720p vs 1080p on a 10.6" screen (Surface RT vs Pro and others with 1080p)

[v10type-r]

So, I know I might start a huge debate here in regards to 720p vs 1080p, but I think its a good thread to start to see what everyones view is on this matter.

I've seen a lot of grumbling about the 720p capability of the Surface RT being sub par compared to the iPad retina display and other 1080p tablets.

With video playback, it appears, according to this site that you have to be 12 inches or less away from the screen to notice any advantage with 1080p over 720p, as 720p is effective 24 inches to 13 inches away from your eyes. I don't know many ppl who have their tablets any closer than 12", that just seems way too close to comfortably view a movie or even use for other tasks..

So are ppl just affected by marketing numbers? "mines bigger so its obviously better" kind of thing? I'm about to purchase my RT, I considered the Pro but I have no need for a laptop replacement, just a media consumption tablet with a little more capability and expandability than an iPad.

I'm no professional when it comes to resolution etc, so don't go blasting away at me, I'm just trying to point out something that I thought was pretty interesting when comparing specs.

Even tho I am not an Apple fan, this almost defends why Apple did not need to put the "retina display" on the iPad Mini and that the Retina Display is overkill on the standard iPad as well.. but good marketing sells right?

I found this website that details the differences of resolution and what is actually viewable by the human eye.

CarltonBale.com ? 1080p Does Matter – Here’s When (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)

 

[Skaughtto]

There are some benefits regardless of viewing distance. Many applications have resolution requirements, like exceeding (whatever)x768. Try lowering the resolution on your Surface RT and seeing which applications complain about it. I was running into trouble using a TV as a second monitor. For some reason the resolution automatically changed and prevented me from opening small Modern UI apps.
Some users reported seeing a 4th row of tiles on their Surface RT, a feature which is typically only available on higher resolutions...
It would be nice to have a little higher resolution in MS Office so I could see the toolbar all the time...

 

[Dos101]

A 1080p screen would just add to the price. I do wish Surface RT had a higher resolution screen (mainly for doing stuff in Desktop mode), but then the cost would go up as a result of that and at that point it would be over my budget (as well as deter other people from buying it over the iPad/Android tablets).

 

[shn'g]

Yeah I am with you OP. I actually completely understand why some people want more resolution and in some cases it really does have huge advantages like was said with apps and other programs. But IMO I could care less about having huge resolution on a small screen. I see the benefits on a large TV but to me this screen looks good. But having said that we should check out the PRO to see what kind of difference it makes.

 

[theefman]

I think the whole "retina" display desire and consequent bashing on any and all Windows machines that dont have a high res screen are definitely borne out of ignorance and the inability to actually examine whether a higher resolution brings tangible benefits. This is an informative article that isnt just screaming for as high a resolution as possible but actually discusses whether is a benefit, for Windows machines with smaller screens in particular, eg Surface. In the tech specs arms race that we have today reasoning like this is thrown aside so companies can boast whose screen is more "retina" than others.

Acer's Series 7 ultrabooks with 1080p screens: Too many pixels? - Liliputing

 

[Skaughtto]

I think the whole "retina" display desire and consequent bashing on any and all Windows machines that dont have a high res screen are definitely borne out of ignorance and the inability to actually examine whether a higher resolution brings tangible benefits. This is an informative article that isnt just screaming for as high a resolution as possible but actually discusses whether is a benefit, for Windows machines with smaller screens in particular, eg Surface. In the tech specs arms race that we have today reasoning like this is thrown aside so companies can boast whose screen is more "retina" than others.

Acer's Series 7 ultrabooks with 1080p screens: Too many pixels? - Liliputing

"In a perfect world, Microsoft (or Acer or another hardware partner) would come up with a way to do what Apple?s done on its latest MacBooks: use pixel doubling tools so that everything looks sharper and more clear on a laptop with a high resolution display, without necessarily looking smaller."

Typically when I set up a computer for someone who's eyes aren't top notch I end up having to increase the text size and icon size on the desktop, but not every application supports increasing the text size for toolbars. Pixel doubling would be a better solution. I've always been disappointed with the way Windows based laptops look when they aren't running their native resolution.

 

[chuks22]

Tried same copy of a movie on ipad and surface rt, the rt aspect ratio was bang on, video quality was same if not better on surface. You can moan about number if u like, but aint seen anyone return their surface cos of resolution. Personally i will chose this aspect ratio over ipads resolution any day.

 

[Gken]

honestly for reading, since realistically surface RT is a consumption/portable work station, Cleartype does a damn good job at rendering text so it looks really sharp and good. The only thing I miss is watching my videos at 1080, but 720 looks fine to me.

 

[xFalk]

I laugh when people complain about a tiny 4" phone screen that doesn't have 1080p resolution and only 720p. At that small of a screen size I would challenge anyone to be able to pick out the difference.

 

[karmamule]

I was worried that the low resolution would be more noticeable than it is, but so far I've been pleasantly surprised to find that it hasn't bothered me as much as I thought it would. I think Microsoft is right that there are many factors that go into making a pleasing display, and pixel resolution is just one of them. When I look at my Surface vs. some of my higher resolution tablets it really does hold its on in almost all situations.

 

[tomatoes11]

It makes a huge difference, that is why the Surface pro is using full HD over more battery life. If it didn't make a difference, they would have stuck to the lower resolution to save battery.

 

[PHVL]

I'm a customer. I buy a Pro. If my screen doesn't look sharper that it is with a RT, i will think i get screwed: "I almost payed twice the price to get the same resolution, WTF Windows?"

 

[tonyk79]

The surface pro should be 1080p, it doesn't need to be anymore than that. I would prefers brighter screen with more accurate colours as opposed to going 2560x1600 on a tablet.

If Microsoft can get the entry surface pro down another 100 dollars then i think they will have a winner.

 

[KingCrimson]

The Surface RT has bigger problems then the lack of pixels.

 

[conanheath]

I'm not complaining, but take the HD videos that come on Win7 and play them on the RT. There is a huge difference and I don't care how far away you are from display. My Playbook has a better quality display than RT and I paid $200 for 64g model. I know this is first Gen RT, but for a "Media Consumption" devise and MS trying to break into market, it won't cut it. They better have 1080 on next Gen or they won't get any where near the market they should. The RT is a great device, but the display is almost as important as OS to most people.