You know what pisses me off? 1080p computer monitors!
That's right!
I'm no expert on monitors, but the sudden proliferation of computer monitors whose native resolution is 1920 x 1080 (1080p) strikes me as extremely gimmicky and lame. Ever since 1995, it seems, computer monitors have had much better resolutions than TVs, and this makes a lot of sense. The TV will usually be further away, making individual pixels less relevant than in computer monitors, which are right in your face. People never even talked about TV's resolution because it was standardized and unimpressive.
Then came HDTV, and lo, there was wonderment. High definition is great, don't get me wrong. It's a huge improvement over standard television. But why does this have to mean that every large computer monitor I see these days has 1080p resolution?
For one thing, the width-to-height ratio (16:9) is dreadful when you consider just how much more important the vertical real estate on a computer screen is: for the most part we're playing computer games and reading much more than we watch HDTV. I have a friend who had almost the same complaint as this, but he was railing against widescreen in general. Me, I still love widescreen (usually 16:10--big difference, I know) because I feel it provides the most flexibility. Just give me more pixels!
The way it really hits me is this: right now my monitor is WSXGA+, which is 1680 x 1050. If I could only upgrade to 1080p, I'd ultimately be adding 240 horizontal pixels and 30 vertical ones. What's the point? I would like someday to have a larger monitor, but the actual value I'd get from such a small resolution bump would be negligible, so unless things like WQXGA (2560 x 1600) are still around I will be a very sad little goat.
Here's to hoping, ladies and gents.
I'm no expert on monitors, but the sudden proliferation of computer monitors whose native resolution is 1920 x 1080 (1080p) strikes me as extremely gimmicky and lame. Ever since 1995, it seems, computer monitors have had much better resolutions than TVs, and this makes a lot of sense. The TV will usually be further away, making individual pixels less relevant than in computer monitors, which are right in your face. People never even talked about TV's resolution because it was standardized and unimpressive.
Then came HDTV, and lo, there was wonderment. High definition is great, don't get me wrong. It's a huge improvement over standard television. But why does this have to mean that every large computer monitor I see these days has 1080p resolution?
For one thing, the width-to-height ratio (16:9) is dreadful when you consider just how much more important the vertical real estate on a computer screen is: for the most part we're playing computer games and reading much more than we watch HDTV. I have a friend who had almost the same complaint as this, but he was railing against widescreen in general. Me, I still love widescreen (usually 16:10--big difference, I know) because I feel it provides the most flexibility. Just give me more pixels!
The way it really hits me is this: right now my monitor is WSXGA+, which is 1680 x 1050. If I could only upgrade to 1080p, I'd ultimately be adding 240 horizontal pixels and 30 vertical ones. What's the point? I would like someday to have a larger monitor, but the actual value I'd get from such a small resolution bump would be negligible, so unless things like WQXGA (2560 x 1600) are still around I will be a very sad little goat.
Here's to hoping, ladies and gents.
Labels: computers
