• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Why no 2560X1600 monitors bigger than 30"?

AML

Prominent Member
So im using one of those 30 inchers at 2560X1600 but ive always wondered why they havent made them bigger than 30"?

If we look at 40", 50", and bigger LCD "TV's" out there that support 1920X1080 (Full HD).
They offer amazing picture quality, so with an even higher resolution like 2560 X 1600 why on earth cant those monitors be bigger?

A technical answer? or economic?
 

boxrick

Prominent Member
So im using one of those 30 inchers at 2560X1600 but ive always wondered why they havent made them bigger than 30"?

If we look at 40", 50", and bigger LCD "TV's" out there that support 1920X1080 (Full HD).
They offer amazing picture quality, so with an even higher resolution like 2560 X 1600 why on earth cant those monitors be bigger?

A technical answer? or economic?

Who would need a monitor bigger than 30" your head would be swinging all over the place?

I use a couple of these dell monitors .. unless im sat further back i couldn't possibly think of the benefit of a bigger one is. If im sat further back the resolution would be so massive i wouldnt be able to see anything.... :thumbsup:

Maybe im talking utter rubbish but this is what i believe to be the case...
 

AML

Prominent Member
Valid point, but these days people are using PCs for more than desktop activites.

I myself often watch HD content (blu rays and HD downloads) on my PC and I would love to have a bigger monitor to watch them on.
(without loosing resolution).

My guess is that people could simply sit further back!

Im sure eventually dell and such will launch bigger screens with the same resolution!
Maybe even tout them as Super Hi Def (2160p)
 

boxrick

Prominent Member
Valid point, but these days people are using PCs for more than desktop activites.

I myself often watch HD content (blu rays and HD downloads) on my PC and I would love to have a bigger monitor to watch them on.
(without loosing resolution).

My guess is that people could simply sit further back!

Im sure eventually dell and such will launch bigger screens with the same resolution!
Maybe even tout them as Super Hi Def (2160p)

Thing is blu rays and hi def content will look worse on a 2560 x 1600 screen than on a 1920 x 1080p screen.... Because of scaling required and 16:10 instead of 16:9..... Ontop of that 720p is barely even needed for 40" screens .... so anything beyond 1080p at this current point is utterly pointless imho...

Maybe if i was a graphics designer with binoculars then it may be of some use? :p

2560 X 1600 is difficult enough resolution to push in games for modern gfx cards anyway... even a GTX295 struggles in the most modern games... barely going above 40fps...
 
Last edited:

AML

Prominent Member
This is defo a problem for me. Even with 2 cards (albeit old-ish ones) in SLi im struggling with a lot of games.

But when they do perfrom well, they look glorious! :D

Well, im really thinking about going down to a 1920X1200 monitor, but then we have the same issue with size. Monitors at that lower res are even smaller than the 2560X1600 ones.

Another thing is the aspect ratio issue. 16:9 and 16:10. Why on earth are these PC monitors such a weird ratio?

Surely they must realize that it makes life harder considering most displays are now 16:9.

Bravia or Aquos. Lower res, but still high enough to make games look good. And also the native res for Blu Rays and other HD content I watch on my PC.

Perhaps a 40" Aquos might be a good choice?

Well anyway, lets hope they do release larger monitors!
 

Cyril

Established Member
I guess it's down to cost/demand.

If costs of making 42" 2560x1600 come down then they will get released.

Once everybody has an octo core 100ghz cpu with 12GB quad-SLI graphics that easily handle 2560x1600 at 60fps then there will be a big demand for big hi-res screens :)

I would love an 85" 2560x1600 screen for the living room :)
 

Phill1978

Established Member
as mentioned there really is no need for a smaller screen to have 4,6,8 million pixel display (as most have simular with sub pixel resolution anyways)

at 30" display you need to be a decent distance away so as not to have to move your eyes or head too much, its the limit for me and i can only see it being usefull for video and 3d modelling where you can concentrate on one bit of the screen at a time, for gaming too large is pointless (actually makes aiming harder !)

ok sat 4 meters away a 84-90" PJ screen is awesome and there is enough space for your eyes to take in the glory and indeed POSSBILY benefit from a 'slight' increase in res i.e 3.5 million pixel as opposed to blueray 2.07 million pixel

but honestly the crispness and detail of a really good pj at 3.8-4 meters away at 84" (what i run) is more than enough.. why ? because i need to stand 25cm away from the screen of that size to see the pixel grid and even then im squinting.

blueray can improve by less compression at the same res using RAW data, but sadly hdmi 1.4 will bring on 4 megapixel with the same compression hence 99% of people will never really see a massive difference.


when you watch blueray on a monitor it never seems to look quite as good as a softer tv image, in fact there can be too much grain and banding on a bad transfer... again.. its not more resolution thats needed on 30"-40" display its less image compression, even cgi pixar movies on blueray are compressed and they look amazing still


ive seen 2560x1600 display from apple and its that actual screen quality that counts not the resolution !!
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Is 8K TV dead? Philips OLED+907, Pioneer LX505 AVR plus B&W 700 S3 Reviews & Visit + AV/HiFi News
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom