Basics of resolution specs explained

[Watashi]

So I don't know much about resolution. I know what a pixel is, a little tiny dot that can be changed colors. But whenever something like 3440 x 1440p is said to be the resolution of a monitor. To be entirely honest, I'm not entirely sure what these numbers translate too. I think that the "1440p" has something to do with the pixel count, but I'm not even sure.

[Lurick]

3440 pixels across by 1440 pixels up/down and I believe multiplying 3440x1440 would give you total pixels.

[Watashi]

3 hours ago, Lurick said:

3440 pixels across by 1440 pixels up/down and I believe multiplying 3440x1440 would give you total pixels.

3,440 pixels going horizontally across the screen, and 1440 pixels going vertically up/down the screen? So under those parameters if I drew a pixel sized line across my screen there would be 3,440 in said line?

[Lurick]

Just now, Doomerson said:

3,440 pixels going horizontally across the screen, and 1440 pixels going vertically up/down the screen? So under those parameters if I drew a pixel sized line across my screen there would be 3,440 in said line?

Yes.

Now you can get wider or shorter monitors which would obviously impact the pixels per inch or pixel density but the number of pixels will remain the same.

[Watashi]

3 hours ago, Lurick said:

Yes.

Now you can get wider or shorter monitors which would obviously impact the pixels per inch or pixel density but the number of pixels will remain the same.

but ultimately, more pixels are better. Correct?

[Lurick]

1 minute ago, Doomerson said:

but ultimately, more pixels are better. Correct?

Depends, more pixels also requires more GPU power to deliver, especially in gaming and too many pixels in a small area makes the difference almost impossible to notice after a certain point.

[Light-Yagami]

Okay. I'm going to explain it to you plain and simple.

 

Imagine a square. This square has 1000 pixels horizontally and 1000 pixels vertically. To get the total number of pixels, you multiply the amount of hirozontal pixels with the amount of vertical pixels. In this case, that means 1000 x 1000. You get 1 000 000, which is 1 million pixels.

 

You call a 1080p screen because it has 1080 verticall pixels. Same with 1440p, 2160p and so on. It's the amount of vertical pixels on display.

 

Why to you call some resolution 2k, 2.5k, 4k and so on? Because that's the aproximation of horizontal pixels on display.

 

1920 by 1080 is 2K, because 1920 is close to 2000

2560 by 1440 is 2.5k, because 2560 is close to 2500

3840 by 2160 is 4K, because 3840 is close to 4000

 

and so on. 

 

Don't confuse total pixel count with 2k, 2.5k, 4k and so on. 

 

a 1440p screen has 77% more pixels than 1080p screen, even tho you refer to the first one as 2.5k screen and the second one 2k. 

 

If you have any question or you need something explained, go ahead and ask.

[Watashi]

3 hours ago, Lurick said:

Depends, more pixels also requires more GPU power to deliver, especially in gaming and too many pixels in a small area makes the difference almost impossible to notice after a certain point.

So heres my question, would a smaller panel that is 3440 by 1440p theoretically look better than a wider one?

[Bananasplit_00]

6 minutes ago, Doomerson said:

but ultimately, more pixels are better. Correct?

the thing you are more likely to note is the pixel density to be honest, but @Lurick has basically said what needs to be said already here

[Bananasplit_00]

Just now, Doomerson said:

So heres my question, would a smaller panel that is 3440 by 1440p theoretically look better than a wider one?

to a point, possiably. the optimal PPI(pixels per inch) is generally considerd to be around 100 or so, but i personally prefer larger screens so my 32" 1440p id take any day over a 22" or whatever size 1440p panel even though it has a lower pixels per inch number

[Lurick]

9 minutes ago, Doomerson said:

So heres my question, would a smaller panel that is 3440 by 1440p theoretically look better than a wider one?

That depends, are we talking 32" vs 27" or something like 32" vs 40"?

[Light-Yagami]

1 minute ago, Doomerson said:

So heres my question, would a smaller panel that is 3440 by 1440p theoretically look better than a wider one?

I'll put it this way.

 

The more pixels, the better. But the most important thing in my opinion is to take size into consideration. You have screen that are different sizes. anywhere from 21 inch and up to 34 inch and higher. 

 

What you really want to achieve is the OPTIMAL pixels density according to display size. a 21 inch screen with 1080p resolution (cca 2 million pixels (1920x1080)) will look good, because pixel density is 105 ppi (pixels per inch), but a 27 inch screen with a 1080p resolution would only have 82 ppi, which is really bad. So even tho you'd have a bigger screen, the effective resolution and workspace wouldn't increase. It would just "strech" if that makes any sense. It would look a lot more pixelated. 

 

My go to is 1440p for up to 25 inch screens and 2160p or 4K for anything above that. 

 

A 27 inch screen with 4k resolution has a pixel density of 163ppi, which is a lot. it is in fact 4 times more pixels as 1080p (81.5ppi at 27 inch)

That makes for sharper picture. Many 27 inch displays are 1440p, but that's to low for me personally.

 

It's all just simpel maths, nothing complicated.

 

 

[Enderman]

12 minutes ago, Doomerson said:

So heres my question, would a smaller panel that is 3440 by 1440p theoretically look better than a wider one?

Yeah because it will have a higher density, but past a certain point you can't really tell a difference.

Also, you usually want larger size because if you go to small then you either need to scale things up (and windows scaling sucks) or you will barely be able to see the things you are clicking on.

The sweet spot for 3440x1440 is about 30-36"

[Lurick]

6 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Yeah because it will have a higher density, but past a certain point you can't really tell a difference.

Also, you usually want larger size because if you go to small then you either need to scale things up (and windows scaling sucks) or you will barely be able to see the things you are clicking on.

The sweet spot for 3440x1440 is about 30-36"

I'd agree.

2560x1440 is pretty nice around the 27" to 30" mark and 4K is just way too small in that same range.

[Watashi]

3 hours ago, Light-Yagami said:

Okay. I'm going to explain it to you plain and simple.

 

Imagine a square. This square has 1000 pixels horizontally and 1000 pixels vertically. To get the total number of pixels, you multiply the amount of hirozontal pixels with the amount of vertical pixels. In this case, that means 1000 x 1000. You get 1 000 000, which is 1 million pixels.

 

You call a 1080p screen because it has 1080 verticall pixels. Same with 1440p, 2160p and so on. It's the amount of vertical pixels on display.

 

Why to you call some resolution 2k, 2.5k, 4k and so on? Because that's the aproximation of horizontal pixels on display.

 

1920 by 1080 is 2K, because 1920 is close to 2000

2560 by 1440 is 2.5k, because 2560 is close to 2500

3840 by 2160 is 4K, because 3840 is close to 4000

 

and so on. 

 

Don't confuse total pixel count with 2k, 2.5k, 4k and so on. 

 

a 1440p screen has 77% more pixels than 1080p screen, even tho you refer to the first one as 2.5k screen and the second one 2k. 

 

If you have any question or you need something explained, go ahead and ask.

Great explanation, very easy to understand aswell  

[Light-Yagami]

30 minutes ago, Lurick said:

I'd agree.

2560x1440 is pretty nice around the 27" to 30" mark and 4K is just way too small in that same range.

I've a 25 inch 1440p and it looks pixelated as hell to me.

 

When 4k becomes the standard in a year or two, I'll get 27 inch 4k 120hz monitor or sth and that will be it. And then 5k and so on.

[Lurick]

Just now, Light-Yagami said:

I've a 25 inch 1440p and it looks pixelated as hell to me.

 

When 4k becomes the standard in a year or two, I'll get 27 inch 4k 120hz monitor or sth and that will be it. And then 5k and so on.

Really? I couldn't stand 4K at 28", I had to upscale it to 1440p essentially.