John Carmack coded Quake on a 28-inch 16:9 1080p monitor in 1995

Re:John Carmack coded Quake on a 28-inch 16:9 1080p monitor ... by patrickyeon on Tuesday September 20, 2011 @11:33PM (#3020637)

I think the 1080p craze is driven by consumer demand. For the average consumer (not a gamer, not a power user), the ultimate visual experience is an HD movie. There is no need for better quality than HD (1080p), because you won't find a source better than that, so the most sensible thing for a hardware provider is to deliver 1080p at the cheapest point possible. Or to improve on other areas than purely pixel count (colour accuracy, brightness, viewing angle...)

It's hard to keep in mind, but the majority of buyers, and therefore the majority of income, may not be like you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack coded Quake on a 28-inch 16:9 1080p monitor ... by guelo on Wednesday September 21, 2011 @12:06AM (#3020712)

Computer monitors are useful for much more than just full screen video. Even average users, working say a browser side by side with Word, would appreciate the extra real estate. Notice that Apple's monitors are now 2560x1440.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack coded Quake on a 28-inch 16:9 1080p monitor ... by typicalrunt on Wednesday September 21, 2011 @01:46AM (#3020947)

You're half right. But there's more to the story.

In the consumer's mind, there is no better quality than HD because it doesn't exist. Look at the way marketing speaks to the average consumer. In marketing, perception is reality.

You may know what 1080p means, but most consumers have no clue what the '1080' or the 'p' means, or how it relates to their viewing experience.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack coded Quake on a 28-inch 16:9 1080p monitor ... by antihero on Wednesday September 21, 2011 @08:23AM (#3021677)

I think a lot of is placebo, too. I bet people convince themselves they're enjoying things more because they consciously know they're getting "higher quality". It would be interesting to do a double blind study to see how many consumers could tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack coded Quake on a 28-inch 16:9 1080p monitor ... by someone_welsh on Wednesday September 21, 2011 @08:24AM (#3021680)

At the distance from the screen which people generally watch TV, better resolution than HD makes no perceptible difference - it would be pointless and wasteful. At closer distances, such as those involved in using computers, higher resolutions are perceptible and so not irrelevant. Hence they exist for computers and not TVs. Sorry, no reference right now, may add one later

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack coded Quake on a 28-inch 16:9 1080p monitor ... by masklinn on Wednesday September 21, 2011 @05:38AM (#3021337)

> I think the 1080p craze is driven by consumer demand.

That's bullshit.

> For the average consumer (not a gamer, not a power user), the ultimate visual experience is an HD movie.

You get the same ultimate experience with the previous 16/10 resolution for this size: 1920*1200. Oh look, even more pixels.

> so the most sensible thing for a hardware provider is to deliver 1080p at the cheapest point possible.

Right, it has nothing whatsoever to do with consumers, it's just hardware providers lowering their costs by using TV resolutions on computer screens.

> Or to improve on other areas than purely pixel count (colour accuracy, brightness, viewing angle...)

Which definitely is not happening.

[ Parent | on HN ]