Jump to content
Banner by ~ Sparklefan1234

When will 1440p phase out 1080p


TheMarkz0ne
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am really not thrilled nor feeling rushed to upgrade my graphics card, let alone go get a 1440p monitor with HDMI 2.0.

 

We can't even get cable in 1080p, it's all 1080i because Comcast and Verizon are to cheap to rid the US of coaxial tech from the 50s. People can only stream 1080p, not everyone has good internet. So you see people who're buying these 4K 90 inch tvs, just wasting time and money.

 

My graphics card is mid ranged. It can support native 1080p with DVI or HDMI 1.0

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1080i is used for HDTV whether being live or a previous broadcast. I don't know anyone who has a 4k TV I bought a 1080p/i TV when the Sony 4k released :L

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1440p is a thing? It's going to be a long time before it's phased out considering don't even know what it is (then again, I'm not tech savvy lol). I've never seen that option on YouTube which is why I assume it'll be a while before it's finally phased out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1440p is a thing? It's going to be a long time before it's phased out considering don't even know what it is (then again, I'm not tech savvy lol). I've never seen that option on YouTube which is why I assume it'll be a while before it's finally phased out.

Yeah, 1440p has been a thing on the PC for a while. 1080p is still the most common resolution for gaming.

 

It was actually expected for 1440p to replace 1080p as the "standard" fully HD-compliant resolution in the 1980s because it is exactly 4 times the width and 3 times the height of 640x480. Hasn't quite happened yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Badges

Yeah, 1440p has been a thing on the PC for a while. 1080p is still the most common resolution for gaming.

 

It was actually expected for 1440p to replace 1080p as the "standard" fully HD-compliant resolution in the 1980s because it is exactly 4 times the width and 3 times the height of 640x480. Hasn't quite happened yet.

Yeah I forgot that these are obsolete resolutions. Government keeping all the good stuff to themselves =P

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Yeah I forgot that these are obsolete resolutions. Government keeping all the good stuff to themselves =P

1440p monitors (and even 4K monitors) exist for the general public to buy, they're just a bit expensive while everything below that is much cheaper. I've heard that importing 1440p or 1600p monitors from Korea is cheaper than buying one from America, even.

Hopefully those 1440p and 4K monitors announced at CES change that.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Badges

4k in home application is not needed unless you project your screen onto a wall.

 

In cinema that is another story and I feel it is needed there, again because of the huge image size.

 

It'll be a thing that doesn't catch on just like 3D. I'm 100% content with my non-3D 1080p monitor and tv since the distance I sit from them means they both look the same in quality to me. 720p at a certain distance looks the same as 1080p as well. So bumping to 4k just is a gimmick.

 

This article sums up my feelings: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57566079-221/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/

 

I wish 16:9 had never caught on in PCs if you ask me. 16:10 was better for internet, word processing, gaming, photoshop, etc. and should have become the standard for PCs. Who cares if there are tiny black bars when watching a movie, chances are they are there anyways.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1440p monitors (and even 4K monitors) exist for the general public to buy, they're just a bit expensive while everything below that is much cheaper. I've heard that importing 1440p or 1600p monitors from Korea is cheaper than buying one from America, even.

Hopefully those 1440p and 4K monitors announced at CES change that.

I think it's cheaper to go outside lol. We will never get close to the human eye and match it's resolution. Even someone with horrid eye sight like me curb stomps a 1440p monitor. I am desensitized to technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think it's cheaper to go outside lol. We will never get close to the human eye and match it's resolution. Even someone with horrid eye sight like me curb stomps a 1440p monitor. I am desensitized to technology.

I'm pretty sure 1440p is beautiful. I just got my hands on 1920x1080 last year. Huge upgrade from 1366x768.

And of course, you can't even get more realistic graphics than outside.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Badges

4k in home application is not needed unless you project your screen onto a wall.

 

In cinema that is another story and I feel it is needed there, again because of the huge image size.

 

It'll be a thing that doesn't catch on just like 3D. I'm 100% content with my non-3D 1080p monitor and tv since the distance I sit from them means they both look the same in quality to me. 720p at a certain distance looks the same as 1080p as well. So bumping to 4k just is a gimmick.

 

This article sums up my feelings: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57566079-221/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/

 

I wish 16:9 had never caught on in PCs if you ask me. 16:10 was better for internet, word processing, gaming, photoshop, etc. and should have become the standard for PCs. Who cares if there are tiny black bars when watching a movie, chances are they are there anyways.

I think they had to do that because when people were starting to buy blu rays in 2006, or HDDVD if you bought one in 2005. They realized that upscaling a 4:3 360/480p image would look horrific in 1080i. You can do more with a DVD on 16:9. If you want to go back even further imagine remastering and restoring 8mm for a 1080p/1440p image? Not hard for the tech experts obviously, but I can imagine it being a pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think 1080p is fine and I see no reason to go any higher. I mean not now anyway. Probably in 10 years 4k will be the prominent resolution for TVs and PC moniters

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Whatever by 1440 won't be replacing anything. True 4k (4096x2160) probably won't either. Realistically speaking the next "jump" will probably be 8k (most likely 7680 × 4320 for aspect ratio compatibility) with display link as the interface. DVI is old and busted and HDMI is rubbish to begin with. This is all progressive scan btw. I would be the farm on interlacing being phased out by the time 4k is "popular."

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Coax is actually capable of carrying 1080p signals. The wire that carries 1080p signals from a satellite to a receiver box is just good ol RG6 coax. And if coax wasn't able to carry 1080p video, then there would be no reason I could watch 1080p YouTube videos over my cable modem lol

 

Anyway, I'm pretty sure 1440p will phase out 1080p within the next decade, but there's no reason 1080p will be completely phased out. For example, my Galaxy S4 display is 1080p and I have a hard time telling that the pixel density is higher than that in my brother's iPhone 5, when the pixel density is actually considerably higher in the Galaxy (441 ppi for the Galaxy vs 326 ppi for the iPhone). Thus, I find little reason for mobile devices to have resolutions higher than 1920 x 1080. And even on my 23 inch desktop monitor, I have a tough time telling 720p from 1080p. I guess you would need a 27 inch monitor with 1440p capabilities to really tell much of a difference, but if you ask me, I'm not jumping on that bandwagon anytime soon. My 23 inch 1080p monitor only cost me $160. A name brand 27 inch 1440p monitor would run me in the ballpark of $700 to $900 and there isn't even much video available in 2560 x 1440. It exists, but it's so uncommon that I just have no reason to go for it right now. I'm gonna wait it out in hopes that the price of these monitors goes down. 

Edited by Space Woona
Link to comment
Share on other sites


4k is actually becoming a lot less expensive, so I think that's probably going to be the next standard fairly soon.  I mean, you can already buy 50 inch 4k televisions on Amazon for under 1k... 

 

That being said, I think they're going to have to figure out how to distribute more 4k content to make it a standard, so it'll probably still be a few years off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...