Difference between resolution and aspect ratio?

Don't really understand the difference between the two...

For example can a laptop with 2560x1600 ever come out?

 

Its simple,

The Native Resolution is how many physical pixels are in the display's grid (that are active) and the Aspect Ratio is how many relative unites of measure Wide x High the display is, relative to its size.

So, 1024 x 768 is 4:3

That is, the Display has 1024 Pixels wide, and 768 Pixels High. 768 is 3/4 the height of 1024.

So.. 1024 is 4 Blocks of 256 Pixels, 768 is 3 blocks of 256 pixels.

If the Monitor was 4 Inches wide, it would be 3 Inches tall.. If its 8 inches wide, its 6 inches tall.. Etc..

--- As for 2560x1600, they just have to make smaller pixels. The iPad3 has small enough pixels that you could have a resolution like that on a notebook display

Good Read for Beginers; http://computer.howstuffworks.com/monitor1.htm

 

Aspect ratio - the ratio between screen physical height and screen physical width.

Resolution - the number of pixels the screen has.

 

The resolution usually follows standards for different aspect ratios, there might be the odd device here and there, but for computer monitors, it goes that way:

4:3 (pretty much extinct)-> 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024, 1400x1050, 1600x1200, 2048x1536

16:10 (endangered species)-> 1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200

16:9 (the new trend)-> 1366x768, 1600x900, 1920x1080, 2560x1440

When you see a screen size measured in inches, it is the diagonal of the panel and you can use that to determine the aspect ratio if you look for it a bit. For example, 15.4" is 16:10 and 15.6" is 16:9, technically, a 15.4" with the resolution of the ipad3 is feasible, but has not been done as far as i know.

 

So does a 16:9 that is 2560x1440 have more screen real estate (fits more things on screen for example icons on main screen) than 16:10 1920x1200??

Or because it has an inch less it will always have less screen real estate?

That's where I'm confused, thanks!

 

The more pixels you have, the more things you can fit on the screen, regardless of the display physical size or aspect ratio. Let's assume that you have a display that is 2 pixels by 2 pixels and it has a 2" diagonal. You'll be able to display only one 2x2 pixels image on it and it will occupy all of the screen, hence the image's diagonal will be 2". If you have a 4x4 pixel display that is 2" inches across as well, you'll be able to display 4 2x2 pixels images on it side by side and each image will measure 1" diagonally. The images will be smaller physically, but you'll be able to display more on screen. The same principle applies to any computer's resolution.

If you want a concrete example, at 1920x1080, you can fit two pages side by side in word at 100% view plus the navigation pane. At 1920x1200, you'd see more of the page vertically than you would at 1920x1080, but you will see the same amount of data displayed horizontally. Of course, the smaller the display, the smaller the physical size of the pixel and the smaller various objects will appear in windows at their default size.

 

Missing quite a few resolutions. Oh and the highest resolution ever offered in a laptop is of 4:3 aspect ratio and it was QXGA (2048x1536) and I think it was the r50 (someone correct em if Im wrong on the model).

 

I know i'm missing a few ones, but the ones i listed should cover the mainstream segments for each. If you have others you want to add, i'll add them to my post with credits to you in the edit note.

 

No thanks I was just making sure you werent one of those "16:9 has the highest resolution" people. Thats all.

 

Of course not, i don't mind 16:9, but i'd appreciate a return to 16:10 like a lot of us. The day they bring 21:9 to laptops i might go berserk though.

 

Ironically, 2048 × 1536, the iPad 3's display, is 4:3 ratio.. So its far from Dead. And the iPhone / iPod Retina display is only 960 × 640, which is 3:2. Oddballs for sure.. But its really pixel density that counts.

1080p is, unfortunately, a main way-point in the resolution game. Companies have touted 1080p as the end-all for consumer display for over a decade now. It is so ingrained in the consumer, it will take a major shift in consumer focus to go higher.

The ipad3 should kick-start a move into higher resolutions. If not, 4K (4096 × 2304) will be the next big thing to drive TV sales in the coming years. I figure you will see those in 60" screens and projectors at first. (Actually, you can buy 4K projectors now). Then it will filter down the like to eventually fill laptop screens.

 

So the question is -

Will we ever get better resolution than 1920x1080 we see maxed out at now in laptops?

 

Not for a while i'm willing to bet and besides, we'll need stronger laptop GPUs to push those games at high settings if we go for higher resolutions unless they cram a 3840x2160 display which would make for perfect scaling if you lower the resolution at 1920x1080 in games.

 

In simple terms aspect ratio is the ratio ( or relationship) of hight to width of the screen.

For example, the previous TV stand of 4X3: Four inches wide by 3 inches tall. It can also be written 1.33:1. The .33 would give the screen a little more wide than it is tall. An aspect ratio of 1:1 would be a square.

Resolution can be understood as a pixel based measure of the screen's clarity or definition. The greater the number of pixels, the greater or higher the resolution and the sharper the picture.

Pixels stand for the dots which are used to make up a picture on a screen. There are many representative of this concept available online.

And the source of one of the biggest debates we have in these forums. There is no such thing as a sacred ratio.

Just when it becomes accepted standard, they introduce 4k? . Expect to see this in stores around 2020.

True, but you'd also have to produce your own content since none is commercially available. (Ok, maybe somebody makes it?)

 

Well applications get scaled by OS anyway but I'm guessing you mean pictures, games, videos etc.

4k monitor is 8 megapixel resolution - most cheapo cameras can take a higher resolution picture than that now a days.

Other than that you're pretty much spot on.

Have fun watching your Hubble space telescope pictures!

 

RED and most vendors of Movie cameras have been pushing affordable 4K for quite some time. The only thing that is a killer is the media to push it. You need about 150-200GB of space for a feature length film.

Currently, there are some Blu-ray compatible up-scalers that will up-convert BD to 4K. I hear it looks great, but the native content.. Its just wow.

4K is to HDTV what 1080P was to Standard Def. (On a Large enough screen that is)

1080p has its limitations, i have a 1080P projector and a 150" diagonal screen in my home. Blu-ray is acceptable, but DVD, even up-converted, look pixalated.

 

There's been a lot of posting since you asked this, but it doesn't look like anyone actually responded to your question:

2560x1440 has more screen real estate both horizontally and vertically than 1920x1200 by way of having more pixels in each direction. However, 16:9 isn't necessarily an inch smaller than 16:10 - those are ratios, not measurements. The 16:9 screen could be 16 inches by 9 inches, an 18.4" screen with 144 square inches of screen space, while the 16:10 might be 8 inches by 5 inches, or a 9.4" screen with 40 square inches. Aspect ratios are related solely to how long one side is in comparison to another side, not how big the screen is.

Screen real estate is a term that people use to indicate more or less total pixels on the screen. Higher screen real estate means more pixels which means that you can fit more things on the screen at one time. The downside for some people is that things are smaller and may be harder to see.

 

Hmm, you're right, but that resolution is often seen as an option on 4:3 monitors, i suppose the ratios are close enough not to produce any noticeable distortion.

 

Let us not forget 1280x720 (True 720p) vs 1280×768 (WXGA) vs 1280×800 (WXGA Spec 2) vs 1366x768 (720p part-Deux) ..

And the other Niche resolutions between those..

Yikes.. "When Manufacturers ATTACK!"

 

No laptop screen can't be made in that resolution ... You wouldn't be able to see and even read a thing on screen ..
even on 18,4'' screen full hd is too small now ..

 

1080p on an 18" screen is quite nice actually, and fully usable. On a 15" screen it can get a little small without some enlargement. But the visuals for graphical applications make it well worth it.. and you can always scale text up a bit if needed.

Higher Resolution is never a bad thing.

 

Agreed on all accounts. As a burgeoning graphics artist, I can attest that resolution is key.

 

am not sayin that high resol. is bad it is nice clear more quality but it is not designed for reading or browsing websites BUT for watching films or photos ...
People hurting their eyes .. and will tell you plenty people WONT use DPI resizing .. soon or later everybody who using it will have problems with eyes ..

 

And by the time those high resolutions roll out, Microsoft, the Linux community and Apple will have integrated some sort of default scaling if your resolution is insanely high to prevent just this. That or the manufacturers will set it to a decent dpi size before selling the computers. For example, my G73 is set to 125% DPI by default on the stock Asus install with the 1080p screen.

 

I can see that. I have my Chrome set to always scale up to 150% for web browsing. At 1080p, it was just a touch too small on many forums.

I do love the 1080p for everything though.

 

You're right it's not designed for reading. Those requirements are a lot lower so are best relegated to netbook or ipad duty.

 

Yeah I love full hd so when I am going to browse I press ctrl and plus and then I put it back
And about apple they seem to be smarter one apple user mack book pro said DPI resizing is automatic..

 

DPI scaling in Windows 7 is automatic to an extent as well; my T500's screen defaults to 125%, although I prefer using native DPI. I see small text just fine, even though my vision isn't great.

 

I mean text sizing ..
You have to go to personalize and display and set manually
Apple automatically set adequate size depend of resol.

 

The resolution difference in PPI can be pretty starteling; look at just how much difference there is for detail between the Ipad 2 and 3. The scaling text UP makes it much clearer than native rendering at a lower resolution too.

Spoiler

 

That's exactly what I meant. Windows 7 does choose this setting automatically as well, depending on the screen.