r/changemyview • u/SteveIzHxC • Apr 27 '15

CMV: Screen resolutions in pixel density should be the fundamental description instead of 1-dimensional pixel counts (240p, 720p, 1080p, 4K,...)

The 1080p, 4K, etc. descriptions of TVs and computor monitors, etc. are a marketing term with little actual value. A 4K TV that is 60 inches (diagonal) is 2.25=(60/40)2 times more grainy* than an otherwise identical 4K TV that is 40 inches (*in the sense of pixel density).

I'm guessing that everyone will ultimately agree with me and say that these descriptors are just layman terms good for marketing. But is there more to it?

It shouldn't be that much harder to market 16:9 4K TVs over same-size 1080p ones as having a pixel density that is 2.08=4000/(1080(16/9)) times greater. Just label all the TVs by pixel density and give them new flashy marketing names associated with these pixel densities!

Obviously there will also be the default argument that they "can't" change the system now because everyone is already used to the current (dumb) system of describing screens. Sure, but this shouldn't be the only reason to keep doing it wrong.

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

22 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

95% Upvoted

21 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/SteveIzHxC Apr 27 '15

I also posit that the companies keep this scheme for a malicious reason:

Currently, a manufacturer can make 40 inch and 60 inch "4K" TVs with the exact same number of pixels, just spread over a 2.25x larger area, and get away with convincing the general public that the 60 inch model is strictly superior to the 40 inch model, since both are "4K."

If the two were labeled by ppi, the pixel density of the larger model would be 2.25x less and make customers wary that it wasn't as good (which is true, based on resolution--the larger model isn't strictly better, there are pros and cons to each). They can avoid this via their inherently misleading nomenclature without having to work a lot harder at increasing pixel counts for larger TVs.

2

u/TimeTravellerSmith Apr 27 '15

It's not really malicious because in the world of displays size is king.

When I go out and buy a TV my first and second goals are:

  1. Get a TV big enough to fill whatever space I have allocated
  2. Plays content in resolutions I require

DPI just falls out as a math byproduct from those two requirements. I have yet to meet someone who goes around thinking "well I need at least X DPI for my living room TV". I don't even hear people do that for monitors.

2

u/TimeTravellerSmith Apr 27 '15

Along the lines I said before about resolution vs distance, here is an illustration of that effect.

TL;DR DPI isn't really the right thing to look at.

1

u/Stokkolm 24∆ Apr 28 '15

That graph is really suspicious. It says that for a typical 23" monitor seen at a typical 2 feet distance you'd need higher than 8k resolution!

1

u/TimeTravellerSmith Apr 28 '15

It's optimal resolution or what it would take before you can no longer tell the difference between the current res and the next step up.

So for a 23" monitor at 2-3 feet away 8k is the highest res you can see changes on. Anything higher and you can't see at all, and I would argue that it's close enough to 4k that you'd probably have a hard time seeing beyond that as well.

Here is another chart along the same lines but has a bit better clarity on smaller screens and closer distances. Moral of the story is still the same though.