Tech Talk: Monitor resolution (and why it matters less than you'd think)

When you shop for a computer monitor, you probably notice the display’s resolution, such as 1024x768, prominently listed. But this spec actually matters little to your buying decision, once you’ve settled on the size of monitor you want.

Here’s why:

The listed numbers represent the monitor’s maximum or "native" resolution—the number of pixels that can be displayed horizontally (the first number) and vertically (the second number) on the screen. Pixels are the screen elements that render detail; the more of them in every inch of screen, the more detail should be apparent—at least all other things being equal.

The number of pixels monitors have tends to rise in step with size, and be fairly uniform within sizes, too. So, today’s widescreen (16 x 10-aspect) monitors typically have a maximum resolution of 1440 x 900 pixels in the 19-inch size; 1680 x 1050 pixels in the 22-inch size, and 1920 x 1200 pixels in the 24-inch size.

Do the math (multiply the pixel counts, and divide by the number of inches) and you get about 89 pixels to every inch of screen for the 19-inch monitors; 90 for the 22-inchers; and 96 for the 24-inchers. A few outlying models in any category might have more or less pixels. For example, some non-widescreen (4:3-aspect) 19-inch monitors have 1280 x 1024 pixels, giving about 86 pixels per inch.

Such variation—at most, 10 or so pixels per inch—are too small for the eye to easily detect. In addition, as with TV screens, resolution alone isn’t the only determinant of how good (or even how detailed) images look on a monitor; a host of other engineering factors come into play.

That’s one reason we don’t even list resolution in our Ratings of monitors (available to subscribers). And why some monitors with the same resolution as most other models in their size category score lower for the quality of their display.

Bottom line: Don’t sweat the resolution. Decide how large a monitor you can fit into your desk space, and buy accordingly.

One caveat: If you’re planning to use your monitor to watch high-definition TV and video images, consider getting a monitor with a native resolution of at least 1920x1080—which is likely one 22 inches or bigger. That’s the resolution that allows you to get the most out of the 1080p "full HD" signals provided now by a Blu-ray high-def disc player, and that will eventually come to video from other sources, too. (Pro photographers and other serious graphics types, too, may have reason to seek higher-than-customary resolution.)

And one heads up: You may not be able to take advantage of the full native resolution of your screen if the graphics card in your computer isn’t up to the same level. You may need to upgrade the card, or replace your computer, to get the most out of that big new monitor. —Donna Tapellini

Comments

[B. Good]

Sorry, CR, but I think the monitor's native resolution matters MORE than YOU think, at least with today's LCD monitors. The "native" resolution is the only resolution that maps ONE software pixel with ONE real pixel on the monitor. Anything else uses a form of scaling, but how do you scale a fraction of a pixel? You don't. This means that if you do not use the native resolution, your text will likely look pretty "fuzzy". I've had plenty of people complain to me how unclear the text looks on their fancy new monitors. So you can buy a lovely 24" wide-screen monitor, but you may find the text is too small for you at native resolution and too fuzzy for you at any other resolution. BEWARE of this when you are looking to buy.

Yes, some of you might mention being able to scale text or use ClearType fonts in Windows. Those are acceptable choices for many people, but they aren't for everybody.

This is one of the "dirty little secrets" that few people want to discuss when talking about today's monitors and TVs.

[Greg]

It’s hard to know where to start in stating what is wrong with this article. The size and DPI of LCD displays can pose very complicated buying decisions for consumers. In so grossly oversimplifying the issues, I think CR.org has done its readers a disservice.

OMMISSIONS
• A display’s “native” resolution is not only its maximum resolutions. It is the only resolution it looks good at. One does not need to be as picky as CR to find an LCD display at a non-native resolution to display substantially more jaggy images and (especially) text.
• Nowhere in the article is mention made of laptop displays. You might argue that “laptop displays” will not occur to a reasonable person while reading an article explicitly about “Monitor Resolution,” (in the same way one will not think of a bird in the hand while thinking about a bird in the bush just because they’re the same thing in different packaging) but neither considering laptop displays nor explicitly excluding them is simply another omission. Had laptops been as much as an afterthought, following your statement on the common variation in DPI, “at most, 10 or so pixels per inch,” you might have added: “If laptop displays are considered, our previous statement is inaccurate by up to a factor of 4.
• As Pete stated eloquently above, resolution is about real estate. Furthermore, DPI is about the desired viewing distance and one’s visual acuity. Diagonal size is about cost, size and weight. Additionally, with native resolution held constant, diagonal size is crucial to providing an image of sufficient size to view comfortably, i.e., big enough to see at a distance from one’s eyes that is appropriate to the viewer, the physical environments and the application.
• The inexcusable omission is made by not imploring your readers to put eyeballs on any monitor before purchase.

By your omissions, your thesis, ¨Monitor resolution (and why it matters less than you'd think)¨ is substantially misguided. What I think you mean to say is that monitor resolution tends to follow size. So, people with great vision, especially young people, don’t need a 19” monitor when they can get a 17” monitor with the same resolution. I really think this is one of those times when an expedient posting is not better than nothing.

[Pete]

I believe you left out something important about monitor resolution. I like larger monitors not because I want things to appear larger on screen, but because I want to see more things on screen. Moving from say, a 15 inch monitor with a resolution of 800 X 600, to a 17 inch monitor with a resolution of 1024 X 768 keeps windows and their contents at roughly the same apparent size on screen, but allows to you place more objects within the viewing area. This is very important for programmers who work in integrated development environments like Microsoft Visual Studio and designers who work in applications like Adobe Photoshop. Such applications allow for maximizing the use of large desktops because of all the toolbars, palettes, and windows available. When my employer replaced my broken 19" monitor with a new one, I was disappointed to learn that the new monitor supported a maximum resolution of 1280 X 1024. My old one was higher (although I don't remember exactly what it was) so now I can no longer view as many objects on screen as I used to be able to.