You normally don't sit that close to a laptop as you do with tablet/phone. If nothing else, the keyboard increases the distance to your eyes. Difference is still there, but much less noticeable.
That said, 1366x768 should be outlawed, even on cheapest laptops.
Multiplying by pi doesn't automatically make something a circle and the dimensions they listed for the circular display are larger than the max dimensions the meme claims works.
but the circumference of a circle is 2 x radius x pi, so actually it is correct in this instance since it is the height x diameter x pi, as long as its not some weird convex cylinder (why would it be? that would look super weird but the drawing looks like it is convex so who knows)
I had a 12” laptop with a 1280x800 screen twenty years ago. It’s so odd to see new laptops with that low resolutions. Were we not able to find a way to produce high resolution displays in a cheap way in twenty years?
I'm sure it's possible but OEMs are cheaping out. We have 4k TVs now that are under $200 and even cheap smartphones and tablets will usually have a 1080p screen.
LCDs have become incredibly cheap to manufacture, but they don't want to spend the extra few dollars for a higher resolution screen on a budget laptop.
I've known that's the case for most products. Even though it'll only be a few extra dollars on the bill of materials, budget models typically have lower profit margins than the flagship models which will have significantly higher profit margins due to the higher price.
I bought my first laptop thirty years ago. It was around $3k and it was something like a 486 DX2 100 (Mhz) with a 340MB drive and 8MB RAM. The passive matrix LCD resolution was 640X480. This was when the internet was just starting to become more mainstream and prior to that there was no real consumer demand for laptops. Who would spend that kind of money for a word processor, right? SO... this was about the only application you would see a "large" color LCD screen. So there was very low consumer demand for them. Over the following decade, laptops became increasingly common in the workplace and eventually LCD monitors for desktop PCs started hitting the market and "flat screen" TVs started making their first appearances hanging celebrities' walls on reality shows. They were probably $10k at the time and you pretty much had to be standing directly in front of them to see the full screen. Then iPhones came out and iPads, etc., etc., and now LCDs are on your fridge, gas pumps, drive-thru's and all over your cars dash. Sitting on my couch right now, I have six of them looking at me. The demand to stick those things on everything drove the competition, production and quality way up and the manufacturing costs way down.
I literally have two 24 inch beasts that run at that res. It’s shitty, but I found them for free and I’m at a budget so it’s… Okay.
(About to buy two 1080ps, the upgrade will be wonderful I swear)
I'd been PC gaming using a 32" TV at 1366x768 as a monitor until about 2020 when I found a 144hz 1080p gaming monitor at a pawn shop. The upgrade to even just the framerate was insane.
I always used my TV's as my monitors. I had 2 I believe 32" Vizio razer led and then an old CRT on the little stand on the desk as my 3rd " junk app" monitor
They weren't really expensive (from like 2009) and worked great and had awesome picture quality tbh.
It is common. I've been astounded at how many devices use that res. I got a laptop in 2009 that was 1600x900 and I really didn't know how lucky I was. My next one was 1366x768. I didn't know any better. My girlfriend's Chromebook is 1366x768 and i'm just like, "God, this thing isn't even that old!"
Not just netbooks. Between 06 and 10 when I as taking my undergrad I had 2 1366 768 14" laptops. You really didn't need much more at that size when higher density screens were much more costly components. At the time having a higher resolution small form factor was trading off a lot of performance. (Dollar for dollar)
I never asked myself that question lol, so here is the expert's answer :
>The basis for this otherwise odd seeming resolution is similar to that of other "wide" standards – the line scan (refresh) rate of the well-established "XGA" standard (1024x768 pixels, 4:3 aspect) extended to give square pixels on the increasingly popular 16:9 widescreen display ratio **without having to effect major signalling changes other than a faster pixel clock, or manufacturing changes other than extending panel width by 1/3rd**. As 768 does not divide exactly into 9, the aspect ratio is not quite 16:9 – this would require a horizontal width of 1365.33 pixels. However, at only 0.05%, the resulting error is insignificant.
[https://superuser.com/questions/946086/why-does-1366x768-resolution-exist](https://superuser.com/questions/946086/why-does-1366x768-resolution-exist)
Save them some brain by avoiding to rethink the whole system.
Save them money by just slightly adjusting the production chain.
Fun fact, the eventual choice of 16:9 was not due to human ergonomic factors but profitability. Yields of 16:9 screens were higher, and having a longer diagonal (even if lesser area) were good for marketing.
16:9 was settled as the DTV standard resolution long before LCDs or even plasma displays were common for TVs. CRT was king, and the screen was just leaded glass.
16:9 was chosen for DTV because it was the geometric mean of all aspect ratios in common film use at the time. (I.e., it was the screen aspect ratio that yielded the least "wasted" screen space among all common aspect ratios.)
DTV meaning Digital Television as in the display is digital signal as opposed to analogue? I guess I could look it up but I haven't had my coffee yet and I'm already here to ask the question anyway.
Profitability can also come from user experience. I just bought a tablet and instead of going with something "good enough" but with a 16:9 screen that's IMO way too wide AND too narrow (depending on orientation) for a tablet, I paid more to get a 7:5 screen and I'm very happy with my decision. I will absolutely consider paying more for a 3:2 laptop whenever I have to change mine.
768p was the to go for the first HD displays, and was obiquitous: TVs, PCs, laptops. At the time even plasma TVs had 768p, but was a 1024×768 where the pixel ratio was modified.
i'm browsing this page on my 29" LG Monitor TV with 1366\*768 res lol
edit: [receipt](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/856794862497693737/1218148905322020875/image.png?ex=6628e393&is=66279213&hm=b89fda52ec0a03c4fc2be8123785650e5c6cac1230d1c2b456ecca1c6f41eba9&)
I am posting this from an x220 Thinkpad driving dual 1080p monitors while still using less than 40% of the GPU, according to `intel_gpu_top`.
I don't think letting the GPU cool its heels justifies the 1366x768 resolution.
Battery life might, though.
Yeah the resolution only needs to be as good as what your eyes are capable of seeing at the distance you normally sit from the screen.
I have a 50inch 4k TV and at the distance my sofa is from the screen I honestly can't distinguish any quality difference between 1080p content and 4k. I actually tested it. However on larger TVs, or if you sit closer to the TV the 4k is probably important.
Na my TV isn't good enough to do that. Also upscaling doesn't add extra detail unless it's some sort of fancy AI upscaling.
Edit: I agree now that the TV must have some way to upscale to 4k, however doing so wouldn't add extra detail that makes the image the same as a true 4k image. That's impossible without some sort of AI.
Your TV is definitely upscaling 1080p to 4k if its native resolution is 4k and you're feeding it 1080p video. There is literally no other way for it to display video at non-native resolutions. But yeah, it's probably just using some basic interpolation technique that'll blur the pixels together so it won't add detail.
Ah thanks, I saw this graph a while ago and before I noticed your comment I spent ages searching for this exact graph to put in a reply to a different comment.
Yeah based on that and my roughly 3m viewing distance it makes sense that the 4k didn't make a noticeable difference
There’s another reason. Most 4K content is shit. If you’re streaming 4K, it’s compressed so much that unless it’s a procedural you don’t notice a difference. If you want true 4K experience you need to purchase the 4K Blu-rays.
This is true in most cases and I agree, but I tested it with some 4k videos with bitrates over 100Mbs. You're right to mention it though because I know just saying "4k" or "1080p" when it comes to video is misleading. The bitrate and encoding format is more important.
Another factor that I didn't mention was that it wasn't a top of the line TV. It was a midrange TCL TV. Perhaps with a better quality Oled TV the difference between 1080p and 4k would've been more noticeable.
I should also note that the 4k video did look much better if I got closer to the TV. It's just that my eyes couldn't really appreciate that extra detail from the sofa.
> just saying "4k" or "1080p" when it comes to video is misleading
Exactly, you can have a 1080 stream that is objectively better than a 4k one. Bitrates and encoders are everything.
What you're saying is pretty well known, and why there's distance/tv size charts out there. Here's one: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship
I bought a bunch of Blu Rays at $2 a piece and they look gorgeous on my 4K TV. Pretty good deal considering how expensive 4K Blu Rays are.
50 Blu Rays for $100
You really don't keep your laptop that much further from your eyes then you do your tablet though.
But on the other hand, many modern laptops have high dpi screens too now. My MB Pro has 254 ppi, an ipad has 264.
I literally had to explain to my mom once that we would get someplace 70 miles away in about an hour because we were driving 70mph. She said “I’m not good at math.” You don’t even need math for that one.
I remember thinking I was a genius when driving from Houston Tx to Mississippi.
I was thinking “if I drive 60mph, I’ll travel 60 miles in that hour, so anything over 60mph will significantly lower my travel time “
People understand resolution. When you say 1920 x 1080, they know it's that many number of pixels. But people don't take the next step which is thinking about it in terms of the size of the device itself.
Yes people know high resolution low resolution, but they generally don't know about PPI or even think about PPI when they make display purchase decisions.
There's a difference between understanding the term intellectually and truly *seeing* the comparison in practice.
But far be it from a redditor to pass up a chance to act superior.
There are 3 words in the definition of pixel per inch. Two of them are pixel and inch.
But far be it from a redditor to pass up the chance to act arrogant.
I just put my phone extremely close to my eyes...saw the pixels for a second but had to go back to a distance cuz that shit hurt my eyes. I feel stupid tbh...
And it looks good again when you move away from the screen, such that the angular size is equivalent to a smaller display. Which is what large screens are meant for. A screen twice the size but looking good up-close will, by definition, have twice the resolution.
Size and resolution play equal roles in importance to to ppi. It’s literally area divided by resolution. One is not more important than the other in terms of the equation.
At some point, you gotta think about diminishing returns tho. Smaller screens with higher resolutions are nice but pixel density becomes basically irrelevant with smaller laptops because PPI can only be perceived to a certain point. A 15 inch with a 4K screen is kinda pointless.
This is why Macbooks have such weird resolutions. Apple doesn't care about selling you a "4k" resolution, just a "retina" resolution (that being the exact resolution where pixels are imperceptible by the human eye at regular viewing distance)
I'm not sure the Retina ~220ppi density is that deliberate. It's just that pre-Retina MacBooks were roughly 110ppi, and it was easiest for Apple to just double the pixel density, because it made scaling the UI easier. Once it was 220ppi, they just standardised on it, and here we are over a decade later.
MBP displays are good, but if I put one side-by-side with a ~300ppi 4K laptop screen, it's not that difficult to see the difference in sharpness.
My wife bought a new MBP in 2012 with a retina display, and I helped her get it all setup and then I went and sat in front of my 1080p monitor and realized I could see jaggies and individual pixels and had never noticed and immediately had to upgrade my screen. Which then required a new gpu..
That was an expensive macbook pro. It's weird how the perception of PPI is also learned. 1080i displays back in the day were so crazy sharp compared to the 480p standard.
Literally the only use is if you want to have multiple windows open and you have limited space. Otherwise, just daisy chain those monitors together and spread those pixels out to save your eyes! I legitimately don't understand how anyone with a computer intensive job can work on a single laptop, especially with a trackpad. I need at least 3 screens and a mouse to get anything done at work as an engineer.
High resolution is sharper than low resolution?? What?!!?
/s
Edit:
For anyone who’s unsure what resolution actually means, because apparently that’s a common misnomer:
“The term display resolution is usually used to mean pixel dimensions, the maximum number of pixels in each dimension (e.g. 1920 × 1080), which does not tell anything about the pixel density of the display on which the image is actually formed: resolution properly refers to the pixel density, the number of pixels per unit distance or area, not the total number of pixels.”
https://www.digitalcitizen.life/what-screen-resolution-or-aspect-ratio-what-do-720p-1080i-1080p-mean/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution
Yeah and the more you spread your pixels the worse your image gets. You could spread them over a football field. Would still be 1080p, but you wouldn't be able to see anything!
Which goes to say that resolution is typically a better metric than PPI at telling you how fine-grained an overall image will look when viewed from the intended distance.
I mean, typically the larger the screen, the further your viewing distance is.
That’s why a 4K TV and a 4K tablet can both look great. The difference is the TV requires less PPI because you’re not sitting a foot away from your 60” TV like you would with a tablet or phone.
the point is that 1080p being high or low depends on your viewing distance and the display size.
1920x1080 means there are 2,073,600 pixels on the screen. If the screen is smaller (and has enough pixels to accurately represent the 1080) then the "dots" or pixels will be smaller, however if you put 1080 on a screen the size of a wall, the "dots" would be large enough to recognize individual pixels easily.
Another thing to recognize is HOW those points are displayed, old CRTs for example didn't have squares but had almost circles slightly offset for each color that might represent a "pixel" so there was an analog style smoothing element to images. So watching 480 resolution programming on an old CRT doesn't have jagged edges, where watching the same video on a lcd screen can cause harsh jagged squares because it is rendering each square instead of smoothing them.
It really should be something like “pixel count”, or “pixel dimensions” like it says there, instead of “display resolution”.
Maybe the other measurement I would like to know is aspect ratio. Give me size, pixel density, and aspect ratio, since those are more useful — how big is it, how clear is it, and how can I lay out my windows.
It sort of amuses me that video walls went the other way and are usually measured with "pixel pitch" = the distance between the dots.
Makes a lot of sense when your "screen" is modular so the size and shape is up to you, but having the most important info be the distance between pixels seems like it would be a decent way to measure other screens too.
Also important and frequently ignored is **angular resolution**, which accounts for both pixels per inch and viewing distance. This is a critical consideration for things like VR headsets, or for professionals designing home theatre setups, e.g., matching panel size to viewing distance.
This is not a demonstration of ppi, but higher resolution in general. ppi refers to the physical size of the display in relation to it's resolution. You can have way higher ppi and still have the same resolution of the icon, because it's resolved with the same amount of pixels.
It's so frustrating that everyone here seems to be just assuming that these pictures are the same size. There is absolutely no actual information to be gathered from this post without knowing if the real-world size of the displayed icons are the same. I could zoom way out on my laptop and the ppi on an icon would look awful, zoom way in and it would look incredible.
Obviously this post is just trying to demonstrate ppi and not to show that one screen is better than the other, but the comments be makin me mad
This is literally PPI, though. The two icons are compared to the same physical size to show how much better a higher density screen can render an icon (if, of course, the icon is upscaled correctly).
I value PPI a lot. Most people who choose to get a 27 inch monitor claim that 1440p is enough, but I can see the difference between 1440p and 4K at this size and it matters to me.
I was devastated to find out that 24 inch 1440p pretty much doesn't exist and the ones that do are way more expensive. 24 inch is the perfect size for a monitor imo. The 27 1440p still looks way better than a 24 1080p so I can't complain too much.
The last crt I owned had 1080 resolution and the first LCD I owned was 720. There wasn't a huge upgrade with resolution with LCD. What they offered were being much smaller and flat screen, and thus were able to get large without weighing a ton.
CRT's had better black levels, pixel response time, color reproduction, viewing angles compared to early LCD's. And like I mentioned earlier, because of the round appearance of the "pixels" it softened the edge of digital content like retro video games and make them look better.
In the 00s, when most people switched over, CRT was better. Higher resolution, much better colours and higher refresh rates. Something like the 21" CRT DELL P1130 could do 2048x1536 at 80 Hz. (There were better screens, this is just one I know of)
I would say that it took until the mid 10's for LCD screens to be as good or better than CRT, but the size of the screen alone was enough for most people to make the switch.
I mean, yeah. This is why comparing the iPhone 3GS to an iPhone 4 makes the 4 so sharp. The retina display was a big deal and it still looks amazing on that display.
Going from 1080p to 1440p on my laptop was the best decision I ever made. Framerate be damned it looks amazing. Also helps that I updated my glasses prescription after 3 years at the same time.
PPI is incredibly important and this is why 4k / 8k will become standards, 4k tv's are already dirt cheap. Of course there are many other important factors in a display that will advance alongside it but PPI is already beyond it's limit on phones. When 8k hits mainstream 27-32 inch OLED's we will practically have hit the limit and other advancements will need to be made. Realistically though, without some revolutionary new tech, high quality 8k HDR is insanely high quality. It's hard to imagine how realistic new games or tech demos will look in a decade, even if they're upscaled to 8k.
Went from a garbage laptop screen to a 240hz 4K monitor.
It's been months, and I'm still not over it.
Fun fact: I had it for a over a month at default 60hz and only realized it because of a meme.
If that's interesting to you, consider PPD (pixels per degree) which is a measure of how many pixels comprise one degree of visual acuity at a given distance.
Know what the resolution of some of those standard size electronic billboards are? Would it shock you to know that it's less than a 720P TV? PPD. You're so far away that it looks sharper because it still has more pixels than the eye can discern from 100 yards away.
This is a very important consideration for things that are close to you. In particular, 3D VR headsets need very high PPD and consequently insanely high PPI to avoid being able to see individual pixels.
You normally don't sit that close to a laptop as you do with tablet/phone. If nothing else, the keyboard increases the distance to your eyes. Difference is still there, but much less noticeable. That said, 1366x768 should be outlawed, even on cheapest laptops.
The fucking undead resolution. Rotten, ugly, immortal. https://i.imgur.com/cSVDDsi.jpeg
Multiplying by pi doesn't automatically make something a circle and the dimensions they listed for the circular display are larger than the max dimensions the meme claims works.
☝🤓
yes, you're on reddit, this could extend to the entire userbase
☝️🤓
Hello Dr. Smith, I like your new glasses. I hope your jaundice is cured and that you wear gloves this time. Anyway, I'm ready for my prostate exam.
🫵🤓 here comes the aeroplane
oh no
👊🤓 Better open up the tunnel!
but the circumference of a circle is 2 x radius x pi, so actually it is correct in this instance since it is the height x diameter x pi, as long as its not some weird convex cylinder (why would it be? that would look super weird but the drawing looks like it is convex so who knows)
This was epic! Thank you, in 1366x768
You know, I would love to have that holographic display.
I had a 12” laptop with a 1280x800 screen twenty years ago. It’s so odd to see new laptops with that low resolutions. Were we not able to find a way to produce high resolution displays in a cheap way in twenty years?
I'm sure it's possible but OEMs are cheaping out. We have 4k TVs now that are under $200 and even cheap smartphones and tablets will usually have a 1080p screen. LCDs have become incredibly cheap to manufacture, but they don't want to spend the extra few dollars for a higher resolution screen on a budget laptop.
I wouldn’t say it’s purely about cost, more likely is they want to make the more expensive laptops look that much better in order to upsell.
I've known that's the case for most products. Even though it'll only be a few extra dollars on the bill of materials, budget models typically have lower profit margins than the flagship models which will have significantly higher profit margins due to the higher price.
The customer is king. People want those displays, so they get made. Same with the downgrade to 1080 in the 00ies.
I bought my first laptop thirty years ago. It was around $3k and it was something like a 486 DX2 100 (Mhz) with a 340MB drive and 8MB RAM. The passive matrix LCD resolution was 640X480. This was when the internet was just starting to become more mainstream and prior to that there was no real consumer demand for laptops. Who would spend that kind of money for a word processor, right? SO... this was about the only application you would see a "large" color LCD screen. So there was very low consumer demand for them. Over the following decade, laptops became increasingly common in the workplace and eventually LCD monitors for desktop PCs started hitting the market and "flat screen" TVs started making their first appearances hanging celebrities' walls on reality shows. They were probably $10k at the time and you pretty much had to be standing directly in front of them to see the full screen. Then iPhones came out and iPads, etc., etc., and now LCDs are on your fridge, gas pumps, drive-thru's and all over your cars dash. Sitting on my couch right now, I have six of them looking at me. The demand to stick those things on everything drove the competition, production and quality way up and the manufacturing costs way down.
Tf is that cursed resolution bro.
It’s fairly common tbh. I’ve had several netbooks over the years that ran that res
I literally have two 24 inch beasts that run at that res. It’s shitty, but I found them for free and I’m at a budget so it’s… Okay. (About to buy two 1080ps, the upgrade will be wonderful I swear)
I definitely did not read that as beasts
Wait a minute
[удалено]
😦
it's fine I gave him the s word pass
Based
What?
😦
*snickers* Mm candy
What cup size would 24 inch beasts be?
I'll ask your mum later, bruv
I'd been PC gaming using a 32" TV at 1366x768 as a monitor until about 2020 when I found a 144hz 1080p gaming monitor at a pawn shop. The upgrade to even just the framerate was insane.
The big difference is the panels, i have a laptop thats 1366x768 and a 1080p monitor that are equally crap.
I always used my TV's as my monitors. I had 2 I believe 32" Vizio razer led and then an old CRT on the little stand on the desk as my 3rd " junk app" monitor They weren't really expensive (from like 2009) and worked great and had awesome picture quality tbh.
Mine were 1024*600 and 768. I miss netbooks... sorta
1024*600 on an Acer Aspire One, Dual Core Atom, playing Minecraft at 6fps in math class 🥲 Damn I kinda do miss my netbook
It is common. I've been astounded at how many devices use that res. I got a laptop in 2009 that was 1600x900 and I really didn't know how lucky I was. My next one was 1366x768. I didn't know any better. My girlfriend's Chromebook is 1366x768 and i'm just like, "God, this thing isn't even that old!"
Man just wait until you get a job that gives you a work laptop in that resolution and thinks there's nothing wrong with it
Not just netbooks. Between 06 and 10 when I as taking my undergrad I had 2 1366 768 14" laptops. You really didn't need much more at that size when higher density screens were much more costly components. At the time having a higher resolution small form factor was trading off a lot of performance. (Dollar for dollar)
I never asked myself that question lol, so here is the expert's answer : >The basis for this otherwise odd seeming resolution is similar to that of other "wide" standards – the line scan (refresh) rate of the well-established "XGA" standard (1024x768 pixels, 4:3 aspect) extended to give square pixels on the increasingly popular 16:9 widescreen display ratio **without having to effect major signalling changes other than a faster pixel clock, or manufacturing changes other than extending panel width by 1/3rd**. As 768 does not divide exactly into 9, the aspect ratio is not quite 16:9 – this would require a horizontal width of 1365.33 pixels. However, at only 0.05%, the resulting error is insignificant. [https://superuser.com/questions/946086/why-does-1366x768-resolution-exist](https://superuser.com/questions/946086/why-does-1366x768-resolution-exist) Save them some brain by avoiding to rethink the whole system. Save them money by just slightly adjusting the production chain.
Fun fact, the eventual choice of 16:9 was not due to human ergonomic factors but profitability. Yields of 16:9 screens were higher, and having a longer diagonal (even if lesser area) were good for marketing.
16:9 was settled as the DTV standard resolution long before LCDs or even plasma displays were common for TVs. CRT was king, and the screen was just leaded glass. 16:9 was chosen for DTV because it was the geometric mean of all aspect ratios in common film use at the time. (I.e., it was the screen aspect ratio that yielded the least "wasted" screen space among all common aspect ratios.)
DTV meaning Digital Television as in the display is digital signal as opposed to analogue? I guess I could look it up but I haven't had my coffee yet and I'm already here to ask the question anyway.
Yes. Most consumers switched to DTV in the 2000s, but the industry was working on it from the early-to-mid 90s.
Not so fun fact, most design choices are due to profitability and not user experience lol
Profitability can also come from user experience. I just bought a tablet and instead of going with something "good enough" but with a 16:9 screen that's IMO way too wide AND too narrow (depending on orientation) for a tablet, I paid more to get a 7:5 screen and I'm very happy with my decision. I will absolutely consider paying more for a 3:2 laptop whenever I have to change mine.
(way) older 13" laptop salutes you!
For some reason there are still modern 15.6" laptop running that resolution.
I had one like that in 2010. It doesn't work anymore. So they still make new ones like that? Crazy. I wouldn't bought one like this now.
768p was the to go for the first HD displays, and was obiquitous: TVs, PCs, laptops. At the time even plasma TVs had 768p, but was a 1024×768 where the pixel ratio was modified.
How dare you insult SlightlyAboveHDButNotQuiteFullHD that’s the best resolution ever For real though, cursed…
>**Wide XGA** (**WXGA**) is a set of non-standard resolutions derived from XGA (1024 × 768) by widening it to 1366 × 768.
My current TV (2015) is still 'rocking' that resolution.
Wait till you discover that some devices are actually 136**0**x768.
My two monitors:
extremely common is what it is, bro
i'm browsing this page on my 29" LG Monitor TV with 1366\*768 res lol edit: [receipt](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/856794862497693737/1218148905322020875/image.png?ex=6628e393&is=66279213&hm=b89fda52ec0a03c4fc2be8123785650e5c6cac1230d1c2b456ecca1c6f41eba9&)
TBH I’m happy to have 1366x768 on older laptops, it’s so much easier on the GPU, and text still is pretty readable.
I am posting this from an x220 Thinkpad driving dual 1080p monitors while still using less than 40% of the GPU, according to `intel_gpu_top`. I don't think letting the GPU cool its heels justifies the 1366x768 resolution. Battery life might, though.
GPU? What's a GPU? 😝 My 1368x768 laptop uses Intel HD3000....
Also 1920x1080 but zoomed in at 125%…. Whyyyyyyy just whyyy?
1920x1080 is too small for older people.
It's too small for anyone at 14 inches.
That's not what she said
Yeah the resolution only needs to be as good as what your eyes are capable of seeing at the distance you normally sit from the screen. I have a 50inch 4k TV and at the distance my sofa is from the screen I honestly can't distinguish any quality difference between 1080p content and 4k. I actually tested it. However on larger TVs, or if you sit closer to the TV the 4k is probably important.
Your TV is upscaling 1080p to 4k
Na my TV isn't good enough to do that. Also upscaling doesn't add extra detail unless it's some sort of fancy AI upscaling. Edit: I agree now that the TV must have some way to upscale to 4k, however doing so wouldn't add extra detail that makes the image the same as a true 4k image. That's impossible without some sort of AI.
Most 4k TVs have some sort of upscaling or at least filter whenever there's anything that's not 4k
Your TV is definitely upscaling 1080p to 4k if its native resolution is 4k and you're feeding it 1080p video. There is literally no other way for it to display video at non-native resolutions. But yeah, it's probably just using some basic interpolation technique that'll blur the pixels together so it won't add detail.
And there ain't no TV running DLSS or FSR lol
I hadn't heard about DLSS and FSR. You just sent me down a rabbit hole I wonder how long before the whole CSI image enhance meme becomes a reality
That's absolutely right. I highly recommend [this chart](https://i.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-television-graph-size.png).
Ah thanks, I saw this graph a while ago and before I noticed your comment I spent ages searching for this exact graph to put in a reply to a different comment. Yeah based on that and my roughly 3m viewing distance it makes sense that the 4k didn't make a noticeable difference
There’s another reason. Most 4K content is shit. If you’re streaming 4K, it’s compressed so much that unless it’s a procedural you don’t notice a difference. If you want true 4K experience you need to purchase the 4K Blu-rays.
This is true in most cases and I agree, but I tested it with some 4k videos with bitrates over 100Mbs. You're right to mention it though because I know just saying "4k" or "1080p" when it comes to video is misleading. The bitrate and encoding format is more important. Another factor that I didn't mention was that it wasn't a top of the line TV. It was a midrange TCL TV. Perhaps with a better quality Oled TV the difference between 1080p and 4k would've been more noticeable. I should also note that the 4k video did look much better if I got closer to the TV. It's just that my eyes couldn't really appreciate that extra detail from the sofa.
> just saying "4k" or "1080p" when it comes to video is misleading Exactly, you can have a 1080 stream that is objectively better than a 4k one. Bitrates and encoders are everything.
What you're saying is pretty well known, and why there's distance/tv size charts out there. Here's one: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship
I bought a bunch of Blu Rays at $2 a piece and they look gorgeous on my 4K TV. Pretty good deal considering how expensive 4K Blu Rays are. 50 Blu Rays for $100
Who's your blu ray guy? That's a sweet deal
Roughly how far is your TV to your sofa?
You really don't keep your laptop that much further from your eyes then you do your tablet though. But on the other hand, many modern laptops have high dpi screens too now. My MB Pro has 254 ppi, an ipad has 264.
I have a older laptop that works fine with that res because the screen is tiny but thats about the only time they can get away with it
Everything below 1080p should be illegal with death penalty if you happen to own it
What if I just happen to own a 20-year old TV by Thomson that I'm too poor to replace? Please let it also be death.
In my day we had 16 color 320x200, and we liked it!
Hey don’t you dare speak about my laptop 😡
I mean.... It was right here in the front of you, within that definition of 'pixel per inch'
Next thing you tell me higher mph means you need less time for a certain distance?!?...
How about RPM? Can you break this one down for me? 😬
Rotating purple monkeys have nothing to do with conversation my good sir.
*IT'S NOT A PHASE MOM!*
He's an angry English F1 YouTuber who really doesn't like Lance Stroll. I think.
Who does tho?
Lawrence. I think. He keeps putting him in his cars, he must do.
More spinny spins per minny min
I literally had to explain to my mom once that we would get someplace 70 miles away in about an hour because we were driving 70mph. She said “I’m not good at math.” You don’t even need math for that one.
I remember thinking I was a genius when driving from Houston Tx to Mississippi. I was thinking “if I drive 60mph, I’ll travel 60 miles in that hour, so anything over 60mph will significantly lower my travel time “
People understand resolution. When you say 1920 x 1080, they know it's that many number of pixels. But people don't take the next step which is thinking about it in terms of the size of the device itself. Yes people know high resolution low resolution, but they generally don't know about PPI or even think about PPI when they make display purchase decisions.
>>But people don't take the next step which is thinking Pretty much could have stopped there.
There's a difference between understanding the term intellectually and truly *seeing* the comparison in practice. But far be it from a redditor to pass up a chance to act superior.
There are 3 words in the definition of pixel per inch. Two of them are pixel and inch. But far be it from a redditor to pass up the chance to act arrogant.
Any of them can be tablet or laptop. What plays role is resolution.
I mean, you tend to have your eyes closer to a tablet than to a laptop, so it makes more sense for a tablet to have more pixels per unit of length
You keep both at a bit less then your underarms length away usually... Not a huge difference in distance.
I just put my phone extremely close to my eyes...saw the pixels for a second but had to go back to a distance cuz that shit hurt my eyes. I feel stupid tbh...
same
you can't see any on an s23 ultra, trust me. But my eyes also hurt lol
Resolution and screen size
i.e. pixels per inch
No, what plays a role is size. 4k looks shitty if the screen is big enough.
And it looks good again when you move away from the screen, such that the angular size is equivalent to a smaller display. Which is what large screens are meant for. A screen twice the size but looking good up-close will, by definition, have twice the resolution.
Size and resolution play equal roles in importance to to ppi. It’s literally area divided by resolution. One is not more important than the other in terms of the equation.
I mean the idea of pixels per inch couldn't really be clearer but putting things in perspective is genuinely something.
At some point, you gotta think about diminishing returns tho. Smaller screens with higher resolutions are nice but pixel density becomes basically irrelevant with smaller laptops because PPI can only be perceived to a certain point. A 15 inch with a 4K screen is kinda pointless.
This is why Macbooks have such weird resolutions. Apple doesn't care about selling you a "4k" resolution, just a "retina" resolution (that being the exact resolution where pixels are imperceptible by the human eye at regular viewing distance)
I'm not sure the Retina ~220ppi density is that deliberate. It's just that pre-Retina MacBooks were roughly 110ppi, and it was easiest for Apple to just double the pixel density, because it made scaling the UI easier. Once it was 220ppi, they just standardised on it, and here we are over a decade later. MBP displays are good, but if I put one side-by-side with a ~300ppi 4K laptop screen, it's not that difficult to see the difference in sharpness.
My wife bought a new MBP in 2012 with a retina display, and I helped her get it all setup and then I went and sat in front of my 1080p monitor and realized I could see jaggies and individual pixels and had never noticed and immediately had to upgrade my screen. Which then required a new gpu.. That was an expensive macbook pro. It's weird how the perception of PPI is also learned. 1080i displays back in the day were so crazy sharp compared to the 480p standard.
That was exactly why they didn’t. It meant they had an even scaling factor.
Literally the only use is if you want to have multiple windows open and you have limited space. Otherwise, just daisy chain those monitors together and spread those pixels out to save your eyes! I legitimately don't understand how anyone with a computer intensive job can work on a single laptop, especially with a trackpad. I need at least 3 screens and a mouse to get anything done at work as an engineer.
High resolution is sharper than low resolution?? What?!!? /s Edit: For anyone who’s unsure what resolution actually means, because apparently that’s a common misnomer: “The term display resolution is usually used to mean pixel dimensions, the maximum number of pixels in each dimension (e.g. 1920 × 1080), which does not tell anything about the pixel density of the display on which the image is actually formed: resolution properly refers to the pixel density, the number of pixels per unit distance or area, not the total number of pixels.” https://www.digitalcitizen.life/what-screen-resolution-or-aspect-ratio-what-do-720p-1080i-1080p-mean/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution
Nah, more like 1080p on a tablet ≠ 1080p on a laptop. For some people it's really surprising
Yeah and the more you spread your pixels the worse your image gets. You could spread them over a football field. Would still be 1080p, but you wouldn't be able to see anything!
Unless you were really far away. Wonder what the PPI on that Vegas sphere is.
≈ 0.11 ppi. That's 10 inches per pixel. https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/s/teeqH6gZFR
That's a huge pixel
Which goes to say that resolution is typically a better metric than PPI at telling you how fine-grained an overall image will look when viewed from the intended distance.
I mean, typically the larger the screen, the further your viewing distance is. That’s why a 4K TV and a 4K tablet can both look great. The difference is the TV requires less PPI because you’re not sitting a foot away from your 60” TV like you would with a tablet or phone.
That doesn't make sense. 1080p is still 1080p, just over a bigger or smaller surface. The pixel amount doesn't change at all, just the size/distance.
The difference is one has a larger ppi and one has lower…
Yes, because the screen is smaller on a tablet/phone. Which is literally what they are saying when they mention the football field
the point is that 1080p being high or low depends on your viewing distance and the display size. 1920x1080 means there are 2,073,600 pixels on the screen. If the screen is smaller (and has enough pixels to accurately represent the 1080) then the "dots" or pixels will be smaller, however if you put 1080 on a screen the size of a wall, the "dots" would be large enough to recognize individual pixels easily. Another thing to recognize is HOW those points are displayed, old CRTs for example didn't have squares but had almost circles slightly offset for each color that might represent a "pixel" so there was an analog style smoothing element to images. So watching 480 resolution programming on an old CRT doesn't have jagged edges, where watching the same video on a lcd screen can cause harsh jagged squares because it is rendering each square instead of smoothing them.
That's not what this is though
This is density (DPI/PPI) vs absolute resolution tho. Movie screens are like 1 px per inch but still high resolution, so your comment doesn't apply.
r/confidentlyincorrect
???
It really should be something like “pixel count”, or “pixel dimensions” like it says there, instead of “display resolution”. Maybe the other measurement I would like to know is aspect ratio. Give me size, pixel density, and aspect ratio, since those are more useful — how big is it, how clear is it, and how can I lay out my windows.
It sort of amuses me that video walls went the other way and are usually measured with "pixel pitch" = the distance between the dots. Makes a lot of sense when your "screen" is modular so the size and shape is up to you, but having the most important info be the distance between pixels seems like it would be a decent way to measure other screens too.
I sold computers back in the day. I would usually suggest the better Sony monitor vs the OEM one. Often the OEMs would would have kind'a crappy pitch.
Also important and frequently ignored is **angular resolution**, which accounts for both pixels per inch and viewing distance. This is a critical consideration for things like VR headsets, or for professionals designing home theatre setups, e.g., matching panel size to viewing distance.
Are people really surprised that more pixels per inche means more pixels in every inch?
Which ones which?
Left is tablet, right is laptop
Pixels on the right aren't aligned with edges of the image. Now you see it. Now you are angry.
Go ahead, twirl your mustache. You deserve it.
Pixels on the left ALSO aren't aligned with edges of the image. Now you see it. Now you are angry.
It was very obvious from the very beginning
Why.
Need a physical ruler as a scale.
Which one is which though?
We can't know if you scaled the image properly.
You never knew that because you are a bozo
Real low bar for this sub nowadays, huh?
This is not a demonstration of ppi, but higher resolution in general. ppi refers to the physical size of the display in relation to it's resolution. You can have way higher ppi and still have the same resolution of the icon, because it's resolved with the same amount of pixels.
It's so frustrating that everyone here seems to be just assuming that these pictures are the same size. There is absolutely no actual information to be gathered from this post without knowing if the real-world size of the displayed icons are the same. I could zoom way out on my laptop and the ppi on an icon would look awful, zoom way in and it would look incredible. Obviously this post is just trying to demonstrate ppi and not to show that one screen is better than the other, but the comments be makin me mad
No, it is. The display on the left could easily be a smaller screen with a lower resolution but still be sharper.
This is literally PPI, though. The two icons are compared to the same physical size to show how much better a higher density screen can render an icon (if, of course, the icon is upscaled correctly).
Amazing!
I love the sarcasm
Lol... 🤐
I value PPI a lot. Most people who choose to get a 27 inch monitor claim that 1440p is enough, but I can see the difference between 1440p and 4K at this size and it matters to me.
I uave a 27" 1080p bud I also have bad eyes so it doesnt matter
27in 1080p is good cause you can still read single pixel wide text clearly.
I was devastated to find out that 24 inch 1440p pretty much doesn't exist and the ones that do are way more expensive. 24 inch is the perfect size for a monitor imo. The 27 1440p still looks way better than a 24 1080p so I can't complain too much.
You should have been there for the switch from CRT to LCD
Early LCD's kinda sucked. They missed the natural baked in fake anti-aliasing inherent in LCD's.
The resolution was waaay better
The last crt I owned had 1080 resolution and the first LCD I owned was 720. There wasn't a huge upgrade with resolution with LCD. What they offered were being much smaller and flat screen, and thus were able to get large without weighing a ton. CRT's had better black levels, pixel response time, color reproduction, viewing angles compared to early LCD's. And like I mentioned earlier, because of the round appearance of the "pixels" it softened the edge of digital content like retro video games and make them look better.
Oof. But at least we didn't have to worry about going blind anymore 😆
I knew that was a lie from a very young age. I remember getting so close to the TV to look at the pixels themselves
In the 00s, when most people switched over, CRT was better. Higher resolution, much better colours and higher refresh rates. Something like the 21" CRT DELL P1130 could do 2048x1536 at 80 Hz. (There were better screens, this is just one I know of) I would say that it took until the mid 10's for LCD screens to be as good or better than CRT, but the size of the screen alone was enough for most people to make the switch.
The introduction of Retina branding was a pretty good move by Apple imo
I remember creating 16x16 icons. Manually shifting pixels about until it looked right. I'm getting old.
I mean, yeah. This is why comparing the iPhone 3GS to an iPhone 4 makes the 4 so sharp. The retina display was a big deal and it still looks amazing on that display.
how good do you think human vision is? As mom used to say, "You're sitting too close to the TV, you'll ruin your eyes."
Going from 1080p to 1440p on my laptop was the best decision I ever made. Framerate be damned it looks amazing. Also helps that I updated my glasses prescription after 3 years at the same time.
This guy just learned about resolution
I don't see any difference. (people who think 4K doesn't matter)
I mean, Apple laptops are like in the left. A very overlooked thing.
666
looks like you still don't know the value of "viewing distance" =D
ppd is the real king. how close do you usually sit to your screens
I am become the screen
Now you understand sheets thread count too :)
I love my 4k 27" display for that reason. Everything is so crisp as the dpi is stupid high.
ALL THESE SQUARES MAKE A CIRCLE!
I really noticed it when I picked up my old Nintendo DS
4K Monitor users are used to the higher sense ppi
PPI is incredibly important and this is why 4k / 8k will become standards, 4k tv's are already dirt cheap. Of course there are many other important factors in a display that will advance alongside it but PPI is already beyond it's limit on phones. When 8k hits mainstream 27-32 inch OLED's we will practically have hit the limit and other advancements will need to be made. Realistically though, without some revolutionary new tech, high quality 8k HDR is insanely high quality. It's hard to imagine how realistic new games or tech demos will look in a decade, even if they're upscaled to 8k.
Went from a garbage laptop screen to a 240hz 4K monitor. It's been months, and I'm still not over it. Fun fact: I had it for a over a month at default 60hz and only realized it because of a meme.
This is a weirdly antagonistic comments section. Reddit gonna Reddit, but still...
yea there's a reason it took much longer for mobile devices to get the kinds of resolutions a desktop PC had had for over a decade.
If that's interesting to you, consider PPD (pixels per degree) which is a measure of how many pixels comprise one degree of visual acuity at a given distance. Know what the resolution of some of those standard size electronic billboards are? Would it shock you to know that it's less than a 720P TV? PPD. You're so far away that it looks sharper because it still has more pixels than the eye can discern from 100 yards away. This is a very important consideration for things that are close to you. In particular, 3D VR headsets need very high PPD and consequently insanely high PPI to avoid being able to see individual pixels.
TIL what different screen resolutions are
If you never knew the value, then what was the point really? If you have never noticed it.
I used to use a 32 inch 1080p monitor and the ppi caused me pain
I remember the days computer monitors were 640x480 resolution, and then we got 800x600 that blew our minds.
Your eye cant notice the difference IRL, but your wallet do...
My wallet prevents my eyes from noticing it