6 ms·

Dear display industry, Please please please increase vertical resolution. I look back on the days of 16:10 fondly and wish we could end up back there or bette

Dear display industry, Please please please increase vertical resolution. I look back on the days of 16:10 fondly and wish we could end up back there or better.

mixmastamyk 14y ago
Put the monitor in portrait mode, awesome for code and browsing ... just about anything that isn't a movie.
- mertd 14y ago
  The output quality depends on the panel type. If it is IPS like these, then viewing angle doesn't matter but some other panels look awful even from a slight side angle.
- riobard 14y ago
  Portrait mode will screw subpixel rendering of text.
  - gcr 14y ago
    In most linuxes, you can ask for vertical subpixel hinting, at the very least from the command line. I'm pretty sure that Windows has a setting for it too buried in the graphics card display settings somewhere.
    - mstromb 14y ago
      It's under "Adjust ClearType text" on the control panel in Windows 7. It's also known as "ClearType Text Tuner." It doesn't specifically ask you to pick your subpixel layout, but rather shows you a bunch of different renderings and asks you to pick the one you think looks best.
    - riobard 14y ago
      Unfortunately vertical subpixel rendering is much less effective than horizontal rendering due to the nature of latin scripts.
  - mixmastamyk 14y ago
    "Just works" for me.
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    Not at all unless you fail to set it up properly. With Ubuntu, at least, it's trivial: IIRC, it's in the font properties panel.
  - FootballMuse 14y ago
    You realize we are talking about a 2560x1440 monitor right? Depending on your DPI settings, one can consider turning off subpixel smoothing at this res. At 4k you should certainly consider it. Plus, I'm sure various implementations are better than others. Does the iPad have this problem?
    - riobard 14y ago
      True, it's a 2560x1440 display, but it's not “retina“ yet. There is still a big difference with and without subpixel rendering, especially for smaller texts. Well, at least to my “retina” spoiled eyes. YMMV. iOS does not use subpixel rendering at all, possibly due to the inconsistence of text rendering in different orientations.
- rogerbinns 14y ago
  That requires having a stand that can accommodate the monitor that orientation - something neither of my existing displays can do. And you've just moved the problem around since a wider display would still be preferable. I'd be really happy with three huge 4:3 displays but that will never happen.
  - mixmastamyk 14y ago
    If you're not in the market for a new one, then its moot.
ars 14y ago
Get the Asus PA248Q. It's a calibrated IPS monitor, 24" 1920x1200 (i.e. 16:10). I have one and it's great.
- ericabiz 14y ago
  I have both an HP LP2475w (24" 1920x1200, IPS) and a 27" 2560x1440 monitor--the same resolution as mentioned here. (I didn't want to deal with potential dead pixels and scaling issues, so I forked over the $700 for the Asus PB278Q instead of buying the off-brand.) Honestly, I hate using my HP now. It's a great monitor, but the 2560x1440 resolution on the Asus is amazing. Side by side, the Asus knocks the HP out of the park. TLDR: It is not worth the downgrade in screen size and resolution just to get a 16x10 aspect ratio. You will never regret going for the 2560x1440 monitor instead.
  - lmm 14y ago
    It's a pain to cart around, but I love my 10-year-old 2048x1536 CRT, and am alternately amused and saddened that modern displays still have a smaller smallest dimension.
    - mtgx 14y ago
      New technologies are usually better in some aspects in worse in others. Like LCD was a lot better for the thickness factor, but it took ages to make them the same quality as CRT and for the same reasonable price. Now we're seeing this with OLED displays, too. Much better contrasts, and even having some special properties like being bendable, but cost more than regular LCD's or even IPS LCD's.
    - jdboyd 14y ago
      I had one of those at home. I took the hit on resolution and color to go LCD because the LCD's at work didn't make me feel as tired as the high-res CRT at home did.
      - lmm 14y ago
notatoad 14y ago
16:9 is a lot more tolerable when the "short" side is still 1440px tall. The aspect ratio makes a lot more sense at a 27" size than it does in a 13" laptop. Sure, I'd prefer 2560x1600 than 2560x1440, but it really isn't a big deal.
mhd 14y ago
We (sadly) moved away from 4:3 permanently, but 16:10 is hardly gone. Sure, as they make a lot of FullHD panels nowadays, a 1920x1080 display is very common, but you still can get 1920x1200 displays from almost any manufacturer, albeit at a higher price (and quite often higher quality). And you can get 16:10 versions of those IPS panels, which then sport a 2560x1600 resolution. About $550+ if you buy from the same Korean dealers (search for e.g. "Crossover 30Q5").
jdietrich 14y ago
Forget about the aspect ratio of the panel - with enough useable pixels, it's all but irrelevant. I use one of these cheap 2560x1440 displays. 99% of the time, I treat it as two portrait displays, each with an effective resolution of 1280x1440 (8:9 aspect ratio). My ideal monitor would be an enormously wide curved display, providing a similar workspace to a triple-monitor setup but without the inconvenience of bezels.

Dear display industry, Please please please increase vertical resolution. I look back on the days of 16:10 fondly and wish we could end up back there or better.

mixmastamyk 14y ago

Put the monitor in portrait mode, awesome for code and browsing ... just about anything that isn't a movie.

mertd 14y ago
The output quality depends on the panel type. If it is IPS like these, then viewing angle doesn't matter but some other panels look awful even from a slight side angle.
riobard 14y ago
Portrait mode will screw subpixel rendering of text.
- gcr 14y ago
  In most linuxes, you can ask for vertical subpixel hinting, at the very least from the command line. I'm pretty sure that Windows has a setting for it too buried in the graphics card display settings somewhere.
  - mstromb 14y ago
    It's under "Adjust ClearType text" on the control panel in Windows 7. It's also known as "ClearType Text Tuner." It doesn't specifically ask you to pick your subpixel layout, but rather shows you a bunch of different renderings and asks you to pick the one you think looks best.
  - riobard 14y ago
    Unfortunately vertical subpixel rendering is much less effective than horizontal rendering due to the nature of latin scripts.
- mixmastamyk 14y ago
  "Just works" for me.
- rbanffy 14y ago
  Not at all unless you fail to set it up properly. With Ubuntu, at least, it's trivial: IIRC, it's in the font properties panel.
- FootballMuse 14y ago
  You realize we are talking about a 2560x1440 monitor right? Depending on your DPI settings, one can consider turning off subpixel smoothing at this res. At 4k you should certainly consider it. Plus, I'm sure various implementations are better than others. Does the iPad have this problem?
  - riobard 14y ago
    True, it's a 2560x1440 display, but it's not “retina“ yet. There is still a big difference with and without subpixel rendering, especially for smaller texts. Well, at least to my “retina” spoiled eyes. YMMV. iOS does not use subpixel rendering at all, possibly due to the inconsistence of text rendering in different orientations.
rogerbinns 14y ago
That requires having a stand that can accommodate the monitor that orientation - something neither of my existing displays can do. And you've just moved the problem around since a wider display would still be preferable. I'd be really happy with three huge 4:3 displays but that will never happen.
- mixmastamyk 14y ago
  If you're not in the market for a new one, then its moot.

ars 14y ago

Get the Asus PA248Q. It's a calibrated IPS monitor, 24" 1920x1200 (i.e. 16:10). I have one and it's great.

ericabiz 14y ago
I have both an HP LP2475w (24" 1920x1200, IPS) and a 27" 2560x1440 monitor--the same resolution as mentioned here. (I didn't want to deal with potential dead pixels and scaling issues, so I forked over the $700 for the Asus PB278Q instead of buying the off-brand.) Honestly, I hate using my HP now. It's a great monitor, but the 2560x1440 resolution on the Asus is amazing. Side by side, the Asus knocks the HP out of the park. TLDR: It is not worth the downgrade in screen size and resolution just to get a 16x10 aspect ratio. You will never regret going for the 2560x1440 monitor instead.
- lmm 14y ago
  It's a pain to cart around, but I love my 10-year-old 2048x1536 CRT, and am alternately amused and saddened that modern displays still have a smaller smallest dimension.
  - mtgx 14y ago
    New technologies are usually better in some aspects in worse in others. Like LCD was a lot better for the thickness factor, but it took ages to make them the same quality as CRT and for the same reasonable price. Now we're seeing this with OLED displays, too. Much better contrasts, and even having some special properties like being bendable, but cost more than regular LCD's or even IPS LCD's.
  - jdboyd 14y ago
    I had one of those at home. I took the hit on resolution and color to go LCD because the LCD's at work didn't make me feel as tired as the high-res CRT at home did.
    - lmm 14y ago

notatoad 14y ago

16:9 is a lot more tolerable when the "short" side is still 1440px tall. The aspect ratio makes a lot more sense at a 27" size than it does in a 13" laptop. Sure, I'd prefer 2560x1600 than 2560x1440, but it really isn't a big deal.

mhd 14y ago

We (sadly) moved away from 4:3 permanently, but 16:10 is hardly gone. Sure, as they make a lot of FullHD panels nowadays, a 1920x1080 display is very common, but you still can get 1920x1200 displays from almost any manufacturer, albeit at a higher price (and quite often higher quality). And you can get 16:10 versions of those IPS panels, which then sport a 2560x1600 resolution. About $550+ if you buy from the same Korean dealers (search for e.g. "Crossover 30Q5").

jdietrich 14y ago

Forget about the aspect ratio of the panel - with enough useable pixels, it's all but irrelevant. I use one of these cheap 2560x1440 displays. 99% of the time, I treat it as two portrait displays, each with an effective resolution of 1280x1440 (8:9 aspect ratio). My ideal monitor would be an enormously wide curved display, providing a similar workspace to a triple-monitor setup but without the inconvenience of bezels.