On Thu, 30 May 2013, Craig Sanders <[email protected]> wrote: > 2560x1440 (aka "1440p") will beat 2560x1600 for a similar reason - 16:9 > is a wide-screen TV resolution, 16:10...but it won't be as cheap as > 1080p because there's no reason at all for TV owners to upgrade to that > - nothing is broadcast in that resolution....even most "HD" content is > just upscaled SD, but it's hard to notice because most people watch TV > from 10+ feet away.
Below is a message I sent to a SAGE-AU list last year about monitor resolutions. Ignoring the issue of manufacturing high resolution screens without too many dead pixels it seems that 20" is the maximum size for a high- DPI monitor with today's technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvi#Connector According to Wikipedia dual-link DVI is only capable of up to 2560*1600, so it won't drive anything much better than the monitors we have been discussing. This might be a contributing factor to a lack of higher resolution monitors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_port#Advantages_over_DVI.2C_VGA_and_LVDS Display Port can do "17.28 Gbit/s of effective video bandwidth, enough for four simultaneous 1080p60 displays (CEA-861 timings) or 2,560 × 1,600 × 30 bit @120 Hz (CVT-R timings)". Four simultaneous 1080p60 displays is less bandwidth than a single 27" display with "retina" quality DPI. There is apparently work in progress on TVs that have 4* the resolution of FullHD, so we will probably see monitors with 3840*2160 resolution soon enough which will use the full bandwidth of Display Port. Such a monitor with "retina" DPI would be 20". We need new cabling technology to have a "retina" DPI on a monitor larger than 20". -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
