Graphics people: Let's talk about resolution

Alright, I thought I had it down. High res better for graphics/photography/illustration work like using Photoshop CS or Illustrator. Period.

Now I'm getting confused. I've been using a 15" UXGA notebook for 4 years and don't have any trouble with that resolution besides having to use Ctrl+ a lot in Firefox to make text bigger and having to zoom a bit in Word.

I was expecting to get a new notebook with SXGA+ (Asus G1 -15.4") or WXGA+ (Asus A8j -14"). However, I've been seduced by the beauty of the WXGA Sony FE dual lamp notebook in the stores. I had decided against it based on resolution alone.

Then last night I considered that I could get it, plus an external monitor. Use the laptop for internet browsing, Word, flash games, etc, then use the external for Photoshop.

However, now that I look at external monitors, even the really high end like Eizo, most are only about 1680 x 1050 or lower even when you go all the way to 22". I saw a few monitors in the store yesterday, and at the 22" size the 1680 x 1050 is (I think) even lower res than the WXGA 1280 x 800 of a 15.4" notebook.

So what gives? Why aren't the graphics professionals using something like 2500 x 1900 on 22" monitors? Am I just missing something? It seems that if I bought an external monitor I would see more of the image, but only because the monitor is bigger.

 

gateway has a 24 inch 1900 x something 1080p monitor for cheap

 

I suspect the theory is that people sit further from monitors than their notebook screens and, for a given ability for the eye to resolve detail, something 2ft away needs to be bigger than if it is 1ft away. Consequently, monitors tend to have the same resolution as notebooks.

John

 

I don't know the whys of the situation, but you don't see very many (any?) WUXGA monitors until 24". I'd imagine graphic professionals do use the high resolution monitors, but that they're also larger.

Additionally, I think Apple's 30" Cinema displays use both dvi outputs from graphics cards to support the resolution. There's some kind of cutoff there, anyways.

 

Yeah, I just don't get it. Maybe some graphics pro will come along and explain it.

I have been expected I'd need an external monitor, but besides the possibility of color profiling (which supposedly isn't that great on an LCD anyway), I can't figure out what the benefits would be.

 

Ultra high res panels are very expensive to manufacture, which is why it's almost unheard of for models under 24" to be WUXGA. As was pointed out above, external monitors can get by with a lower dot pitch because you're often viewing them from a greater distance.

l33t is quite correct, the 30" Apple Cinema Display requires a dual-link DVI connection, which you don't see all that often in notebooks. The maximum resolution for single-link DVI is 1920x1080 (16:9 you'll notice) although with tweaking you can push it to 1920x1200.

 

Here's the part I don't get... I know people with 17" laptops that have 1920x1200 screens... so why is it so hard to find an external under 24" at that res? Obviously they are expensive and you're going to have to pay for the high res, but I imagine there should be at least a moderate demand for it.

 

Yeah, even the high priced ones like the Eizo's are still not so high res.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824136058

I'm open to buying an external monitor, but I have to know what improvement I'm going to see. When I mentioned the Sony FE 1280x800 15.4", people said that I could just use an external monitor. But as far as I can see, there's no difference between sitting close to the Sony FE or sitting farther away from a 22" 1680 x 1050.

In this case, I would think the very best option would be a high resolution laptop like a 15.4" 1680 x 1050. But people are obviously buying these expensive monitors for a reason.

 

it's not so much resolution (in PPI) but purely the number of pixels that people want. need space for the image, tool bars, etc. so there isn't much point in 120PPI display if a 100PPI display is easier and cheaper to make. I don't remember the brand, but there is a display with something around 3500x2400 pixels on a ~23 inch panel, but it costs like $8000. There might be other super displays like that, but you don't hear much about them due to the price.

Also, most decent external monitors can be calibrated well, while not so many laptop screens can. I can post the validation results from my Eye-One Display 2 on my Thinkpad with the IPS screen if you want - of the 42 colors it checks only 2 or 3 go above a dE of 1.

 

strikeback, very interesting.

Any idea what makes the external monitors able to be calibrated, and not laptops? Are the laptop screens just not as well made in general or is there something else?

Also wondering how often you have to calibrate a monitor. Is it like a digital scale that needs to be adjusted monthly or is once enough? Seems like you could make a good side business out of renting out those calibrators - wish you could check them out of the library like a book.

 

Laptops in general use poor quality panels. This has been getting better, but due to cost a lot still use cheap TN panels and such. Cheap desktop LCDs can be the same way - I have one currently, color performance is far worse than my laptop (in addition to the contrast/color shift due to viewing angle, which is visible as a gradient across the screen top to bottom). That is why it is getting replaced soon.

LCDs are far more stable than CRTs in calibration. CRTs need recalibration quite often, while an LCD can hold pretty close to calibrated condition for months. The calibration unit requires a program to run it, I don't know if the license would have issues with a rental system or not. Now that LCDs are so prevalent it would make sense to have a license to allow a rental to operate, since for most users calibration would only be needed once.