Native Pixel Display a new definition on a old thing
Defining a Native Pixel Display
Coining my own terms since I can and should. So let’s do it, I am calling it “Native Pixel Display.” This is effectively any computer display that is usable without the use of any scaling or other forms of software or hardware magnification to have a “readable” and usable screen.
This is the historical standard
This is how computer displays have generally worked since the beginning of computing. CRTs had some level of resolution changing, but generally speaking, there were only a handful of usable resolutions where the display worked best with low flicker, etc. Most CRT displays did not require any form of resolution scaling unlike today, what was on the screen was all you could see, and it had to be usable as is since that’s all there was.
The LCD size up
After that point, the screens got progressively larger over time and started having larger screen real estate and more pixels as well.
Eg I remember staring at resolutions something like the following since 1994:
280 x 192
512 x 342 <--- Far past mid to late 1990s era
640 x 480
800 x 600
1024 X 768
1280 X 800
1440 X 900
1920 X 1080
1900 X 1200
2560 X 1440 2K
2560 X 1600 2K<--- More recent past
3440 X 1440
3840 x 2160 4K
5120 X 1440
5120 x 2880 Apple Studio Display Circa 2024
6016 x 3384 Apple Pro Display XDR
6144 x 3456 6K
7680 x 4320 8K
The workspace peak at the 2K size
As a software developer during the past years since working in the software industry since 2008, I have been exposed to some of the best computer hardware in the history of the industry. One such thing that I would like to comment on is the 27" to 30" 2K resolution display. This was the high-end dare I say gold-standard of display standards that started back in 2004 with the introduction of the Apple Cinema Display 30" and other “nice” displays like the Dell UltraSharp 3007WFP and others of similar caliber. These displays featured a 2560 x 1600 max native resolution. Which is still quite good and usable as far as a native non-scaled resolution goes on a 27" to 30" computer screen. In fact, this is what I prefer using in 2024 granted the 2560 X 1440 variant. This level of resolution, generally speaking, was and has been one of the largest pieces of Screen real estate you could buy, since it’s been introduced.
The biggest innovation since 2004 has been adding more pixel density, while maintaining the same or very similar working area
How have we innovated since 2004, we added more pixels density, while maintaining a similar viewing area about the same as the old 2K display standard. For example, a modern 4K computer monitor in the 27" to 30" range, must use image scaling to scale up the size of everything on the screen otherwise details are too small to be practical if viewed at 100% or native display scaling. This scaling technology started being called Retina displays on Apple stuff and just scaling everywhere else.
Which means in most cases your getting about the same usable workspace, but your GPU is just pushing double the pixels, to get higher image quality. I have not tried this yet other than on my iPhone / iPad where it really makes no difference. I honestly get a better productivity computing experience using my 27" Dell 2k ish monitor, and no, I am not talking about the price ;). 2K seems good enough for me, but I have yet to try anything higher yet.
The curveballs they want to sell us on, that I am not buying
The super wide curved cool cockpit looking display, with more horizontal resolution but the about the same vertical height as the old 2K screen and most are stuck on the 1440px height. And widths range from 3440 to 5120. These are innovative in that you can get the resolution of about two 2K displays put into one seamless display. But that curve and lack of center bezels comes in at quite a premium price.
The largest curve is the price a comparison of Dell Technologies displays large curved vs regular flat groupings
For example, a Dell UltraSharp 49 Curved USB-C Hub Monitor - U4924DW cost $1359.99 new as of October 2024. This is a 5120 x 1440 curved screen the “high resolution” curved option, which is just 20 more pixel wider resolution as buying two 27" monitors like this Dell 27 USB-C Monitor - S2722DC at $259.99 (2550 x 1440) each which two of would cost you $519.98 which means the integration of these two into a curved slightly smaller and 20 more pixels wider cost a whopping $840.00 premium. In this case, I will just take the two or more for cheaper, and have plenty of savings to get a nice monitor stand. Actually this curved thing is so much overpriced I can extend the comparison to include 4 of the dell 27" screens and still have some leftover cash value for a quad monitor stand, and with that 4 monitor setup you would get a legit screen real estate spread over the four screens at 5100 X 2880. This is not as elegant as the all-in-one solution, but certain does allow for more productivity space in its clunkier lots of wires and stand form. Just an example of how the price for what you get does not make a lot of sense for these curved screens.
Alternative reality
These kind of things are not too popular beyond TV sets but 40" - 48" displays. Only a handful of display manufactures make such a beast. To me these things are the alternative present reality, you get full-size native pixels to use and can enjoy the full Quad 1080P experience while using just using one cable. Is that almost what apple promised with the Apple Display Connector, well no not really, but still using one cable instead of 4 is impressive to me, in at least three ways.
These are pretty reasonable in price as a purpose-built computer screen at around $700-$1000 USD.
The hack way here is you can buy a decent 4K TV and get the experience for a much lower price, we are talking $300 to $600 price range all day long. And TV are usable by more people than used large pro-level monitors, which tend to become closer to worthless after you buy one and try to sell it later.
The future I am looking forward to that’s already here, but it’s not cheap yet, but can be reasonable
The 8K TV / Monitor where we get our cake and can eat it too unless they jam all that into a 27" to 30" screen then it will be a waste… But in a 40"-50" display would be the upgrade I would be waiting for to get larger real estate and better image quality too, that would be a real upgrade over this existing workspace area, not just higher image quality in the same working area, like has been happening since 2004.
In fact if you’re willing to use the TV option, 8K TVs are available now in the 65" + plus range and can be purchased for around $1200 $1600 starting refurbished, which is very reasonable especially in the current world of pricey fancy monitors, for example Apple wants $1599 for a 5K Studio Display which would be about a 2.5K usable workspace in real screen estate.
With these TV you can do quite a lot with the 8K resolution, and you can pick how you want to scale it for example 4 3K worth of real estate or push it to the limit at native resolution with four 4K screens worth, this would only be slightly higher PPI than using a 43" 4K so could be usable at 65", but wow what an upgrade this will be when these start to come down in price. Also, you will need to factor in what computer / GPU you will need to drive this since not everything can drive a single 8K display.
Someone else had the same idea see their experience of Using an 8K TV as a monitor - Daniel Lawrence Lu Blog
Some example 8K TVs
LG QNED MiniLED 99 Series 2021 65 inch Class 8K Specs
$1500 as of 2024 Samsung QN65QN800A 65 Inch Neo QLED 8K Samsung QN800A 8k QLED Specs