Why is resolution not measured in pixel density?

[MitchG_]

Wouldn't it be easier to find out more about a monitor by getting it's pixel desnity. for example a 25" 4k monitor would be much better than a 75" 4k TV, why isn't pixel desnity it's main selling point rather than resolution

[ARikozuM]

Because 24" 122ppi monitor doesn't say as much as 24" 2560x1440. 

[FamedCaeser41]

In terms of people being able to figure out if their system can run it, if it's standardized by pixels it gives better sense

[SansVarnic]

I prefer to know if I am buying a 1080, 1440 or 2160 instead of just 4K....

[emosun]

because pixel density doesn't have much to do with the actual spec of the monitor. The technical aspect is much more important to know. 

what refresh rate , what res , are more important than how close they squeezed the pixels.

 

the fact that the monitor is smaller is self explanatory that the pixels are closer together.

[minervx]

20 minutes ago, MitchG_ said:

Wouldn't it be easier to find out more about a monitor by getting it's pixel desnity. for example a 25" 4k monitor would be much better than a 75" 4k TV, why isn't pixel desnity it's main selling point rather than resolution

1) Pixel density is less of an issue for monitors than for tablets and phones.  A 125 PPI is a gorgeous 1440p monitor versus an acceptable phone screen.

 

2) Measuring in PPI would insinuate that higher is inherently better.  And no, a 500 PPI monitor isn't significantly better quality than a 300 PPI one.

 

3) Immersion is a key factor which is also overlooked.  It is difficult to quantify, of course.  But maybe one would prefer to have a 30" 1440p that immerses them into whatever task their doing than to look at a 24" 1440p screen which is pixel dense but surrounded by drywall in the periphery.

[dizmo]

Because the numbers are small and small numbers don't sell.

Same reason they don't use megapixel when describing them. Compared to cameras they sound awful.

[PlayStation 2]

@emosun nailed it. You go in buying a large ass (let's say 65") television knowing the pixel density won't be as tight as a 40" or so screen, but you're also very likely to be sitting from a farther distance. Resolution, refresh rate, all that shit, matters more than pixel density.

[minervx]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

@emosun nailed it. You go in buying a large ass (let's say 65") television knowing the pixel density won't be as tight as a 40" or so screen, but you're also very likely to be sitting from a farther distance. Resolution, refresh rate, all that shit, matters more than pixel density.

 

Pixel density only matters if it isn't appallingly low.  And yes, viewing distance is crucial.  My 100 PPI monitor looks much better than my 100 PPI laptop.

[minervx]

I also think that higher resolutions can tolerate less density in general.  

 

I'd take a 100 PPI 4K display in a heartbeat over a 200 PPI 720p display

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

46 minutes ago, MitchG_ said:

Wouldn't it be easier to find out more about a monitor by getting it's pixel desnity. for example a 25" 4k monitor would be much better than a 75" 4k TV, why isn't pixel desnity it's main selling point rather than resolution

Because that requires an additional calculation for the customer to find out the amount of pixels they have to work with on the display.

 

Also, pixel density changes with relation to the size of the display. Resolution is not affected by display size. 1080P on a 24" display has just as many pixels as a 1080P 42" display. On the contrary, a 24" display that has 122ppi has less resolution than a 27" display with 122ppi. That would cause massive confusion among your average joe consumer. 

[Arika]

the answer is in your title. Because resolution is measured in resolution and the pixel density is measured in it's pixel density

[ThreatZone]

Correct me if i am wrong but if my self searching of phones tells me that the amount of pixel density and screen resolution does not scale together or there is no preset value of PPI for the resolution. Just like monitors, phones display specs that i have seen has 1080P and 401PPI.While another phone has 1080P and 500+PPI.  In the end u can have low amount of PPI and high resolution but there is a limit as it will look really bad or just not as good..

 

Examples: OPPO R11 & Samsung S8

 

 

[handymanshandle]

10 hours ago, emosun said:

because pixel density doesn't have much to do with the actual spec of the monitor. The technical aspect is much more important to know. 

what refresh rate , what res , are more important than how close they squeezed the pixels.

 

the fact that the monitor is smaller is self explanatory that the pixels are closer together.

Of course this and the fact that a 70" UHD display is going to have the same amount of pixels as a 10" UHD display. The density of those pixels is determined by the screen size. a UHD display is 8.29 Megapixels roughly (8,294,400 pixels) no matter the size of the screen it's always going to have that many pixels if it is a 3840x2160 display (UHD/"4K").

[Glenwing]

Well, people seem to be answering "why do we place a big emphasis on resolution rather than pixel density".

 

The reason we don't measure resolution in pixel density is because it isn't a measure of resolution, it's a measure of pixel density. A 24" 1080p screen will show the exact same image as a 21" 1080p screen and will allow you to resolve the exact same detail. Making the screen larger (and pixel density smaller) doesn't give the screen lower or higher resolution.

 

The concept of OS scaling, where the size of the screen is taken into account and the image is changed accordingly, is a relatively new concept which is why pixel density is not the main spec that has been used up to this point.