there should be support in Windows to properly scale the interface in a way that takes proper advantage of such progress in display technology. Imagine a world where fonts look as smooth as they do on paper and games that provide a field of view comparable to real life. It can happen, we just need to get loud and all up in the face of industry giants that make these crappy HD panels.

Speak with your wallet, buy proper non TN monitors at proper 4:3 or 16:10 resolutions.

I agree. But I don't think that a few enthusiasts will change the market.

 

[Paul98]

I agree, when I was looking at new monitors in the last couple years I was really surprised. What happened is that TV's went 1080p and that is just fine for the general market for resolution so they can use the same screens for both monitors and tv's. So prices come down for both. Where before SD tv's were no where near high enough resolution for a computer screen.

There might be some hope with 4k resolution if we see that any time even remotely soon. But with 1080p only becoming standard not all that long ago I wouldn't expect it too soon.

 

[taltamir]

diminshing returns and customer ambivalence on resolution has caused manufacturers to leave it static while focusing on other factors consumers still care about.
1. Power consumption goes down at a massive rate.
2. Weight goes down at a great rate.
3. Thickness goes down at a great rate.
4. Price goes down at a great rate.
5. Contrast ratios go up at a decent rate.
6. Features are added (3d, web, etc)
7. refresh rate goes up at a great rate (something that was sacrificed from the CRT to LCD move, and is slowly recovering)
8. response time goes down at a great rate (something that was sacrificed from the CRT to LCD move, and is slowly recovering)

EDIT: Thanks cogman, I was really tired when I wrote this, only 4 hours of sleep and I made such a weird and silly error by combining 7 and 8 somehow. I knew better, but I had a brainfart due to lack of sleep.

 

[Cogman]

diminshing returns and customer ambivalence on resolution has caused manufacturers to leave it static while focusing on other factors consumers still care about.
1. Power consumption goes down at a massive rate.
2. Weight goes down at a great rate.
3. Thickness goes down at a great rate.
4. Price goes down at a great rate.
5. Contrast ratios go up at a decent rate.
6. Features are added (3d, web, etc)
7. Response time goes up at a great rate (something that was sacrificed from the CRT to LCD move, and is slowly recovering)

7. Response time goes DOWN at a great rate. (smaller is better.)
You may have meant refresh rate which has gone up (sort of).

 

[wirednuts]

they cut weight to save money for themselves. costs less to make and ship when you use more plastic. it almost seems to got to the point where screens are too light.. theyre almost too easily tipped over.

 

[Cogman]

they cut weight to save money for themselves. costs less to make and ship when you use more plastic. it almost seems to got to the point where screens are too light.. theyre almost too easily tipped over.

I try not to send my screens through a whole lot of earthquake tests . Keeping them from tipping is a pretty easy engineering problem, you just load the base with weight or make the base wider with weights around the edges. You can still make it light while making it harder to tip then older versions.

 

[Gryz]

I don't care about resolution so much. As someone else noticed: if the resolution gets higher, you need a more powerful videocard. My 1920x1200 seems to have a good enough resolution. And 24" is big enough for me. I could use a bigger monitor, but I don't really care. I don't want something smaller though. (No, not even 23").

But I really want 16x10, not 16x9.
And I'd like an IPS screen.
And I'd like it to run at 100 or 120 Hz.
And I want it to be as cheap as my current monitor. $200-$300 would be good.

Does that monitor exist ? Nope. It's already pretty hard to find a 16x10 monitor. And impossible to get the other requirements too. Even if I don't care about the price, I don't think there are any 1920x1200 100 Hz IPS screens. And it looks like there won't be any in the near future either.

 

[taltamir]

Rather then IPS screen, you are probably stuck with TN until QD and OLED make it to mainstream.

 

[Zanovar]

Not sure about negative progress in monitor technology,but I know one thing these guys need to sort out their qc.ive tried out loads of monitors this year and the qc has been shocking and I dont think its bad luck either as ive tried too many.all had unacceptable backlight bleed the worst being the second Asus PA238Q ive tried and recntly sent back which was laughably atrocious.

 

[tommylommykins]

How much of the graphics on Windows is still based on Raster graphics?

If there're still many things that are not vector graphics, then this is a hinderance to having more pixels per inch...

 

[taltamir]

How much of the graphics on Windows is still based on Raster graphics?

If there're still many things that are not vector graphics, then this is a hinderance to having more pixels per inch...

You don't need vector graphics for that, you can just stretch... texture quality will degrade some but no big deal.

What you need is to fundamentally divorce the GUI from pixels. GUI should primarily take into account a display's size in real units of measurement (ex: inches) and secondarily in percent of the display. With tweaks applicable by the viewer. Instead its tied to pixels such that non standard resolutions (and what is standard changes over the years) completely ruin it.

The first issue, the size of the display, is mostly handled by making assumptions based on the platform. A cellphone, a tabled, a desktop, a gaming console... you can guesstimate the screen size for each and design with that in mind. And this is pretty much what everyone does. Its not perfect and if displays actually reported their physical size it could be done better.

It's the second point where the real failure occurs. Adjusting the GUI to percent of display rather then pixels.

No OS out there, not windows, linux, mac, solaris, nor BSD does it correctly. If you increase the resolution in those OS you get smaller text and interface elements to shrink unduly, and if you try to increase the text it causes every menu to explode as text overflows out of them (since nothing increases with it).

There should be no reason to view a desktop at below your monitor's max resolution. But there is merely due to the inadequacy of various OS in handling that.

3D Video games have (mostly) been doing it correctly by virtue of how 3d rendering works... but still a lot of games will overlay that correct scaling 3d images with 2d menus that become smaller and smaller the higher your resolution is.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I don't care about resolution so much. As someone else noticed: if the resolution gets higher, you need a more powerful videocard. My 1920x1200 seems to have a good enough resolution. And 24" is big enough for me. I could use a bigger monitor, but I don't really care. I don't want something smaller though. (No, not even 23").

But I really want 16x10, not 16x9.
And I'd like an IPS screen.
And I'd like it to run at 100 or 120 Hz.
And I want it to be as cheap as my current monitor. $200-$300 would be good.

Does that monitor exist ? Nope. It's already pretty hard to find a 16x10 monitor. And impossible to get the other requirements too. Even if I don't care about the price, I don't think there are any 1920x1200 100 Hz IPS screens. And it looks like there won't be any in the near future either.

IPS is too slow for high refresh rates, heck, even TN is technically too slow at certain color to color switches for 120Hz regardless of pixel acceleration technologies.

Really I think we're SOL until new panel technologies like OLED and QD etc, and I'd go as far as to say we're pretty much dead in the water as far as LCD goes.

 

[tweakboy]

Well bottom line you will get nasty latency with these new monitors LED ,,shadowing ghosting etc.

You will get 5ms to 8ms lag ,, vsync ON, and your mouse will be laggy. Try 1ms :thumbsup:

 

[taltamir]

Well bottom line you will get nasty latency with these new monitors LED ,,shadowing ghosting etc.

You will get 5ms to 8ms lag ,, vsync ON, and your mouse will be laggy. Try 1ms :thumbsup:

1. Broken as heck sentence structure so I am not sure what you are trying to say.
2. Refresh rate and response time are issues exlusive to LCD. They are non issues with CRT, Plasma, OLED, QD.
3. There is no such thing as an LED monitor. There is an LED backlit (instead of halogen backlit) monitor, but those cannot be what you meant because they are the same or better than halogen backlights.

 

[soccerballtux]

I'm in agreement. I personally have fewer monitors than previously.

 

[Soundmanred]

1. Broken as heck sentence structure so I am not sure what you are trying to say.
2. Refresh rate and response time are issues exlusive to LCD. They are non issues with CRT, Plasma, OLED, QD.
3. There is no such thing as an LED monitor. There is an LED backlit (instead of halogen backlit) monitor, but those cannot be what you meant because they are the same or better than halogen backlights.

He just got off a vacation for spouting this kind of nonsense.
Lesson not learned I suppose.

 

[soccerballtux]

He just got off a vacation for spouting this kind of nonsense.
Lesson not learned I suppose.

haha that's not why he was vacations

 

[StinkyPinky]

Those cheap IPS screens aren't much better anyway. In fact, they're worse for gamers.

When will oled become mainstream? I saw one of those screens here in Vegas a couple of years back and it was a thing of beauty.

 

[taltamir]

Those cheap IPS screens aren't much better anyway. In fact, they're worse for gamers.

When will oled become mainstream? I saw one of those screens here in Vegas a couple of years back and it was a thing of beauty.

currently, all oled capacity is going towards making oled smartphones. There is just not enough manufacturing and too much demand. It will be some years before large monitors and TVs become available.

Samsung has been talking about OLED TVs but diverted all manufacturing to their cellphones.
Sony still has that 11 inch OLED for 3000$ since 2009... and recently (may 2011) updated their "master monitors" (for companies that do graphical development and need perfect color accuracy) with OLED, so you can buy a 17 or 25" OLED monitor now

here is their 25" OLED monitor, cheapest I found on the web
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...r_EL_OLED.html
A mere $23,400.00