beyond HD screens in laptop

when do you think we will see higher resolutions screens in laptops?

It seems to me that we have been stuck with the current resolution screens for a long time now, as i still havent seen anything past 1920x1200 and that has been around for years now. Do you think its because of HD TV no one cares about any better than 1920x1080?

Even my sony VGN-A19GP from 5/6 years ago had 1280x800 resolution

would just like to hear you ideas or if you have any info why screen resolution is not moving forward like the rest of technology

 

why do u need a higher resolution? my eyes leave me if i tried anything higher than 1080p lol. Graphic cards have a hard time gaming at 1080p with 20 to 30 fps even with the highest end card.

 

For notebooks, majority of users can't even see past 1920x1200/1080. Even on desktop monitors, the you only really get higher resolution with 27"+ monitors. Manufacturers won't make higher resolution panels in smaller screen sizes since they've probably realized that they won't be able to make enough money to cover their costs.

 

i'm not just saying make the resolution higher i mean like what they have now done with the new iphone 4 put a higher resolution screen with higher res textures and icons as i have to say the iphone 4 has an amzaing screen for all its faults text is amazing,(i no i sound like a mac fanboy atm but i'm not never owned one dont want to own one)

why do graphics cards struggle with high res than 1920x1200 if my old laptop from 5 years ago can do 1280x800 why cant the graphics cards of today go past 1920x1200?? can you explain

thanks

 

With higher resolutions you get more "desk space". Its like having a table full of quarters 1 high deep and spread across the whole table. Imagine replacing the quarters with pennies. Because the pennies are smaller it will take a lot more pennies to cover the table. Now imagine there were different color of pennies and you had to constantly exchange pennies on the table with different colors. You see with the quarters, you can exchange them faster because there are not as many as opposed to the pennies. Same with screens the pixels are a lot smaller, therefore the faster the graphic card.

 

ok yes i already no that but graphics card from today are so much more powerful than they were 5 years ago i would have thought they would be able to cope with it

since i can play crysis at 1920x1200 at medium to high settings at around 25-30 fps on an 8800 gtx which is now 2/3 years old a new or next gen card would be able to do ok with runing normal games at 2560x1600

and just because you increase the resolution doesnt mean we have to increase the desk space of the screen all you have to do is increase the dpi/res of all text and tool bar and windows... etc thats what i'm saying

although some more desk space would be nice as even on my 15.4 inch laptop at 1920x1200 i run out of space would like to have two eve clients running at the same time.

 

Desktops... yes Laptops... maybe

Laptop gpu's are not quite as powerful as desktop gpu's.

 

Laptop GPUs are well behind desktop GPUs in terms of power. The top end GPU a few years back (8800 GTX) would still be competitive against newer laptop GPUs.

 

I think you are all missing the OP's point, it's not about GPU power or whatever. Even integrated graphics can run 1920x1200/1080 screens, albeit probably not for many games. Yes, it's more challenging for the GPU than a 1280x800 screen, but it will display it in full 32-bit color.

His point was why we don't have the same kind of dpi screens that new phones have. And I'll go forth and say that:
1) it's a limitation of the current display standards, as the max resolution for a DVI interface is in fact 1920x1200 (or 2560x1600 for a dual link). Laptops don't use DVI though, so technically this can probably be circumvented.

2) People don't use computers the same as they use phones. You'd have a harder time noticing a high-dpi screen at the distance you use a laptop screen. Phones are made to work closer to the human eye, so a high-dpi screen is of much more benefit.

3) Demand. Not many mainstream consumers want/need anything more than 720p. I'm not one of those people, but it's pretty hard to find a cheap computer with a good screen. And people like cheap computers.

Just my $0.02. Hope this helps.

 

Thanks this what i was talking about that is a much better explanation

your reasons are more or less the same as what i was thinking thinking. The problem i have is that i have very good eyesight (this is what my optician says) and i do notice the difference but i supposes I'm not the norm and i suppose your right that most people don't care what is inside there laptop as long as they can get online

thanks anyway

 

I'd love a higher-res screen too. I think it will be a while before we see anything that would suit your needs unfortunately, but technology is getting cheaper and better all the time. Hopefully with the advent of 1440p and better video, new standards like hdmi, and everything else beyond we'll see improvement in laptop screens. I hope OLEDs make their way into more laptops...

Glad I could help a little

 

We haven't really gotten used to the current HD screens and you want the industry to produce beyond that? What would be the profit in that? Besides, there has to be suffice content and the means to display it before any practical use of higher resolution would be of any use to anyone.

Nevertheless, if it mean anything to you, you can look for the next generation of HD to appear around 2020. until then, just get used to current HD and get your pleasure for that.

Incidentally, there are higher definition displays already on the market (they have been for some time) but they're expensive and pretty much exclusive to photographers that have a necessary use for that much resolution.

 

From what i have seen there are no LAPTOP screans with anything higher than 1920x1200 i no there are monitors that go beyond this and no offence i hate it when people say that we have only just got HD screens we have had HD or what can be classed as HD for many many years before HD tvs came in. and when you say there isnt suffice content is no argument we had 1280x800 screens years before any sort of HD was even imagined so thats no argument for not having it

anyway rant over as dtddood sayed its manly because 'normal' people dont want them.

 

Good rant. And yes, HD in the form of film has been around for 100 years. All we need now is for you to tell us where we can buy a TV capable of reproducing film quality resolution. And while your at it, please include the website that sells said content.

 

This thread is pretty much done. You refuse to get the OP's point. He wasn't trying to suggest a solution to viewing superHD movies, buying a TV, nor a service to deliver them over the internet. He was concerned with higher screen resolution in a laptop.

I am unsubscribing from this thread, I think I've said everything relevant I need to.

 

I loved WUXGA (1920x1200) but I always wondered if there were going to be higher resolution laptops coming. I was shocked when instead of moving forward we moved back. 1080 is OK and tolerable, but yet again Im wondering if there will ever be more as I was already easily maxing WUXGA screens.

 

You'd need a TV without pixels to do that.

 

My hope is that a workstation laptop will use a 2560x1600 screen first, and then other high-end laptops of the same size will have them as an option.

1920x1200 is nice but it's not enough for me.

 

I just hope that companies follow HP's lead and start offering IPS screens in more laptops. Resolutions beyond 1920x1200 are ridiculous for laptops under 20".

I'm looking at you, Apple. You put them (IPS screens) in the iPad and the iMac, yet you show no love for the MBP?

 

You have to admit, hardware comes before the application.

Just look at 3D TVs and bluray players - for a while, there weren't any 3D movies for them to play, and there still aren't many.

 

But that's just it...it doesn't always work that way. As I stated before, film has been around for a very long time yet we still don't have a monitor capable of displaying it's full resolution. Therein lies the connection to the OPs question: it takes more than technological know-how to develop an economically feasible system that people will want to buy and use.

I understood his point quite readily. However, you fail to realize my point and it's relevance to his question. It would be unnecessary to discuss a higher screen resolution, before there's any content or market for it's development. What would you do with the higher resolution?

 

personally i dont see the need for higher screen resolutions anytime soon.
but i would like to see other technologies such as 120hz panels or a wider color gamut (1billion plus) in laptop screens. imho there would be more demand for such features rather than a bump in resloution.

 

That's exactly the movement now, with HPs DreamColor display leading the way.

 

That's what I was talking about earlier. Regardless of the Dreamcolor display, we need more IPS screens before we start going crazy with things that cost a lot of money to produce. I don't want to deal with TN screens anymore.

 

yea dreamcolor screens are absolutely gorgeous. aside from the color gamut you get the best viewing angles around. in fact you can view the screen from almost any angle except the back.
however i would like to see more 120hz screens too.

 

Well that is purely opinion based. I had a 17in WUXGA and while I loved it, I can easily max out that res screen. I personally think something higher then that on a 16 or 17in would be pretty nice on.

Well now that they removed 10% of the screen space I find that working has become a little more painful if I cannot use external LCDs. Especially since I gave mine to my mom my only WUXGA LCD left and the ones at work had to be given to my end users. FHD+ is OK and tolerable, but nothing to write home about (even in a 15.6 notebook). Reviewing large blocks of code, managing multiple RDPs or VMs or basically anything computer science/IT related becomes quite painful and cumbersome with 1 WUXGA LCD sometimes let alone FHD+.

 

I seriously doubt that gaming laptops will receive screens with resolutions higher than 1920x1080/1920x1200 for at least another year. I expect that workstations will get 2560x1440/2560x1600 resolution being driven by Quadro FX 5000M (I expect that it will be capable of supporting that resolution anyway, Nvidia cards seem to be a bit weird in supported resolutions. E.g. GTX260M = 2048x1536 whereas GT240M = 2560x1600).

When the generation after the next generation (6000 for ATi, 400M for Nvidia, since Nvidia still have to catch up) has arrived, I reckon that will be the time for ultra high res laptop screens.

 

You'll get no argument from me as for workstation gaining a higher resolution screen; but it would only be in the form of an upgrade, since few people would need or could us such a high resolution. And even then, only for specialized individuals such as photographers who'd really need it. Otherwise, it's unlikely to become mainstream for some time. Especially for the rank and file. In fact, I'd go as far as to say most people still don't even need/use the current 1920x1080 HD standard.

 

I just don't think that you would find that Res all that useful. Screen tech itself needs to improve before we start going further and further up the resolution ladder. Laptop displays are lacking in quality as it stands right now. IPS needs to become more widespread.

 

I think they have gone backwards actually, I can look at panels from 5-9 year old Dells, IBM thinkpads and Compaq's and those dinos actually had nicer screens back then. all the push now is on the cheap crap consumer panels and ohhhh lets try to make them prettier by giving them a new kind of backlight, or put a gloss overtop to fake some quality.

In the last 3 years the ONLY great screens I have seen are in the workstations where the pros want and NEED them, or of all places high end gaming machines specifically Alienware and Clevo.

and I agree that more high end laptops should have ann IPS screen like the Elitebooks, I just wish I could transplant that panel into my M17X or into another 17" laptop I have here

 

I think it's pretty much useless to think about resolution. It's all about ppi. And technology is clearly advancing, enabling us to produce higher-and-higher ppi screens in almost every year.

Who would have thought a year or two ago that we could have 1080p on a 13" laptop screen? Who would have predicted wide availability of 960x640 on a 3.5" smartphone screen?

We demand a minimum of ~300dpi on paper. And we'll get there on laptop and other screens, too. (In fact, as you correctly note in another post, on the iPhone we have already gotten there.)

 

IPS is not without it's own problems, mind. For one, IPS screens are more expensive to produce than TN screens. Additionally, the response time of IPS screens lags behind TN screens, so while gamers may appreciate the increased color gamut, they'd decry the frame loss from the increased response time. The Dreamcolor 2, for example, has about 5 frames of lag ( http://forum.notebookreview.com/6533800-post2767.html), which would tend to deter most "serious" gamers.

 

As a computer engineer (read it as someone spending 12+ hrs in front of a laptop/desktop every day) and having 20/20 vision:

- 1680x1050 in 15.4"
- 1440x900 in 14.1"

are the max limits for comfortable use for me. Anything beyond this would strain my eyes. (In fact, 1680x1050 on 15.4" was slightly exceeding my limits too.)

Now, why would anybody put 8000 x 6000 res on a 14" machine if only 1 out of a million laptop users would buy it?


--

 

I believe that the benefits of IPS far outweigh either of those two small problems. Price is only an excuse when a company is building a cheap notebook. Companies with "premium" notebooks should give the option for IPS screens.

Input lag is only a problem if you're playing competitive fighting games and maybe competitive RTSes like SC2. FPSes would be a problem area as well.

Gamers can keep their TN displays. I don't game for the majority of the time that I am on a PC, so input lag is not an issue for me. I'd rather have an awesome display with ridiculous viewing angles than a crappy TN display any day of the week.

 

This was the point I was addressing, since IPS unfortunately does count as being one of those things that costs a lot of money to produce.

I don't disagree with you in principle, however the unfortunate practical fact is that people like us are pretty much the (unprofitable) minority at this point in time. Take a look at the 16:10 to 16:9 movement. There are maybe a half dozen or so new models left that still use a 16:10 panel. Especially these days, with people having less and less extra disposable income, niche luxuries like large IPS screens and 16:10 are unfortunately becoming rarer and rarer.

 

Your eyes would love it, imagine text on screen being on par or better than the best paper publishing and everything looked as good and clear as looking around at physical objects... Remember that increasing resolution DOESN'T have to mean small text, you just have to increase the resolution of everything being displayed as well (you can adjust it now in Windows using the DPI setting which increases the amount of pixels rendered in the user interface, making text and icons appear normal sized on higher resolution screens). Increasing resolution is about increasing detail.

 

exactly, increasing the pixels per inch and them rescaling your text ( simple in windows ) is by far the easiest way to keep your eyes happy infront of a screen.

 

If you eyes are unhappy take a break. There's a limit to view ANY screen you know.

 

dtd00d hit it on the head a long time ago in this thread. The max resolution DVI can handle is something like 1900x1400 or 2100x1300. HDMI can go higher, but you lose color depth (48-bit to 24-bit, i think) and framerate (60hz to 24~30hz). The existing display interfaces can't go any higher than that as a matter of data transmission. The glass/pixel density has absolutely nothing to do with any of that.

 

As a "computer engineer", you should know about the concept of aliasing, and how aliasing is reduced as you increase the sampling rate closer to the intrinsic bandwidth of a signal. In the 2-D domain, fonts essentially have unlimited bandwidth, so the higher rate at which they can be sampled, the less aliasing will be experienced. Simple Nyquist Theorem stuff....

You need to adjust your font size or run an OS that supports proper font scaling, if you're finding the fonts to be small. I know XP doesn't support this very well, but with Vista and Windows 7, the capability of doing this is dramatically improved.

 

This is surely the point - not whether the unaware majority (of which I was one until I educated myself quite recently...) have learned to accept over the years on laptops somewhat fuzzy washed out images that only look OK-ish when viewed carefully from dead-on.

Why shouldn't we 'demand' a similar experience to viewing a magazine on our notebook screens? Changing the demands/expectations of the 'consumer herd' just needs time and advertising input (and of course $'s). Look how the TV industry convinced folks to junk their old CRT TV's and is now bent on convincing folks to buy stuff they can't even perceive like 240Hz!

Of course, just like with HD TV's (and now 3D TV's), it'll come at a price premium at first.

 

That's just business fellow; and you'd think differently if you were an electronic salesman. Besides, nobody's forcing you to junk your old tube TV. It will work just fine for many more years to come.

 

Probably depend on combination of the lcd manufacturers and the duration of next strong economic recovery. But I think more will move toward 3D rather than higher resolution. 3D is more obvious than a slight improvement in resolution IMHO.

 

Actually 3-D has come and gone many times over the past 50 years. And while it always catches each generation interest in the beginning (for the same reason), it seldom lasts much past the trendy stage.

If it goes any further than that this go-round, it will no doubt be due to the gaming interest, and be isolated mostly to that group.