What resolution is "too low"?
>>52192524
too low for what?
>>52192524
anythng under 1440
50x50
1x1
![5D5331E4FCC6DD9034C1D4EFFDB9E7D483C560D7[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/2y9wAZw.jpg "5D5331E4FCC6DD9034C1D4EFFDB9E7D483C560D7[1].jpg")
>>52192537
2x2
400x600
>tfw you remember the horror days
I wont buy anything with lower than 1920x1080, regardless of the size of the device. Even my phone is 2560x1440. I've got an old shitty Thinkpad with a 1366x768 resolution and it's fucking disgusting to look at, so I don't use it anymore.
3x3
>>52192601
Why do you read everything in portrait?
4x4
5x5
1366x768 for anything but phones, It needs to die, especially in 15"+ laptops.
>1440p on a 13" screen
>have to rely on image upscaling because 100% is literally unreadable
>>52192524
1920x1080 or 1280x1024 are the bare minimum nowadays
6x6
>>52192664
>have to rely on image upscaling because developers too lazy to use vector graphics
FTFY
>>52192664
>13" screen
Back in the CRT days, my pops would use pretty much the lowest resolution available, saying the native res made everything too small.
My dad's a fucking pleb
7x7
>>52192653
this
If they can have 1080p panels in sub $100 tablets they can have one in a $400 laptop.
8x8
9x9
>>52192763
A store in my country is advertising a pleb tier laptop for 900 fucking €, for that you get a dual-core i5, 8GB of RAM, no SSD and no GPU along with a fucking 1366x768 screen, I mean damn i know normies don't give a fuck, but shit man, at least don't put that deal on a banner.
10x10
>>52192604
give it to me anon
I have a 15.6" laptop with 1080p res, but I use it at 768p cuz holy shit I can't sit there and squint at text all day.
>>52191844
Anything less than 1366 x 768 is no longer acceptable.
Funny though i like 1366 768 on my laptop, 1080p is too tiny, and when im using a laptop i rarely need extra real estate (use my desktop for actual work)
>>52192849
Did a friend type that for you, since you are clearly blind?
>>52192524
below 100 ppi
>>52192882
I'm sorry, was that a question? I can't see text very well on this 1536p 8" IPS tablet
>muh crisp text
Retina displays creating absurd PPI ruined everything.
>>52192947
>>52192990
I do feel bad for people like you, couldn't imagine living in 2016 with the handicap of not being able to see high ppi. Do you set your camera resolution to VGA as well? I bet you were ecstatic when Youtube put 144p as an option.
>>52192621
Do you orint A4 landscape letters?
240p, for retro gaymen
>>52193021
but>>52192990 is right.
>>52193120
Why
anything that contain number with less than 4 digits
For a desktop, 1280*720 is the lowest resolution I would ever use. It would be cramped as fuck but you could at least run two windows and multi-task a bit.
For a phone, 800*480 is survivable. Granted at that resolution things would look pretty blocky especially if the screen size is above 4.5".
Anything lower than 640x480 on a desktop is unacceptable. On a phone 320x200 is the lowest reasonable resolution
>>52193230
I use 1280x800. It can be cramped, but with ratpoison there is very little wasted.
I would say that, really it depends what you are using it for. 800x600 seems tiny (I have used it), but I think I could manage.
>>52192524
The human eye cannot detect anything above 1366x768 60hz 30fps 3.5GB VRAM 15" Panel.
>>52192906
This.
>>52193291
What do gigabytes have to do with vision?
>>52193289
>ratpoison
mah nigga
>>52192524
anything with 3 digits
>>52193324
Human eye can't see more than 3.5 GB of VRAM. Anything more than that is pointless.
720p
>>52192751
There's no native res on a CRT
>>52193362
Ayye nVidia 970 shill
>>52192524
Anything less than 250ppi
>>52193389
Huh? Doesn't the electron mask have a certain number of holes?
Anyone have that 1x1 gif of a guy's desktop?
It has to have been the most asinine fixing I think I've ever seen
>>52192524
>What resolution is "too low"?
Whatever is smaller than the assumptions made by the UI designer of the apps you are using. Some websites like Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, etc., are difficult to use below 1024x768 or 1200x800 resolution because important controls are off screen.
>>52193448
>electron mask
wut?
and I think what you're referring to is optimization
certain phosphor tubes are optimized for certain resolutions(like consumer tv sets were optimized for 480i back in the day)
there is no such thing as a native res on a CRT like on a LCD tho
since a crt simply paints an image with the required amount of pixels(as long as it's a horizontal scan range that the TV/Monitor accepts)
>>52193448
I think he meant that most resolutions other than native/max resolution still look fine
>>52192524
depends on screen size
>>52193531
Not that anon, and maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm pretty sure colour CRTs have a grid of little holes behind the screen and red, green and blue spots of phosphor in fixed points which are lit up by the electron beams.
Or are there such thing as red, green and blue electrons?
1280x720/720p is the lowest for me.
anything from 720-1440 im 100% happy with but the moment it goes below, fuck that.
1080p
Anything under 1280x800 for 12" or smaller devices.
Anything under 1680x1050 (or 1600x900) for devices larger than 12".
1366x768 should only be used on <4"-screen phones.
>>52192580
Heh
i can put up with 1024x768, any lower nothx
1279x719
Or anything below 1080p on a 16+ inch screen.
>>52193362
>Human eye can't see more than 3.5 GB of VRAM
Just google VRAM, you can see way more than 3.5 GB. It's not very big chips. And when you turn on the computer you aint seeing a single GB because it's in a case.
>>52192565
/thread
>>52192524
< 4k
11x11
1366x768
>>52195262
What about 1080i? I only ask because you think indicating progressive scan on a computer monitor is at all necessary.
Everything beyond Apples retina displays is too low
>>52192524
None is too low - lower resolutions are more comfy
>>52192653
especially in >11" devices desu
1366x768 on a 12/13/14 is horseshit
anything below 4K tbqh
768p
>>52192722
>that one sperglord with the 17" laptop
>he doesn't even need a laptop
>because he doesn't leave the house
>>52193448
CRT memers are fucking retarded.
Bust out a loupe and you can see that there are a fixed number of phosphor stripes. Vertical resolution is also limited by bloom.
Now, for monochrome displays you can actually make this argument.
>>52195693
I use 1080p as a general term for 1920x1080 resolution. My bad senpai
>>52192524
0.33333x0.33333
>>52192664
>mfw 1080p at 100% on a 13" screen is literally perfect
anything that has a dpi less than 90
>>52196409
It's alright. Still a bit difficult but it's usable.
>>52195693
1080i looks terrible, try it. Everything non-photo like text and UI elements just look blurry
1366x768
>>52192703
Maybe I meant display upscaling.
1024*768 is the lowest i still use on my CRT (second display)
