zed's resolution rant *spawn

[zed]

surely its not a stretch to think these machine will be aiming for higher resolutions over the next 8 years??

how many TV's can you buy today with resolutions greater than 2MP.
mainstream ones, practically none.

this is completely different from 2005 when 720p sets were quite widely available

ergo resolutions wont be greater than 2MP next gen
good news for consumers cause I predict a lot of games next gen will be 60fps (far more than this gen)

On the flipside this saddens me cause 99% of monitors have 1080p or smaller resolutions i.e. smaller than my current main one of 1920x1200. I want a new high res monitor and it looks like we're gonna be stuck at 1080p for a while (unless u wanna pay >$1000 for a monitor)

 

[tuna]

On the flipside this saddens me cause 99% of monitors have 1080p or smaller resolutions i.e. smaller than my current main one of 1920x1200. I want a new high res monitor and it looks like we're gonna be stuck at 1080p for a while (unless u wanna pay >$1000 for a monitor)

OT, but here in Sweden the cheapes 2560X1440 pixel monitor I found cost 6000 SEK including tax. So you should be able to find cheaper monitors.

 

[zed]

OT, but here in Sweden the cheapes 2560X1440 pixel monitor I found cost 6000 SEK including tax. So you should be able to find cheaper monitors.

well that is $1070 NZ but my complaint was more about where are the high resolution monitors? theyre outnumber 50:1 by 1920x1080 ones

The history of highest typical resolution with monitors goes soemthing like
640x480 > 800x600 > 1024x768 > 1280x1024 > 1600x1200 > 1920x1200 > 1920x1080

i.e. we went backwards right at the end! which is nuts

 

[Mobius1aic]

well that is $1070 NZ but my complaint was more about where are the high resolution monitors? theyre outnumber 50:1 by 1920x1080 ones

The history of highest typical resolution with monitors goes soemthing like
640x480 > 800x600 > 1024x768 > 1280x1024 > 1600x1200 > 1920x1200 > 1920x1080

i.e. we went backwards right at the end! which is nuts

It's just how computing and television/movie resolutions merged together, and it makes sense. I will miss 16:10 monitors immensely. They probably will be around another 5 years tops in the form of 2560 x 1600s. There are very few 1440 x 900s available these days. Apple is the last laptop provider I can think of with 16:10s, and even Apple cinema displays have gone to 16:9.

As for eDRAM, I bet most devs would prefer more general memory, especially in a large unified pool a la the Xbox 360 where they can allocate what they please to whatever use.

 

[tuna]

well that is $1070 NZ but my complaint was more about where are the high resolution monitors? theyre outnumber 50:1 by 1920x1080 ones

The history of highest typical resolution with monitors goes soemthing like
640x480 > 800x600 > 1024x768 > 1280x1024 > 1600x1200 > 1920x1200 > 1920x1080

i.e. we went backwards right at the end! which is nuts

The high resolution monitors are with the people who want them and can afford them. Also, "highest typical resolution" is an idiotic concept. Most people obviously desire a lower price instead of more pixels, but how is that stopping you from getting what you want?

 

[tunafish]

The history of highest typical resolution with monitors goes soemthing like
640x480 > 800x600 > 1024x768 > 1280x1024 > 1600x1200 > 1920x1200 > 1920x1080

i.e. we went backwards right at the end! which is nuts

That's a very strange (=stupid) way to put it. The history of the most common sold resolutions is more like:
640x480 > 800x600 > 1024x768 > 1280x1024 > 1680x1050 > 1920x1080.

1600x1200 was never common, and I really don't think we are actually at 1920x1080 yet. Higher resolutions are available, as they have always been, at a premium. The biggest difference is that less and less of the population is willing to pay that premium, because most of those who don't have glasses would need to get ones to gain anything from the additional pixels.

 

[zed]

Most people obviously desire a lower price instead of more pixels, but how is that stopping you from getting what you want?

most ppl dont know and are blinded by marketing, eg give ppl a choice between 24" widescreen vs 24" standard, and I betcha the majority of ppl will I want the widescreen its better, its WIDEscreen right it must be better but the fact is its smaller than the standard ratio monitor (this is the chief reason manufacturers love it, cheaper to make).
True I can get one but the price is a massive price premium for it, sure they cost a bit more to manufacture but not that much more( thus I feel like Im getting ripped off)
Its not just monitors though this happens but practically everything
eg
CPU (bullshit numbers but youve seen similar things no doubt)
4GHz top of line $1000
3.7Ghz $400
3.5ghz $320
3.2ghz $200

That's a very strange (=stupid) way to put it. The history of the most common sold resolutions is more like

Mate I said 'highest typical resolution' now Its plain you havent been using PCs that long, 1600x1200 was reasonably common ~5 years ago (I saw it first last century)

UXGA (1600×1200)
UXGA is an abbreviation for Ultra eXtended Graphics Array referring to a standard monitor resolution of 1600×1200 pixels (totaling 1,920,000 pixels), which is exactly four times the default resolution of SVGA (800×600) (totaling 480,000 pixels). Dell Computer refers to the same resolution of 1,920,000 pixels as UGA. It is generally considered to be the next step above SXGA (1280×960 or 1280×1024), but some resolutions (such as the unnamed 1366×1024 and SXGA+ at 1400×1050) fit between the two.

 

[function]

My last two Trinitron CRTs could manage 1600 x 1200 (at 60hz, and a little blurrily) and my current LCD (which is now many years old) is native 1600 x 1200. I find 1080 monitors a bit claustrophobic - fine for games but I like lots of text on screen. 1920 x 1200 or bust. Several of the few 1920 x 1200 monitors around seem to have borked scalers though, so you can't use a PS360 with them.

Don't see the need for consoles to support higher than 1920 x 1080 though, unless you're building some kind of future-proof multi-media power hub (PS3+?). Even then edram shouldn't be a limitation as you shouldn't need multiple buffers with multiple subsamples for media playback.

 

[Rurouni]

1600x1200 wasn't common even 5 years ago. I think the common resolution was 1280x1024 or 1280x960. Probably a lot of monitor can display 1600x1200 but most of them doing it at 60hz, which is awful.
I'm talking about crt though. Don't know about common lcd resolution at that time... But at that time lcd wasn't popular at my country.

 

[function]

Oh yeah, I had to pay a lot for my 1600 x 1200 LCD in 2005 (a lot by my standards anyway). Was completely worth it though. But this is all getting a bit OT...

 

[TheWretched]

That's a very strange (=stupid) way to put it. The history of the most common sold resolutions is more like:
640x480 > 800x600 > 1024x768 > 1280x1024 > 1680x1050 > 1920x1080.

1600x1200 was never common, and I really don't think we are actually at 1920x1080 yet. Higher resolutions are available, as they have always been, at a premium. The biggest difference is that less and less of the population is willing to pay that premium, because most of those who don't have glasses would need to get ones to gain anything from the additional pixels.

Actually, 1680x1050 has been the "common" (i.e. highest percentage) for quite a while now, according to the Steam HW Survey. But 1080P has been making a lot of headroom, too.

And by those numbers, the 16:10 resolutions aren't as uncommon as one might think. 1280x800 is actually MUCH more common than 720P... as expected. Though 1368x768 is much more common.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Mate I said 'highest typical resolution' now Its plain you havent been using PCs that long, 1600x1200 was reasonably common ~5 years ago (I saw it first last century)

You'd need to qualify that. I doubt by any statistic 1600x1200 can count as common. I don't recall any new home PCs (eg. Dell) shipping with such sized monitors, which means the majority in people's homes were 1280x1024 and similar. NZ may be different as a paradise of monitor resolution for all I know though.

A quick google for resolution charts throws up this:

If highres monitors were so important, either we're to believe everyone buying 1600x1200 and larger monitors in 2006 ditched them to get a 1080p display (didn't even pass them down to someone else to use), or they were never in demand.

Ultimately I don't really get what you're complaining about regards consoles holding back resolutions, because the monitors are made to suit the market. If people wanted higher resolution monitors and bought them, they'd be cheaper. The fact they are available, and have been for a long, long time, yet haven't been massively adopted, just goes to show that most people use a PC only do simple things like web browsing and Facebooking, and massive screen estate isn't of any use. I've only known screen estate be important for development, either programming or music/video creation. Hence it's a niche market with niche prices. And even then many choose to go multiple monitors, giving them the option of a TV while they work if they don't need two screens worth of desktop.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

You'd need to qualify that. I doubt by any statistic 1600x1200 can count as common. I don't recall any new home PCs (eg. Dell) shipping with such sized monitors, which means the majority in people's homes were 1280x1024 and similar. NZ may be different as a paradise of monitor resolution for all I know though.

A quick google for resolution charts throws up this:

<snip image>

If highres monitors were so important, either we're to believe everyone buying 1600x1200 and larger monitors in 2006 ditched them to get a 1080p display (didn't even pass them down to someone else to use), or they were never in demand.

Ultimately I don't really get what you're complaining about regards consoles holding back resolutions, because the monitors are made to suit the market. If people wanted higher resolution monitors and bought them, they'd be cheaper. The fact they are available, and have been for a long, long time, yet haven't been massively adopted, just goes to show that most people use a PC only do simple things like web browsing and Facebooking, and massive screen estate isn't of any use. I've only known screen estate be important for development, either programming or music/video creation. Hence it's a niche market with niche prices. And even then many choose to go multiple monitors, giving them the option of a TV while they work if they don't need two screens worth of desktop.

1600x1200 monitors were common in the PC landscape but right about the time they were getting affordable enough for people to start buying them en mass we had the move from CRT to LCD which raised the price again. And again once prices started to come down again on LCD's everyone with 1600x1200 moved to 1920x1200 or much more frequently to 1680x1050.

1600x1200 monitors being roughly 400-500 USD at the time 16:10 monitors started to come into vogue in the PC space. The 1680x1050 monitors were roughtly 400-500 at the time while 1920x1200 monitors were still quite a bit above 1000 USD, which is why most 1600x1200 users went to 1680x1050 monitors.

The people that still have 1280x1024 monitors (the bastard 5:4 res) and 1024x768 (the proper 4:3 res) are mainly people that don't often upgrade monitors (budget/infrequent home users or businesses). 1600x1200 would fit into that category as well except being higher priced those tended to also be people that were willing to upgrade more frequently (every 2-5 years versus waiting until current monitor stopped working like my dad and aunt. ). 1440x900 were mainly people upgrading from 1280x1024.

And if you look at the Steam Survey which mainly targets people who play games (obviously) you'll notice a much smaller sampling for those resolutions that are still in use at many businesses (1280x1024 and 1024x768) at 11.05% and 4.41% respectively.

I really wish 4:3 monitors were more available. They make ideal portrait orientation monitors while 16:10 is ideal for landscape orientation. 16:10 is a tad bit too tall versus width for portrait. And 16:9 monitors in portrait are just insanely too narrow which is why I absolutely hate any tablet manufacturer that does 16:9 tablets. It's unlikely I'll ever buy a 16:9 monitor until you can no longer get a 16:10 monitor for a reasonable-ish price.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And if you look at the Steam Survey which mainly targets people who play games (obviously) you'll notice a much smaller sampling for those resolutions that are still in use at many businesses (1280x1024 and 1024x768) at 11.05% and 4.41% respectively.

I couldn't find the Steam display stats (perhaps you ahve to be a member?) but even they, do they show a significant proprotion of 1600x1200 plus resolution monitors, amongst PC gamers? Because that's what's needed to provide even a little credence to zed's idea that 1600x1200 and larger monitors were ever commonplace.

As for aspect, I don't much care. Repositional window panes means software that requires large desktop area fits as well to widescreen as 4:3. I've not come across any application where I really wanted more vertical room. Maybe video editing with a complex timeline and larger previews, but a large screenspace could be better served with dual screens I reckon. 16:10 aspect works well for me, and is a good fit for console gaming when a proper 16:9 letterboxing is employed.

 

[function]

In Visual Studio I always want more vertical space. As in MOAR. When I get another monitor and go back to dual displays I'll be spinning my 1600 x 1200 into portrait mode and using it next to the 1920 x 1200.

3:4 portrait on a decent size monitor is also insanely good for for vertical scrolling shoemups. Hook up the Dreamcast via VGA or use an emulator and prepare for incredible retro thrills.

 

[french toast]

This thread was started off my comment!? well i do feel honoured!

My point was that for CONSUMERS its all about buzz words, marketing, to them the ps360 was doing full 1080p back in 2005 (technically 1080i)
So i would pressume that the console makers would need a couple of buzz words to sell it...
Also a hd 7870 can run any game at 1080p dx11 with all the goodies, and realistically all consoles when released out do high end pcs, graphics wise when released. (not including sli) at least in the 360's case.

As to regards to specifically resolution and whats common, yes 1080p is becoming the standard, and will be for the next couple of years.
But remember when the ps360 was released even 720p was not widespread/common. it was the release of those consoles that actually kickstarted the resolution bump..same with blueray (and DVD)

A microkia/xbox employee made the comment late last year that microkia was
waiting for 'a certain type of television to become more widespread' before the nextbox release..that suggests to me either a bump in resolution or steroscopic 3d....

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I couldn't find the Steam display stats (perhaps you ahve to be a member?) but even they, do they show a significant proprotion of 1600x1200 plus resolution monitors, amongst PC gamers? Because that's what's needed to provide even a little credence to zed's idea that 1600x1200 and larger monitors were ever commonplace.

As for aspect, I don't much care. Repositional window panes means software that requires large desktop area fits as well to widescreen as 4:3. I've not come across any application where I really wanted more vertical room. Maybe video editing with a complex timeline and larger previews, but a large screenspace could be better served with dual screens I reckon. 16:10 aspect works well for me, and is a good fit for console gaming when a proper 16:9 letterboxing is employed.

Actually I'm not sure what's going on ATM. Up until about 1-2 weeks ago 1920x1080 had just surpassed 1680x1050 as the dominant single resolution. But for some reason the Steam Survey is now showing a -16.35% drop for that resolution with no other resolution picking up that lost user share. So something is borked with the stats right now. But as it was, prior to this glitch it was showing ~24% for 1920x1080 while 1680x1050 was at ~17.5%. It's basically been a progression of 1600x1200 (first) and 1280x1024 (when the following resolution dropped further in price) users moving to 1680x1050. And now with 1920x1080 monitors being roughly the price of what 1680x1050 monitors were ~3-4 years ago, those people are migrating up to 1920x1080. Although for a while 1280x1024 users were also moving to 1440x900. 1920x1200 have virtually disappeared for a few reasons such as no LED versions and generally significantly more expensive than comparable 1080p monitors. As well it's getting harder and harder to find a 1920x1200 monitor versus a 1080p one.

1600x900 resolution never really caught on as by the time 16:9 monitors were coming in strong, the 1920x1080 monitors were cheap enough that 1600x900 monitors just didn't have a compelling enough price advantage. Those ones are currently at ~4.5%.

And you can see a short breakdown if you go down the page and click on "Primary Display Resolution." Each of those entries can be opened up. As well you can filter for Windows only or Mac only. 1280x800 dominates the Mac lineup mostly due to the impact of Macbooks and iMacs I think.

There's a lot of really interesting stuff you can infer from the Steam Survey as long as you acknowlege that it doesn't reflect the significant PC install base concentrated in many business environments.

As for aspect ratio it matters most if you work with a lot of documents. 2560x1600 on a 30" is roughly similar in size and pixel density to 2x 20" 1600x1200 monitors in portrait orientation. There is no 16:9 monitor that gives as comfortable a view of documents to work on as they are either too short vertically in landscape or ridiculously too narrow in portrait. Unfortunately as with 1920x1200 monitors, 1600x1200 is almost entirely limited to business use now and hence hasn't dropped in price in about 10 years now. And as with 1920x1200, there are no LED versions.

My current work setup has 1x 30" monitor in landscape flanked by a 20" 16x12 in portrait and a 24" 1920x1200 in portrait (23" would have been a better match but ah well).

Regards,
SB

 

[function]

And as with 1920x1200, there are no LED versions.

There is hope!

Dell recently released a 1920 x 1200 eIPS LED monitor, the U2412M:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2412m.htm

Has low input latency and overdrive, but it also has a crappy scaler that lacks both 1:1 and 16:9 stretch so don't get one for your PS360. There's also the new HP ZR2440W, which is also a 1920 x 1200 monitor with an eIPS screen and LCD backlighting:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hp_zr2440w.htm

Scaler is that is supposed to work for 16:9, but I couldn't find any confirmation that it works with PS360 HDMI output.

Quite interested in the HP monitor actually. Dell is cheaper, but stretch only for 16:9 input is a deal breaker.

 

[joker454]

And if you look at the Steam Survey which mainly targets people who play games (obviously) you'll notice a much smaller sampling for those resolutions that are still in use at many businesses (1280x1024 and 1024x768) at 11.05% and 4.41% respectively.

If you are curious about non gaming use, I own a website that gets many thousands of hits per day and google analytics shows resolution use like this:

1. 1024x768 14.24%
2. 1366x768 13.81%
3. 1280x800 13.09%
4. 1280x1024 7.59%
5. 1440x900 6.79%
6. 1920x1080 5.99%
7. 1680x1050 4.98%
8. 1600x900 3.60%
9. 320x480 3.45%
10. 768x1024 1.89%

 

[Silent_Buddha]

There is hope!

Dell recently released a 1920 x 1200 eIPS LED monitor, the U2412M:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2412m.htm

Has low input latency and overdrive, but it also has a crappy scaler that lacks both 1:1 and 16:9 stretch so don't get one for your PS360. There's also the new HP ZR2440W, which is also a 1920 x 1200 monitor with an eIPS screen and LCD backlighting:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hp_zr2440w.htm

Scaler is that is supposed to work for 16:9, but I couldn't find any confirmation that it works with PS360 HDMI output.

Quite interested in the HP monitor actually. Dell is cheaper, but stretch only for 16:9 input is a deal breaker.

Pretty cool, I'll have to keep an eye on that Dell monitor. It has a 6-bit screen which I normally avoid but since that screen is "mostly" for documents it shouldn't be that bad. The lack of a 6 in 1 card reader though will be a big loss. Means I'd have to actually buy one driving up overall cost.

Scaler shouldn't be a problem with either PC or X360 where you can let those do the scaling for you.

If you are curious about non gaming use, I own a website that gets many thousands of hits per day and google analytics shows resolution use like this:

Very interesting, mostly what I expect from a non-gaming oriented viewership. Although the relative lack of 16:10 monitors is surprising to me.

Regards,
SB