But... 17" computer monitors can't display 1920x1200. It's unheard of for a 22" monitor to get that high, unless you're speaking in terms of laptops.

Anyways, televisions with 2160p are on the way. Quad Full High Definition. Be very afraid ;)


Yeah my 21" widescreen monitor only goes 1600X1050, it will do some HD resolutions, but not 1920X1200 though. I can get it to do 1440X720, I think, or is it 1280X720...I'll have to check tonight.

So since 2160p us on the way, this thread is moot? LOL jk

I have 23 inch 1680 x 1050 monitor. It's just not the same thing. Even my 4 year old Samsung 50 inch 720p DLP monitor is much better at handling 1080i than my PC monitor. The PC monitor even with built-in Faroudja DCDi just does not display 1080i as gracefully. I feel the DCDi is probably only effective for 480i. At 1080i, it bobs fields losing vertical resolution and adds stairstepping artifacts. The Samsung by comparison is totally absent those artifacts in spite of the lower native resolution. To be fair, that old Samsung I think was screwed together tighter figuratively than the newer oversharpened DNIe equipped models. Even so, the convergence between PC monitors and HDTV's has a long way to improve upon, and it's more than just PC monitor resolutions to make smooth artifact free motion happen. The reverse is true also, an HDTV monitor is not suited as well for PC applications.

Note: I am not inviting the "I"m a PC...I'm a Mac" jokes, not deliberately at least...

But as far as quad full high defintion on PC monitors, "Be not very afraid" They have not yet covered even the basics of proper HDTV display fundamentals.

But... 17" computer monitors can't display 1920x1200. It's unheard of for a 22" monitor to get that high, unless you're speaking in terms of laptops.

Anyways, televisions with 2160p are on the way. Quad Full High Definition. Be very afraid ;)
It is an UXGA on a Dell Inpsiron 9400 (a laptop). I got it specifically to watch 1080p content in native resolution. Gorgeous screen. I have to bump the fonts up to 120 dpi for them to be legible, but then even they look nicer.

As for 2160p - my eyes just aren't that good. With my glasses on I can't really resolve pixels in a properly sized 1080p image (I do much better at resolving film grain). I'm sure compositors and archives will like the higher resolution format... but this brings an interesting dilemma...

How long are any of these formats going to be around? Is there really going to be a push to 2160p? It seems that level of detail is excessive for delivery (not acquisition). I'm sure it's a marketable technology, but pretty soon people won't be able to see the difference.

-Steve