When does resolution scaling reach its peak? [Discussion]

[Deleted]

Phones push for higher PPI every year (current record being 468 held by the HTC One), laptops and tablets are moving into higher resolution territory with more and more surpassing the common 1080p and we have 4k resolution monitors on the horizon.

While higher resolution is always nice, it does spout some issues:

• Power required to drive these screens
• Interface bandwidth limitations
• Production cost and yield

(All of the above should improve over time for a given resolution, of course.)



With 1920x1080 pixels being pushed into a 4.7" screens we have certainly reached a point where there is little reason to go further, right? I mean, at a pixel size (dot pitch) of 0.0542mm you can't really distinguish pixels at all, unless you use a magnifying glass. Given, we are a few years away from seeing a dot pitch of 0.05mm on computer monitors and TVs, but that is the direction we are heading.

Will resolution scaling ever reach diminishing returns and become unnecessary/impractical for content viewing? How high PPI are you realistically willing to pay for given a linear price curve? 200? 300? 500 PPI? Perhaps we won't even reach a PPI high enough before new technology comes along making current technology of pixels obsolete?

Discuss!

[Deleted]

I'm not into all that technical stuff, but I won't ever get a bigger monitor than what I currently own.

It's a 24" monitor, and for that relatively small monitor size I won't need to use any higher resolution than 1080p for it to look good.

[Onomatopoeia]

I don't seem them pushing it on phones intill 4k resolution becomes the new standard. I can see very high end laptops and tablets do it, maybe. But intill there's media that takes advatge of resolutions higher than 1080, I don't see the point and I don't think manufacturers do either. I'm sure there working on it, to be ready and maybe someone will release just to be first.

But yes they will keep pushing as long as theres media that supports it.

[Deleted]

I don't seem them pushing it on phones intill 4k resolution becomes the new standard.

But they are pushing higher PPI on phones? Two-three years ago 300 PPI was insane, now we have almost reached 500!

I can see very high end laptops and tablets do it, maybe.

Again, they are already doing it. Today. The current Nexus 7 is just above 200 PPI while the new iteration is a tad above 300 PPI. Also, look at the rumors surrounding 1440p and 1600p panels coming to ultrabooks this year.

But intill there's media that takes advatge of resolutions higher than 1080, I don't see the point and I don't think manufacturers do either. I'm sure there working on it, to be ready and maybe someone will release just to be first.

But there is. Japan is pushing 4K TV broadcast this year. We can scale games to resolutions beyond 1080p with ease. Not only that, but UI elements are made to scale with resolutions - just look at the MBPr. Youtube has started to experiment with resolutions above 1080p as well.

[Sweetleader]

The thing with phones is there isn't any more "standard" resolutions past 1080p. I think phones will stop there for awhile.

Laptop companies are doing it because they are playing catchup to Apple. The one good thing about Apple is they push certain hardware aspects to be mainstream. As soon as a "retina" monitor is released I would bet other big companies will begin releasing 4k monitors at a reasonable price.

The problem with media is the bandwith to transport it. Japans broadband network is many times better than a lot of the world.

[Onomatopoeia]

But they are pushing higher PPI on phones? Two-three years ago 300 PPI was insane, now we have almost reached 500!


Again, they are already doing it. Today. The current Nexus 7 is just above 200 PPI while the new iteration is a tad above 300 PPI. Also, look at the rumors surrounding 1440p and 1600p panels coming to ultrabooks this year.


But there is. Japan is pushing 4K TV broadcast this year. We can scale games to resolutions beyond 1080p with ease. Not only that, but UI elements are made to scale with resolutions - just look at the MBPr. Youtube has started to experiment with resolutions above 1080p as well.

I really need to start getting more back into the tech news it seems.

As for gaming, gaming has also been about pushing the limits of tech. I'm well aware the scales but such high end gaming also has been very niche. It will always push tech. I don't think there is ever going to be a limit, it might stagnate for a few strechs, but as long as media is created that supports the higher ppi and res people are going to push for it. I suppose I was speaking from a more mainstream/casual tech user and what they will buy. I don't think many will buy 1440p and 1600p laptops when they first come out, but they will once there cheap and can watch movies/tv on it at that res. I know if I had the money (and I probably would) I could get a 4k monitor and jack up the res on my games.

I would say it'll plateau at one point, and it might and we could be stuck at something for a long time like with standard tv res, but then again, 640k is all the memory we will ever need, right?

[MMKing]

I think it will stop for a while. Allot of Western politicians see little value in upgrading the already existing copper wires previously used for phones. Fiber is demanded to support a nation of 4k TVs. For computer however, it will progress intro 2560x1440 being the norm very soon, then 4k will follow thereafter. Problem with computers is that users tend to rend pictures in real time (games).

[Onomatopoeia]

I think it will stop for a while. Allot of Western politicians see little value in upgrading the already existing copper wires previously used for phones. Fiber is demanded to support a nation of 4k TVs. For computer however, it will progress intro 2560x1440 being the norm very soon, then 4k will follow thereafter. Problem with computers is that users tend to rend pictures in real time (games).

Verizon at least is spending quite a but to develop a pure fiber network. Hoefully it'll force other companies to follow.

The thing with phones is there isn't any more "standard" resolutions past 1080p. I think phones will stop there for awhile.

I see them following what ever tvs/movies go to (4k and then 8k), but yes I believe they'll stop at 1080 for awhile, with a few fringe phones that have higher.

[glo]

I really can't tell a difference between my Nexus 4 and my roommates HTC one while holding them at a normal distance during use. The jump from the sub VGA resolution smartphone displays to 720p was a huge difference, but I think the perceived difference between 720p and 1080p on a sub 5 inch screen is minimal at best.

Phone manufacturers need something to cling onto for selling points now. The battle over screen size is over due to anything over 5 inches being uncomfortable for most. PPI has really hit a ceiling as to people not caring anymore, and now it seems like it's the bezel size war (which I find incredibly stupid - it's going to eliminate the ability to use cases).

[Deleted]

I know very little of monitor's in general, but there's a trend that happens to similar technical markets for as long as I can remember.

Selling points change. I feel, at some point, we'll have reached a PPI that's so close to realism, it'll stop being a selling point. Every screen, including the new tamagotchi's, will be 4K screens with 0.05mm pixel size.

Look at digital camera's for instance. For the longest time, having more megapixels meant having better looking pictures. (Basically the prequal to actual ppi, since the gain came from reducing image sizes and therefore increasing the PPI, I think?). These days, every tiny camera in a cheap phone makes huge photo's, and the selling points have changed.

What will be really interesting is seeing what the distinction will be between normal screens and high end screens in 10 years time.

[Tonyman64]

I think we'll hit a point were screen resolution is so good that the human eye simply won't be able to tell the difference between one screen and a "better" one. However I think that human augmentation, eye implants for example, could push the limit of the resolutions humans can distinguish between, then it becomes a battle between increasing screen quality and increasing vision quality.

[krognam]

Verizon at least is spending quite a but to develop a pure fiber network. Hoefully it'll force other companies to follow.



I see them following what ever tvs/movies go to (4k and then 8k), but yes I believe they'll stop at 1080 for awhile, with a few fringe phones that have higher.

I thought it was a pretty well known fact that Verizon in fact completely STOPPED rolling out FIOS have no plans for further implementation. Google is the only hope for America right now. Big telecom and the FCC are completely stacked against the consumer.

I do live in Japan and have fiber to my house. I only pay $70/month for a 200 Mbps pipe, but for another $25 I could have the full 1Gbps. It is amazing.

[glo]

Look at digital camera's for instance. For the longest time, having more megapixels meant having better looking pictures. (Basically the prequal to actual ppi, since the gain came from reducing image sizes and therefore increasing the PPI, I think?). These days, every tiny camera in a cheap phone makes huge photo's, and the selling points have changed.

They still have a huge amount of room for camera improvement, hindered mainly by current technology. Phone cameras have no moving parts and a fixed aperture, so there's very little room to do anything with focus (bokeh for example) or lighting manipulation such as HDR.

Here's an example of bokeh. When we can do this with our phone, it will be huge IMO:



---------- Post added 2013-05-11 at 09:23 AM ----------

I thought it was a pretty well known fact that Verizon in fact completely STOPPED rolling out FIOS have no plans for further implementation. Google is the only hope for America right now. Big telecom and the FCC are completely stacked against the consumer.

I do live in Japan and have fiber to my house. I only pay $70/month for a 200 Mbps pipe, but for another $25 I could have the full 1Gbps. It is amazing.

The cost to roll out fiber in Japan, or any other small country with crazy high overall population density is a drop in the bucket compared to what it would cost the US to even be 35% wired for fiber. That's the main issue at the moment. The US is huge in land mass in comparison to all of the current countries with near 80%~ coverage.

That same issue also stands when looking at the cost to the consumer. One of the main reason's it's so cheap for the customer is because the ISP providing it didn't spend nearly as much as a company like Verizon did laying fiber. Verizon dropped nearly $25,000,000,000 (that's billion) to cover only 8~ million people. To cover the entire country they would have ended up dumping trillions, and no ISP (even if they're as big as big V) can afford that.

[Deleted]

I know very little of monitor's in general, but there's a trend that happens to similar technical markets for as long as I can remember.

Selling points change. I feel, at some point, we'll have reached a PPI that's so close to realism, it'll stop being a selling point. Every screen, including the new tamagotchi's, will be 4K screens with 0.05mm pixel size.

4K (3840 x 2160 pixels) with a dot pitch of ~0.05mm would mean a screen size of 8.7". These values are in direct correlation. A 0.05mm dot pitch on a 27" screen means a resolution of 10880 x 6120 (or thereabouts).

I personally would love to pay for a ~300 PPI screen (around 27", perhaps slightly smaller) but see absolutely no reason to go above that.

[Killora]

4K (3840 x 2160 pixels) with a dot pitch of ~0.05mm would mean a screen size of 8.7". These values are in direct correlation. A 0.05mm dot pitch on a 27" screen means a resolution of 10880 x 6120 (or thereabouts).

I personally would love to pay for a ~300 PPI screen (around 27", perhaps slightly smaller) but see absolutely no reason to go above that.

To be honest, i don't think we can even make that assessment till we see for ourselves what it looks like. I don't even know how 4k res looks (on one monitor) vs 1920x1080 or 2560x1600. Let alone....that...huge resolution.

Higher resolution does mean a better ability to zoom in though, not that that's useful for gaming, but can be for other things.

[Deleted]

4K (3840 x 2160 pixels) with a dot pitch of ~0.05mm would mean a screen size of 8.7". These values are in direct correlation. A 0.05mm dot pitch on a 27" screen means a resolution of 10880 x 6120 (or thereabouts).

I personally would love to pay for a ~300 PPI screen (around 27", perhaps slightly smaller) but see absolutely no reason to go above that.

My bad, I thought it simply meant pixels per inch, didn't realize it's directly linked to screen size. I guess I mean dots per inch. Or.. something along those lines.

[Riaya]

For actual pixel resolution I do not see it stopping seemingly ever. But as for bandwidth constraints you will not be needing huge fiber networks everywhere to transport it. Read this article. It explains them coming out with H265, which uses a 3rd less bandwidth than the current H264 uses and it has been discussed it being able to stream 1080p without buffering constantly on 56k modem (Not that any of us want 56k lol). But the fact is as the tech on resolution changes so does the tech on video/audio change in order to be more efficient.

[Deleted]

To be honest, i don't think we can even make that assessment till we see for ourselves what it looks like. I don't even know how 4k res looks (on one monitor) vs 1920x1080 or 2560x1600. Let alone....that...huge resolution.

Sure I can. I own ~100, ~320 and ~470 PPI screens and can based on that say that the clarity of a 300 PPI screen at ~60 cm would be amazing and that a 400 PPI+ would mean no direct benefit for me (=my eyesight). Based on that I can conclude that a 300 PPI screen would be sweet and I would be willing to pay for it, given I have the hardware to properly drive it. Sure, it's a few years away, but that doesn't change my (theoretical, I guess) sweet-spot. E.g. if my sweet-spot would be 100 PPI I would stick with my current screen until it breaks down completely.

This is not about a given resolution, but rather about a given amount of pixels within a fixed size, i.e. the clarity/detail of the screen.

[Flaim]

a resolution higher than "100 relative ppi" is unnecessary, as your eyes don't have that resolution on their own.
100 relative ppi = 100 ppi screen being (afaik) 1m away from your eyes
and higher relative ppi is a waste of resources.

[BicycleMafioso]

2560*1440 for 24" perhaps.
I still see merit for 4K in the size though, since it's the perfect scaling resolution (1080p content 2x2, 720p 3x3).
Farewell AA.