6 ms·

1920x1200 / 16:10. It's perfect for a 12" IMO.

ge96 2y ago
yeah that's tough to get right even on a 14" 1440P is almost too much (problem is scaling, particularly with external monitor and your laptop, depends on OS) I also have a 13.5" 3000x2000 laptop and it uses 200% scaling, fractional is blurry. Initially I was trying to use Ubuntu but the extend monitor scaling was so bad (Chromium, VS Code), just decided to stick with Windows for this device.
AshamedCaptain 2y ago
No, it is not. It would be perfect for a 6'' phone, maybe. The goal is to have at least double the pixel density, and my 2016 tablet can reach this ( ~2700x1800 at 12'' ). Even Surfaces have been using 1440p at 12'' since 2016, and 2880 x 1920 since 2018! Why would Android & Apple tablets at much smaller screen size have higher DPIs, if 1080p was perfect? Do you expect to put Android tablets closer to your face than x86 tablets for some reason? Sigh... since when has DPI started _decreasing_ again? I refuse to accept this trend, in the same way it was stupid back in the 2000s when LCDs became a thing.
- Tade0 2y ago
  > Since when has DPI started _decreasing_ again? Since the pandemic. I have a still functioning Galaxy S8 in my drawer, which shames modern phones with its 570ppi density.
  - Tijdreiziger 2y ago
    Having to render all those pixels drained the battery faster, though. It was more practical to keep it at 1080p.
    - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
      Which is exactly why they did do it and definitely do not continue releasing phones with 500ppi to this day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S22#Display https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S22#Display
      - Tijdreiziger 2y ago
        Yeah, Samsung likes to tout specs on their flagships, but they’ve also made the resolution user-adjustable (presumably not for no reason). If you put the phone in battery saver mode, lowering resolution is one of the things it does.
        WithinReason 2y ago
        Which shows that you can get the best of both worlds, so it's possible to offer high res to the users that want it.
        AshamedCaptain 2y ago
        They have not done that for years? That used to be a thing 5 years ago or so, but nowadays battery saving mode just forces 60 hz refresh rate but otherwise does not change the resolution. I do not buy top of the line devices so I do not know for sure, but mine has >1080p and keeps the resolution for sure. And, to give an idea of what are we talking about, even in such power saving modes these much smaller and older phones still have more pixels than a 1080p screen.
  - poisonborz 2y ago
    Only because of Samsung's VR headsets, it was ridiculous and useless otherwise.
- kibwen 2y ago
  > Since when has DPI started _decreasing_ again? The human hardware isn't getting any better, so we must accept that there exists some upper bound beyond which improving resolution isn't a selling point for most people, especially given the necessary tradeoffs in battery life, processing power, memory usage, and input latency it entails. Now consider that this ceiling may have been hit 20 years ago, and that the continued dominance of 1920x1080 may not be because manufacturers are lazy, but because most people are happy enough with it.
  - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
    This is a ridiculous thing to respond to someone who complains that this hardware is worse than what was available at the same size 10 years ago.
    - kibwen 2y ago
      It's not. Finding the ceiling is always going to involve overshooting the ceiling and then walking back from there. It sounds as though you're not willing to consider even the possibility that this may be the effective end of progress for this combination of technology and use case, at least for values of "progress" that involve increasing resolution, rather than values that involve decreasing cost.
      - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
        Or rather it sounds as someone misreading me again as asking for "progress" when I'm just asking not to skimp over on what was already offered 10 years ago and practically everyone else still offers today.
        kibwen 2y ago
        > practically everyone else still offers today The Steam Hardware Survey shows that 1920x1080 is still the majority resolution, and that's among an audience that's inordinately populated by technological enthusiasts. The fact that people are seemingly dead-set on sticking to 1920x1080 despite--as you point out--the availability of alternatives only further strengthens the argument that the majority of consumers just don't particularly value higher resolutions.
- ziml77 2y ago
  It's higher DPI than a 24" 4K monitor. It is plenty dense, especially for a battery powered device where the power needed to drive the display is a real consideration.
  - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
    That's why this has half the resolution of my current same size 12'' tablet, even though my current device has also half the battery capacity, and likely costed half than this thing will cost. Even if you use today's prices, the cheapest iPad has almost double the resolution. No, 1080p at 12'' it is not plenty dense. You do not put this smaller thing as far from your face as a 24'' monitor.
    - ziml77 2y ago
      Triple the DPI? Are you doing the calculations right? The DPI of this screen is 189. The iPad Standard, Air, and Pro at 11 and 13 inches have a DPI of 264. The iPad Mini is a standout at 326 DPI, which is 1.72x the DPI.
      - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
        You are correct; I am using number of horizontal lines rather than computing the actual DPI. But this barely changes my argument, since even when they are at screens of similar size cheap iPads have double the number of horizontal lines. I have updated my post to reflect that.
saurik 2y ago
The way to analyze this is using pixel density: 1900x1200 on a 12" display is only 187 PPI, which is frustratingly below the "retina" range at the usual distance of a laptop screen (much less a tablet one, and this one is part tablet). The resolution you want for a 12" screen is 2560x1600, which is also 16:10 but at a much more usable 251 PPI.
yellowapple 2y ago
It's a downgrade in DPI compared to even the 16, let alone the 13. Does it at least correspond to a higher refresh rate like with the 16? Hopefully that's upgradeable someday in any case.
chrismorgan 2y ago
That’s approximately 189 ppi, which calls for a 1.5× scaling factor. (For these sorts of devices, 1× should be around 110–140ppi.) Fractional scaling isn’t great. Windows handles it the best by a large margin (it’s really quite respectable; honestly I’d just call it “not ideal” rather than “not great” if restricting to Windows), and has done for many years. macOS doesn’t even try, but rather downsamples from the next integer, which guarantees it will be atrocious, much worse than a lower-resolution integer-scaled panel for many purposes. Linux can be finicky, but is slowly getting there, though downsampling is still common. (Me, I’ve been using Linux/Sway at 1.5× for the last five years.) You’d get much better results by increasing density by a third in each direction: 2560×1600 is 252ppi, excellent for a 2× scaling factor. (The effective resolution is thus 1280×800.)

ge96 2y ago

yeah that's tough to get right even on a 14" 1440P is almost too much (problem is scaling, particularly with external monitor and your laptop, depends on OS) I also have a 13.5" 3000x2000 laptop and it uses 200% scaling, fractional is blurry. Initially I was trying to use Ubuntu but the extend monitor scaling was so bad (Chromium, VS Code), just decided to stick with Windows for this device.

AshamedCaptain 2y ago

No, it is not. It would be perfect for a 6'' phone, maybe. The goal is to have at least double the pixel density, and my 2016 tablet can reach this ( ~2700x1800 at 12'' ). Even Surfaces have been using 1440p at 12'' since 2016, and 2880 x 1920 since 2018! Why would Android & Apple tablets at much smaller screen size have higher DPIs, if 1080p was perfect? Do you expect to put Android tablets closer to your face than x86 tablets for some reason? Sigh... since when has DPI started _decreasing_ again? I refuse to accept this trend, in the same way it was stupid back in the 2000s when LCDs became a thing.

Tade0 2y ago
> Since when has DPI started _decreasing_ again? Since the pandemic. I have a still functioning Galaxy S8 in my drawer, which shames modern phones with its 570ppi density.
- Tijdreiziger 2y ago
  Having to render all those pixels drained the battery faster, though. It was more practical to keep it at 1080p.
  - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
    Which is exactly why they did do it and definitely do not continue releasing phones with 500ppi to this day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S22#Display https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S22#Display
    - Tijdreiziger 2y ago
      Yeah, Samsung likes to tout specs on their flagships, but they’ve also made the resolution user-adjustable (presumably not for no reason). If you put the phone in battery saver mode, lowering resolution is one of the things it does.
      - WithinReason 2y ago
        Which shows that you can get the best of both worlds, so it's possible to offer high res to the users that want it.
      - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
        They have not done that for years? That used to be a thing 5 years ago or so, but nowadays battery saving mode just forces 60 hz refresh rate but otherwise does not change the resolution. I do not buy top of the line devices so I do not know for sure, but mine has >1080p and keeps the resolution for sure. And, to give an idea of what are we talking about, even in such power saving modes these much smaller and older phones still have more pixels than a 1080p screen.
- poisonborz 2y ago
  Only because of Samsung's VR headsets, it was ridiculous and useless otherwise.
kibwen 2y ago
> Since when has DPI started _decreasing_ again? The human hardware isn't getting any better, so we must accept that there exists some upper bound beyond which improving resolution isn't a selling point for most people, especially given the necessary tradeoffs in battery life, processing power, memory usage, and input latency it entails. Now consider that this ceiling may have been hit 20 years ago, and that the continued dominance of 1920x1080 may not be because manufacturers are lazy, but because most people are happy enough with it.
- AshamedCaptain 2y ago
  This is a ridiculous thing to respond to someone who complains that this hardware is worse than what was available at the same size 10 years ago.
  - kibwen 2y ago
    It's not. Finding the ceiling is always going to involve overshooting the ceiling and then walking back from there. It sounds as though you're not willing to consider even the possibility that this may be the effective end of progress for this combination of technology and use case, at least for values of "progress" that involve increasing resolution, rather than values that involve decreasing cost.
    - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
      Or rather it sounds as someone misreading me again as asking for "progress" when I'm just asking not to skimp over on what was already offered 10 years ago and practically everyone else still offers today.
      - kibwen 2y ago
        > practically everyone else still offers today The Steam Hardware Survey shows that 1920x1080 is still the majority resolution, and that's among an audience that's inordinately populated by technological enthusiasts. The fact that people are seemingly dead-set on sticking to 1920x1080 despite--as you point out--the availability of alternatives only further strengthens the argument that the majority of consumers just don't particularly value higher resolutions.
ziml77 2y ago
It's higher DPI than a 24" 4K monitor. It is plenty dense, especially for a battery powered device where the power needed to drive the display is a real consideration.
- AshamedCaptain 2y ago
  That's why this has half the resolution of my current same size 12'' tablet, even though my current device has also half the battery capacity, and likely costed half than this thing will cost. Even if you use today's prices, the cheapest iPad has almost double the resolution. No, 1080p at 12'' it is not plenty dense. You do not put this smaller thing as far from your face as a 24'' monitor.
  - ziml77 2y ago
    Triple the DPI? Are you doing the calculations right? The DPI of this screen is 189. The iPad Standard, Air, and Pro at 11 and 13 inches have a DPI of 264. The iPad Mini is a standout at 326 DPI, which is 1.72x the DPI.
    - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
      You are correct; I am using number of horizontal lines rather than computing the actual DPI. But this barely changes my argument, since even when they are at screens of similar size cheap iPads have double the number of horizontal lines. I have updated my post to reflect that.

saurik 2y ago

The way to analyze this is using pixel density: 1900x1200 on a 12" display is only 187 PPI, which is frustratingly below the "retina" range at the usual distance of a laptop screen (much less a tablet one, and this one is part tablet). The resolution you want for a 12" screen is 2560x1600, which is also 16:10 but at a much more usable 251 PPI.

yellowapple 2y ago

It's a downgrade in DPI compared to even the 16, let alone the 13. Does it at least correspond to a higher refresh rate like with the 16? Hopefully that's upgradeable someday in any case.

chrismorgan 2y ago

That’s approximately 189 ppi, which calls for a 1.5× scaling factor. (For these sorts of devices, 1× should be around 110–140ppi.) Fractional scaling isn’t great. Windows handles it the best by a large margin (it’s really quite respectable; honestly I’d just call it “not ideal” rather than “not great” if restricting to Windows), and has done for many years. macOS doesn’t even try, but rather downsamples from the next integer, which guarantees it will be atrocious, much worse than a lower-resolution integer-scaled panel for many purposes. Linux can be finicky, but is slowly getting there, though downsampling is still common. (Me, I’ve been using Linux/Sway at 1.5× for the last five years.) You’d get much better results by increasing density by a third in each direction: 2560×1600 is 252ppi, excellent for a 2× scaling factor. (The effective resolution is thus 1280×800.)