On 05/04/2019 15.06, Simon Becherer wrote:
Am 05.04.19 um 13:42 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
On 05/04/2019 01.51, Felix Miata wrote:
Anton Aylward composed on 2019-04-04 17:13 (UTC-0400):
What would be nice is 2560X1600.
Those are seriously expensive. 2560x1440 can be had for half as much or less.
I'm curious. Why a particular resolution not that different from another is that expensive?
because it's more or less a business resolution. (aspect ratio 16:10) not the home/gamer/movie aspect_ratio (16:9).
Ah. Yes, a lot of us use displays that are also TV screens, designed mostly for multimedia. And they are cheaper than ever for sizes that years ago we could only dream about.
i use 2 pices (16:10) 2560x1600 flatron w3000h as double screen at one computer. on all my others i use 1920x1200 (16:10) what is mostly more expensive than 1920x1080 (16:9). and some weeks in past i tried to buy 1920x1200 in 4 different big media shops, none of them had only one in stock, answer of all shops: its not a tv-resolution /aspect ratio, so only a small amount of people like it. for me for business i prefer clearly 16:10.
But it is just a tiny bit bigger. Why not go for higher surface regardless of the aspect ratio? Or both things, more inches and more pixels?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildaufl%C3%B6sung (scroll down for the chart) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution (german side has more resolutions in the chart)
So many resolutions! :-o -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.0 x86_64 at Telcontar)