Hardware & Technical Your Display Resolution for Elite:Dangerous

What display will you use?

  • VGA Video Graphics Array 640×480 (307k) 4:3

    Votes: 7 1.9%

  • SVGA 800×600 (480k) 4:3

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • XGA 1024×768 (786k) 4:3

    Votes: 2 0.5%

  • XGA+ 1152×864 (995k) 4:3

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • HD 1360×768 (1044k) 16:9

    Votes: 13 3.6%

  • WXGA 1280×800 (1024k) 16:10

    Votes: 3 0.8%

  • SXGA 1280×1024 (1310k) 5:4

    Votes: 6 1.6%

  • SXGA+ 1400×1050 (1470k) 4:3

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • WXGA+ (WSXGA) 1440×900 (1296k) 16:10

    Votes: 8 2.2%

  • HD+ 1600×900 (1440k) 16:9

    Votes: 7 1.9%

  • UXGA 1600×1200 (1920k) 4:3

    Votes: 6 1.6%

  • WSXGA+ 1680×1050 (1764k) 16:10

    Votes: 14 3.8%

  • Full-HD 1920×1080 (2073k) 16:9

    Votes: 172 47.3%

  • WUXGA 1920×1200 (2304k) 16:10

    Votes: 66 18.1%

  • 2K 2048×1080 (2212k) 1.8962:1

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • QXGA 2048×1536 (3146k) 4:3

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • WQHD 2560×1440 (3686k) 16:9

    Votes: 27 7.4%

  • WQXGA 2560×1600 (4096k) 16:10

    Votes: 17 4.7%

  • QWXGA+ 2880×1800 (5184k) 16:10

    Votes: 4 1.1%

  • 4K UHD 3840×2160 (8294k) 16:9

    Votes: 12 3.3%
  • Total voters
    364
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

JohnP

JohnP
Kerrash said:
Yeah, you are right. It is just one of my bug bears to see the PC industry held back by console and TV manufacturers.;)
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I had a 24" 1920x1200 for years before HD TV became a big deal and now I've moved to 27" 2560x1440 ... the idea that 1920x1080 is a 'high' resolution is comedic!
 

Kerrash

Kerrash
JohnP said:
Absolutely. I had a 24" 1920x1200 for years before HD TV became a big deal and now I've moved to 27" 2560x1440 ... the idea that 1920x1080 is a 'high' resolution is comedic!
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, seems ludicrous. Especially now when they are going on about 4K and the like being so good. We should all have that already :(
 

Davidtq

D
JohnP said:
Absolutely. I had a 24" 1920x1200 for years before HD TV became a big deal and now I've moved to 27" 2560x1440 ... the idea that 1920x1080 is a 'high' resolution is comedic!
Click to expand...


Indeed I was running higher resolutions than "HD" in the late 90's with better than 60hz refresh. Now 1920x1080 on a 5" phone screen on the other hand is actually a nice impressive resolution...

Keep that pixel pitch and scale it up to decent size desktop monitors would be ideal. Im pretty sure many current graphics cards could run like that no problem as long as the AA is switched off which would no longer be needed due to the native high resolution.
 

Mobius

Mobius
Have to say that’s a very extensive poll.
For me when the wife is watching TV I will be on my 22” Samsung monitor, but when the TV is free I’ll be playing at 50” 1080p.
 

zmurf

zmurf
JohnP said:
Absolutely. I had a 24" 1920x1200 for years before HD TV became a big deal and now I've moved to 27" 2560x1440 ... the idea that 1920x1080 is a 'high' resolution is comedic!
Click to expand...

1920x1080 IS high resolution for TV/movies... We won't need higher resolution than that for TV And movies until people starting to get 120 inch TVs. For computers and games is a totaly different thing. There you want higher resolution to be able to cram more things in on the screen at the same time. In this case 1920x1080 is a low or medium resolution.

The eye itself can't distinguish the difference between 1280x720 and 1920x1080 on a 32 inch TV if you sit a couple of meters from it when you are watching a movie or playing a console based game. But of course if you are working on the screens with a computer you will directly notice the difference since the lowres screen will have larger icons, menus, and so on
 
Last edited:

yeehi

yeehi
Mazhurg said:
Either 5780*1080 (Eyefinity) or 1080p (OR)

Neither in your pool though.
Click to expand...

Hi, Mazhurg! Thanks for looking at the poll.

1080p would likely be Full HD. (Only the vertical pixel count has been provided.)

Sorry about not including a multi-monitor option in the poll, everybody. I was so focused on the details in making the poll that I literally forgot about the big-picture! Maybe people have selected the last option to represent their multi-monitor setup. That sort of display isn't available to the ordinary consumer in a single screen.

Do you all think I should include multi monitor in the poll? We would need to respond again. A lot of people have answered already and may not bother again...

EDIT:

I can't seem to edit the poll. If you have a multi-monitor setup, please choose the 4K option at the bottom. Sorry about not including your setup in the poll.
 
Last edited:

Davidtq

D
zmurf said:
1920x1080 IS high resolution for TV/movies... We won't need higher resolution than that for TV And movies until people starting to get 120 inch TVs. For computers and games is a totaly different thing. There you want higher resolution to be able to cram more things in on the screen at the same time. In this case 1920x1080 is a low or medium resolution.

The eye itself can't distinguish the difference between 1280x720 and 1920x1080 on a 32 inch TV if you sit a couple of meters from it when you are watching a movie or playing a console based game. But of course if you are working on the screens with a computer you will directly notice the difference since the lowres screen will have larger icons, menus, and so on
Click to expand...

Plenty of people are already at well over 100" from projectors. I have been for 8 years now (with upgrades along the way). You can get very very used to big screens, and when you visit houses with a traditional set up even a 50" TV seems so very small :(. Projectors are cheap these days even 3d ones can be had for not too much money.
 

zmurf

zmurf
Davidtq said:
Plenty of people are already at well over 100" from projectors. I have been for 8 years now (with upgrades along the way).
Click to expand...
Yes... but you are hardly a majority. And for watching TV/movies on 120"+ the 4k standard will be enough by far. I understand that the few people that acctually get 100"+ screens wants 4k resolution. But for the vast majority that probably never will buy a TV larger then 40" (such as myself) it be little use for more then 1080p, if you don't use the TV as a computer monitor. And therefore there is little incentive for TV producers to build <100" TVs with more then 1080p panels. Which in its turn unfortunately make computer monitors with more then 1080p quite expensive.... there are far more TVs built then computer monitors. :(
 
Last edited:

Davidtq

D
zmurf said:
Yes... but you are hardly a majority. And for watching TV/movies on 120"+ the 4k standard will be enough by far. I understand that the few people that acctually get 100"+ screens wants 4k resolution. But for the vast majority that probably never will buy a TV larger then 40" (such as myself) it be little use for more then 1080p if you don't use the TV as a computer monitor. And therefore there is little incentive for TV producers to build <100" TVs with more then 1080p panels. Which in its turn unfortunately make computer monitors with more then 1080p quite expensive.... there are far more TVs built then computer monitors. :(
Click to expand...

Not in the majority but becoming more and more common.

I actually think there is very good motivation for higher than 1080 resolution for TV manufacturers. They have made everyone upgrade to 1080 thats pretty much the defacto standard, so now its time to start a new sales spree on upgrades by upping the resolution again. Otherwise people will keep their same "full hd" 1080 screen for 10 years instead of upgrading every few years.

Im not at all sure you would be right on tv's outnumbering computer monitors. Maybe its just the world I live in, but most homes I know off will have more computers than TV's. Almost every home nowdays has a computer as well as a TV, and business's have FAR more monitors than TV's on average... 1080 panels on PC's arent ones that were developed for TV's and then offloaded in pc monitors they were designed for pcs to fit the fashionable 1080 "fullhd" label. Theres no good technical reason for them to have stopped where they did, its just because 1080 was considered "desireable" for tv computer monitors stopped evolving and relied on the brand strength of 1080 to keep their competitors in line.
 

Pyros

P
zmurf said:
Yes... but you are hardly a majority. And for watching TV/movies on 120"+ the 4k standard will be enough by far. I understand that the few people that acctually get 100"+ screens wants 4k resolution. But for the vast majority that probably never will buy a TV larger then 40" (such as myself) it be little use for more then 1080p, if you don't use the TV as a computer monitor. And therefore there is little incentive for TV producers to build <100" TVs with more then 1080p panels. Which in its turn unfortunately make computer monitors with more then 1080p quite expensive.... there are far more TVs built then computer monitors. :(
Click to expand...

While *maybe* there are more TVs than computer monitors (personally I have a 2:3 in my house - 2 laptops and one desktop vs 2 TVs), there are far more mobile displays with far higher PPIs than the crappy TV one.

"Full HD" on a 32"+ TV is actually low res, adapted to a world of low bandwidth cable or aerial transmission.

What happened to computer displays in the past decade - specially laptops - was regretable. The rather bad 16:9 AR, low rez displays and 15.6" glossy displays :mad:

This is actually the only thing I do trully appreciate about Apple - they do care about the displays and push the industry forward in that regard.

We should be at far higher PPIs (and I still prefer the 16:10 AR). Problem is that not even the software helps (OS support needs to improve), so that a 3840x2400 24" has decent sized images (text in particular).
 
Last edited:

Davidtq

D
Pyros said:
While *maybe* there are more TVs than computer monitors (personally I have a 2:3 in my house - 2 laptops and one desktop vs 2 TVs), there are far more mobile displays with far hight PPI than the crappy TV one.

Full HD is actually low res, adapted to a world of low bandwidth cable or aerial transmission.

What happened to computer displays in the past decade - specially laptops - was regretable. The rather bad 16:9 AR, low rez displays and 15.6" glossy displays :mad:

This is actually the only think I do trully appreciate about Apple.

We should be at far higher PPIs (and I still prefer the 16:10 AR). Problem is that not even the software helps (OS support needs to improve), so that a 3840x2400 24" has decent sized images (text in particular).
Click to expand...

Ratio in our house is 8 Pc monitors + 8 android mobile device screens. No tv at all...
 

intrepidis

intrepidis
I didn't choose an option because I am going to get the most powerful laptop possible a few weeks before the launch of the game (not the alpha/beta versions). Therefore I don't know yet.
 

yeehi

yeehi
intrepidis said:
I didn't choose an option because I am going to get the most powerful laptop possible a few weeks before the launch of the game (not the alpha/beta versions). Therefore I don't know yet.
Click to expand...

Hehe! I bet you are looking forward to that. :)

Have you decided where you will source your laptop? Which components will be your priority? 1) Graphics Card 2) Quad core 3) SSD?
 

McCathie

M
I am just about to take delivery of a new 27 inch iMac, so hope to be playing at native 2560 x 1440. I ave the 680mx graphics so should handle higher quality settings.

Will probably wait till closer to the time to decide on whether to bootcamp or play in IOS. I just joined so will see if there any Mac posts!
 
Last edited:

intrepidis

intrepidis
yeehi said:
Hehe! I bet you are looking forward to that. :)

Have you decided where you will source your laptop? Which components will be your priority? 1) Graphics Card 2) Quad core 3) SSD?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm a software consultant by trade (a programmer) so I'll need a powerful processor, i.e. at least 8 cores. As for the graphics, I want it to have a flexible pipeline, but I'm not sure yet. Any ideas?

As for SSD, that for definite. They're getting bigger capacity and more reliable now, so by Elite's launch I should be able to get something real nice. :)
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom