Monitor resolutions are too damn low!

At a certain point all you're doing is making text and images sharper, not fitting more shit on the screen.

buy a higher res monitor dummy

>>56298651
Went to Best Buy today and saw a 4K IPS monitor going for $399 while the micro center down the street was selling a 1440p monitor for the same price. Both were 27".

>>56298651
Bigger things are harder to make perfect than tiny things.

Because normal users don't give two shits about resolution. 1080p is fine for casual users.

>>56298651

4k user here:

Larger estate and more travel

Lower productivity

>>56298683
>At a certain point all you're doing is making text and images sharper, not fitting more shit on the screen.
Huh? That makes no sense.

Bigger pixels ==> you see them ==> fuzzy text & pixelated images

95% of shit being made is still 1080p that's why. The only industry that has demand of higher resolutions is the PC gaming one. There's also 4k monitors out there btw just not quite cheap yet China will be there soon

File: be50f022c4cb.jpg (258KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1920x1080px

one thing I don't get is why they make 24" and 27" monitors that are only 1920X1080. Who the fuck wants to see those gigantic pixels? Unless you're sitting 4+ feet away from the screen, it's retarded. And if your'e sitting that far away, you're probably just watching movies or some shit and don't need a monitor but a TV.

I use a 40" 4K monitor and browse in a 1920x1920 window... I'm good over here.

>>56298787
>40"
that too is fucking retarded. 24-27" is what I'd consider a maximum that actually doesn't involve constantly moving your head around. 40" from up close is tiring as fuck.

>>56298683
Yeah it does. Because if you fit too much on the screen it will be too small to read

File: mootles.jpg (101KB, 1034x731px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1034x731px

>>56298651
>mfw happy with 1080p

seriously the diffrence between 4k and 1080p really isnt worth it like it was uprgrading from SD to HD

>>56298651

4k displays are getting cheaper and cheaper. SOON™

>>56299307

4k 27'' 60hz IPS screens are like $300 these days

I hope I can buy one on Black Friday for $200

>>56298651
biggest problem is with HD itself; It has shitty as fuck vertical resolution.

Fuck resolution.i want colors. Why does my old ass Trinitron have better colors than my monitor? Why are monitors with better colors still expensive as fuck and still worthless for games?

>>56299307
saw a $200k 4k tv at a fucking shoprite today

>>56298838
It's almost like you can adjust how far your head is from the monitor, niphead

>>56299593
>saw a $200k 4k tv at a fucking shoprite today

size?

btw, something must be SERIOUSLY wring with that shit. I'd love to see text rendered on it... bet it would be fuzzy as shit.

File: 1471541822553.png (588KB, 1440x810px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 1440x810px

>>56299603
>It's almost like you can adjust how far your head is from the monitor, niphead
What's the fucking point if you have to move away 5 feet to see the whole thing? Why not get a smaller, low-pixel pitch, monitor instead that. Who the fuck wants to read gigantic letters on the screen?

>>56298777
777 winrar gets it.

I saw a nice Dell monitor today. Great colors and all for $300, but the pixels shown horridly on the 1080p 27" panel.

Why bother making that crap?

>tfw dual 1680x1050 24" is good enough for me

>>56299898
42 inch Seiki, but still impressive nonetheless

>>56298651
Screen prices are going down. 1080p can be had for ~$100 now, and 4K for ~$400. Once upon a time, 1080p was ~$1000 and 4K was ~$30,000

I'm pretty sure you can get a Korean 2k monitor for that price.

TVs are glorified monitors these days so nothing is stopping you from buying a 4k monitor

>>56299908
So you can see your sissy captions better faggot

>>56300008
But muh input lag

>>56298651
Your memes are hurting me

>>56298683
Youre propably talking about display scaling, because increasing the resolution always makes the screen area bigger.

>>56300164
There's a difference in input lag between a TV and a monitor?

>>56299940
>but the pixels shown horridly on the 1080p 27" panel
yeah, that's just nuts. HUGE pixels are the worst. You actually have to move a bit back because the text is fuzzy.

File: 1471578145722.jpg (196KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1280x720px

>>56300308
>There's a difference in input lag between a TV and a monitor?
Yeah, a huge one. Many LCD TVs have GtG around 16-20ms and good monitors are around 5ms.

I'm convinced that most of these 1080p monitors are nothing more than TV panels with an overclocked chip.

>>56300410
So is this why my brand new 1080p monitors take about twice as long to turn on as does my ten year old one?

I have two 24" 1080p ips monitors, I feel so ancient right now. All this high res shit for cheap when I bought these a year ago for like 200$ a piece.

>>56300420
>So is this why my brand new 1080p monitors take about twice as long to turn on as does my ten year old one?
Actually, that is due to shitty electrolytic capacitors. When they start taking 2+ min to turn on and get to maximum brightness, that's the time to buy new caps or trash it.

>>56300516
No no, I'm talking 6+ seconds versus 3 seconds.

File: 1472140294441.jpg (6KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x250px

>>56299957
>42 inch Seiki, but still impressive nonetheless
42" for 4K. Do you have any idea what the text would look on that thing up close? It would be EXTREMELY FUZZY. Just calculate the pixel pitch. It's beyond horrible. You'd need to stand 5' to not notice fuzziness.

>>56300561
>No no, I'm talking 6+ seconds versus 3 seconds.
Yeah, that's due to caps. Re-read my reply again about when to start replacing them. 6 sec is average for large caps.

>>56300420
Not just leaving your monitors on standby for a whole year...

>>56300689
Sometimes I'm forced to reboot them.

>>56298703
>>56298651
This man knows. It's expensive to high res a large monitor, cheap to high res a small one. Also much bigger market for small screens.

>>56298777
> Who the fuck wants to see those gigantic pixels?

Filthy casuals

>>56298651
because 1440p is a meme resolution and the hardware isnt quite there for 4k yet

>>56300865
1440p will be the new 720p

>>56300516
my meme monitor turns on immediately no splash screen or anything
pg279q

>>56299957
>42 inch Seiki, but still impressive nonetheless

I did some quick CALCULASSHIONS for PPI for some of the shit mentioned in this thread. For my own amusement.

First number: PPI = pixels per inch (higher the better)
Second number: dot pitch in mm (smaller the better)

iPad
2732x2048 = 264 ppi, 0.096 mm

16:9 aka 1920x1080 monitors aka 1080p:
20" = 110.15, 0.2306
22" = 100.13, 0.2537
24" = 91.79, 0.2767
27" = 81.59, 0.3113

16:10 monitors
24", 1920x1200 = 94.34, 0.2692

4k
42" = 104.9, 0.2421

File: mg24uq.jpg (28KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 640x480px

I've been looking for a high PPI monitor and have narrowed it down to the MG24UQ. UHD at 24", IPS and freesync with a not garbage stand. Almost ready to pull the trigger. I wouldn't mind trying a high refresh rate 1440p monitor in that size but they don't seem to exist with all the options I'm interested in. It's all 27"+ garbage that's the same PPI as my 8 year old 1080p 21" panel.

>>56301838
>MG24UQ. UHD at 24", IPS and freesync with a not garbage stand
solid choice!

2000: 1024p
2016: 1080p
we've come a long way, baby

>>56302431
>2000: 1024p
>2016: 1080p
>we've come a long way, baby
It's crazy how slow these LCD bastards are moving. They're just peddling old tech.