150 PPI+ desktops are likely next year

Nope, huge monitors (at the same resolution) are for suckers. Much higher cost, higher power consumption, and no benefit whatsoever given that you can match viewing angle and perceived dot pitch by simply positioning a smaller monitor slightly closer to your eyes.

To achieve my preferred horizontal viewing angle of 40 degrees with a 30" monitor I would have to position it 91cm away. Pretty sure it would be falling off the back of my desk...
 
Last edited:
With all the money I spent on my ZR30W less than half a year ago, I want to enjoy my comparatively high resolution for another year or two before it becomes common place.
 
It has to play out into imac products. The flagship would in my mind be 27" 3840x2160. If this is the case, 30" may die off as the DP output limit is 4096x2160 in current AMD cards. There would also need to be a replacement for the 21.5" imac which is free to be larger or smaller in size. Afterward, monitor manufacturers will be able to make products out of these panels. The manufacturers would also design WCG variants for graphics use.

This is assuming such a resolution is viable to produce. I wasn't certain that resolution competition in mobiles would translate to monitors as they are not popular but the macbook report makes it more likely.
 
Whoisthisreally said:
It has to play out into imac products. The flagship would in my mind be 27" 3840x2160.
Click to expand...

This is the obvious choice Given that LG revealed plans for a monitor with those exact specs, and Apple has been the first user of pretty much every higher resolution LG monitor in the last decade.

The only question is when this shows up in an iMac.
 
If past history is any indication, we may see an update to the iMac line within the next month or two. Given where OS X is now, though, I wouldn't think that we'll see a "HIDPI" display in the iMac until the following refresh. Apple appears to be just barely starting to work in support for HIDPI with 10.7.3.
 
My 17" laptop has 133 ppi at 1920x1200. You still need AA during gaming, but very little (2x is enough in most cases). If they put these panels into a desktop monitor with thin bezels and portrait rotation I would buy definitely buy 3 of them for Eyefinity.
 
Need is subjective (regarding AA on very high ppi screens)... "benefit" might be a more appropriate word. I have a 17" 1080p laptop which is 129.58 ppi and I do love it at a closer viewing distance. I keep AA very low or off depending on the demands of a game and what other settings I max (it has a 5870m in it). For example, I prefer good shadows since it gives an almost 3d and living world effect that is often overlooked or marginalized by people who usually turn shadows down or off to save framerates on demanding games.
.
You mentioned three for LLL eyefinity but just as a comparison, the QFHD panels mentioned at CES are supposed to be around 27" and 166ppi, which is made up for four 1080p resolutions in a square essentially. This probably equates to 18+ " 1080p displays in a quad formation. I'm sure they could make a display three across if they really wanted to out of laptop panels, with thin/negligible bezels or none.
.
The problem I have with 60hz panels, especially 60hz high rez ips panels, is the blur on fast motion/fast FoV movement. It blurs most annoyingly on the most modern high detail and "3d" depth via bump mapping games that I am now capable of. So high ppi "laptop panels" or a QFHD is not a great gaming option for me. I'm keeping my 2560x1440 108.8 ppi monitor for gorgeous desktop imagery and real-esate but for gaming I'm going back to my 22.5" crt set at 1080p 100hz (~ 97.91 PPI, 0.2594m), and adding a 60hz 1080p 21.5" lcd on each side for LLL eyfinity. If the crt malfunctions/dies I'll start looking at 120hz TN monitors, added to my array just for gaming primarily. At that point I'm not sure if I would go with 23" 120hz for the 95.78 ppi - 0.2652 mm (perhaps three if I still like how eyefinity worked out on the crt based array), or a single 27" 120hz to more physically match my 27" ips. The 27" 1080p's 81.59 ppi would be pretty jumbo but dedicated to games with a 108.8ppi ips next to it I think it might be ok. It will prob come down to how I feel about eyefinity after using it for awhile. High ppi is great for apps/desktop real estate, and gorgeous imagery but for extremely high detail gaming blur / fast FoV movement "smearing" is a huge tradeoff for me. I'll prob get to the crt-in-middle eyefinity setup after the holidays.
 
Last edited:
  • Ivy Bridge platform for imac will support 4K output

  • Quadrupled resolution icons found in OS X developer preview

  • 2880*1800 and 3840*2160 are quadruples of 1440*900 and 1920*1080 allowing for simple font handling

  • imac display may use AR treated glass, indicating a change of display specification. Why this was not done earlier is a mystery. Perhaps it will put an end to the AG/Glossy options altogether.

  • imac set to launch in June, macbook next quarter.
 
I really hope Apple launches those high-DPI displays. Then other manufacturers will have no choice but to follow suit and we can finally say goodbye to those abysmal 1080p displays. 100+ DPI FTW :D
 
Elledan said:
I really hope Apple launches those high-DPI displays. Then other manufacturers will have no choice but to follow suit and we can finally say goodbye to those abysmal 1080p displays. 100+ DPI FTW :D
Click to expand...

I was just talking to my girlfriend last night about the iPad 3 and why it's the only thing I like that's coming from Apple, because of the high resolution display. If there's one thing Apple's doing right, it's high PPI displays.
 
Per the OP, the thread title is meant for 2012. In which case my response is:

Yeah, we may get 150+ PPI panels this or next year. We're also seeing consumer OLED panels released for the HDTV market as well, amongst more 4K TVs and projectors. But all of that doesn't mean 99% of the people on Earth (myself included) have $10,000 to spend on a single display!

Call me when someone manufactures a much lower cost 2560x1600 30" S-IPS panel, similar to what HP is doing for 27" 1440p with the ZR2740w. That'd be more newsworthy to me.
 
Xinmosni said:
But all of that doesn't mean 99% of the people on Earth (myself included) have $10,000 to spend on a single display!
Click to expand...

No one is considering $10k displays. The initial OLED sets will cost $8000 unless you are considering the euro cost. The price will halve next year and will eventually come down to a 30% premium over LED LCD.

Xinmosni said:
Call me when someone manufactures a much lower cost 2560x1600 30" S-IPS panel, similar to what HP is doing for 27" 1440p with the ZR2740w. That'd be more newsworthy to me.
Click to expand...

The theoretical 4K 27" panel shouldn't have a substantial cost increase over the existing LM270WQ1. The target remains an apple AIO computer where the selling price is under pressure.
 
My laptop is 1920x1200 at 15.4" which is 147 PPI. I still think it needs AA in games.
 
They can do 4.7 inch 720p why they can't make 20-24 ich 300PPI screen for conputers with the same tech?
 
kingduqc said:
They can do 4.7 inch 720p why they can't make 20-24 ich 300PPI screen for conputers with the same tech?
Click to expand...

4.7 inch would use LTPS where 10 inch and above is a-si. LTPS is more expensive but its better carrier mobility allows for smaller transistor size and therefore better efficiency and pixel density. The latest ipad is 264 PPI and uses a-si so obviously 100 PPI is trivial. The reason for 100 PPI til now is data transmission limitations.
 
I disagree with the statement that apple is driving this. Apple does not make panels, the display companies do. They simply tell people here is what I got, who will give me the most money to have first dibs. And naturally the company with the most spare cash is the one that can pull that off.

As for gaming, like all monitor technologies gamers will be thought of last. We will eventually get what we need but it wont be the first generations. All we really need is flexible display modes. If your video cards or monitors can simply double pixels to make a "half resolution" display then high PPI is perfect. Also as mentioned you stop needing AA when you get resolution high enough. That being said I still do not game on my 2556x1440 display due to the load at that resolution amoung other thing things.

Also I think we really need to see bigger displays with higher resolution that are ultra wide and fast. Why have eyefinity when a single monitor without any bezel could be made that would be as big and have as many pixels as 3x1080p monitors. The problem becomes at what point will manufacturers have their process fleshed out such that they can diliver a flawless panel like that at high capacity.
 
rudy said:
I disagree with the statement that apple is driving this. Apple does not make panels, the display companies do. They simply tell people here is what I got, who will give me the most money to have first dibs. And naturally the company with the most spare cash is the one that can pull that off.
Click to expand...

Apple does have display engineering talent whose jobs would likely involve writing the display specification and also working with sources to optimise supply. The developmental reason of Samsung's PLS is obvious. Of course, high PPI devices are going to be made in the absence of Apple, but in this case I think they will absolutely want the brand association in the initial 4K desktop release.
 
Thank god. We've been waiting for a jump in pixels for years now.
 
I'm wondering why people get 2560*1440 on 27 inch or 2560*1600 on 30 inch while even a 1680*1050 on a 20 inch have about the same PPI
 
kingduqc said:
I'm wondering why people get 2560*1440 on 27 inch or 2560*1600 on 30 inch while even a 1680*1050 on a 20 inch have about the same PPI
Click to expand...
That's like asking why people buy a 60" 1080p when they could buy a 35" 1080p with much better ppi.

Although this is different - the amount of information on my 2650x1600 screen is much more than my 1600x1200 screen.

TL;DR: It's not all about ppi.
 
XoR said:
games need more refresh rate, better motion handling and better blacks. Higher PPI is not needed at all
Click to expand...

Resolution is the last goddamn thing the display industry needs to be focusing on.

Pixel response, refresh rate, and blacks are orders of magnitude more important. The fact that decade-old CRTs destroy every presently available display in these categories is pathetic.
 
wabbitseason said:
Resolution is the last goddamn thing the display industry needs to be focusing on.

Pixel response, refresh rate, and blacks are orders of magnitude more important. The fact that decade-old CRTs destroy every presently available display in these categories is pathetic.
Click to expand...

That is a marginal niche opinion. LCD destroyed CRT because right from the beginning the majority who saw it greatly preferred it over CRT.

As soon as I had an LCD, I had to get rid of my CRT. The sharpness/geometry and color accuracy of LCD is better than any CRT monitor I have seen in over 25+ years of using them.

For a while I had CRT next to an LCD on my desktop and in daytime, the contrast and blacks also looked better on LCD.

Pixel response(and thus refresh rate limit) is the only real loss and unless you are an extreme twitch gamer, it barely matters.

Since the basic physics of LCD isn't really going to change dramatically, we may as well improve the aspects that are actually capable of change, like higher resolution.
 
wabbitseason said:
Resolution is the last goddamn thing the display industry needs to be focusing on.

Pixel response, refresh rate, and blacks are orders of magnitude more important. The fact that decade-old CRTs destroy every presently available display in these categories is pathetic.
Click to expand...

It's easier to just produce more average pixels than it is to make fewer good ones. Quality vs. quantity applies perfectly here.

The marketing divisions really have the human psychology nailed perfectly.

Made me laugh when my friends bought their Full HD TV's. I'd tell them that it's only ~800,000 pixels less than the CRT I bought at the beginning of the millenium.
 
quantum112 said:
It's easier to just produce more average pixels than it is to make fewer good ones. Quality vs. quantity applies perfectly here.

The marketing divisions really have the human psychology nailed perfectly.

Made me laugh when my friends bought their Full HD TV's. I'd tell them that it's only ~800,000 pixels less than the CRT I bought at the beginning of the millenium.
Click to expand...

Friends are idiots for wanting HD TV's. Check. CRT's have more pixels. Check. Point? Not given. For everything else, there's MasterCard.
 
This is the display forum on [H]. The place where some of the foremost display enthusiasts of the world come to discuss the merits of the various technologies and products in the industry.

OLED, CRT, SED, FED, and plasma rule here. LCD is looked upon, rightfully, with contempt.

It's no "fringe opinion" to care about >60 Hz refresh rates, and pixel response faster than a tree. Ask any gaming videophile. No one plays their games standing still; you're constantly moving. High graphics settings and eye-candy are worthless when moving at several miles per hour blurs every texture and object.


So no, no one should be excited about higher resolution LCDs. They should be furious that instead of further developments in OLED or SED, the industry has chosen a meaningless (highly marketable) number as their next target for improvement.
 
I want this thread to be kept on topic. CRT-LCD-FED thread shitting is off-topic as I've heard it all before.
 
BiH115 said:
Friends are idiots for wanting HD TV's. Check. CRT's have more pixels. Check. Point? Not given. For everything else, there's MasterCard.
Click to expand...

I never said they were idiots. Can't figure out where you got that from.

The point which should have been easy to infer is that people are all too easily impressed with marketing drivel, less so with the actual tech specs behind it.
 
Whoisthisreally said:
I want this thread to be kept on topic. CRT-LCD-FED thread shitting is off-topic as I've heard it all before.
Click to expand...

Yes. Much better to have the changes that are actually possible than whine about impossibly unfeasible (SED/FED). That would be a completely different thread.

This thread is about the first jump in consumer monitor resolution since 2004 when Apple brought out the 2560x1600 ACD. Amazing that this still hasn't been eclipsed after nearly a decade.

I suspect Apple will lead again, likely with a 4K display in the new iMac. The only question is whether that happens in 2012 or 2013.
 
quantum112 said:
I never said they were idiots. Can't figure out where you got that from.

The point which should have been easy to infer is that people are all too easily impressed with marketing drivel, less so with the actual tech specs behind it.
Click to expand...

I suppose. I'd still take the marketing drivel HD TV over a CRT.
 
wonderfield said:
It's not a question of "if", only a question of "when".
Click to expand...

AH-IPS-lg-sid-2011.jpg
 
kingduqc said:
They can do 4.7 inch 720p why they can't make 20-24 ich 300PPI screen for conputers with the same tech?
Click to expand...

Because they cannot produce that PPI with high enough quality over the larger panel. That is why cell phones and tablets keep getting the good shit first. It is easier to get something working right on a smaller scale before figuring out how to getting it working well over the entire panel. From what I know of LCD tech they produce the panels on giant sheets then they cut them to size. This is very similar to how CPUs are made, so you have an issue getting good yeild of panels. So its better to produce the displays for cell phones charge similar amounts of money for a screen that is 1/10th the size needed for a computer. You can then just throw out the ones that have flaws.
 
quantum112 said:
And if you had the choice between a CRT HD TV and a LCD HD TV (resolution, diagonal size being equal)?
Click to expand...

LCD, namely because my eyes don't bleed when viewing content on them and I'm not constantly irritated by the high-frequency hum that I've heard on every CRT I've ever encountered from dirt cheap Chinese crap monitors to Trinitrons. I absolutely loathed CRTs when they were around and have zero reason to be convinced to change that view.
 
Snowdog said:
Wow, what inane snobbery. This is a computer nerd site, where most display issues are most often ranted about how it handles gaming, and yet 99% of the people here are using LCDs, and 0% are using SED/FED/OLED monitors because they don't exist.

Most real display enthusiasts are likely spending their time on AVS forum (have had an account their for nearly a decade as well) and you see almost ZERO CRT worship there, because they aren't obsessed by computer gaming.

What is doubly laughable is that while you are acting a snobbish about displays, you have a Dell 2405 is your Sig. An LCD so bad, I almost swore off LCDs. It has the worse input lag and pixel ghosting I have ever seen on an LCD anywhere, it leaves smear trails behind when in motion. Perhaps try a little less pathetic LCD before you rant about them. Obsessed by refresh, get a 120Hz TN screen.
Click to expand...

While I agree with the first paragraph, the reason you don't see them worshipping CRT there is for the same reason it's not worshipped here: their size and weight and the fact that you can't buy a Sony FW900 newer than 5 years old are all red flags for most people's setups.

Also, I'm a previous FW900 owner who moved to S-IPS a few years ago. Maybe it's because of that, but I really don't get the 120hz enthusiasts and their obsession with refresh rate. If you're so obsessed with ghosting, then why settle on 120hz, which to anyone truly bothered by ghosting will STILL show it? Go CRT if it bothers you that much, otherwise get 120hz for 3D if you're going to get it at all.

Furthermore, unless you're filthy rich and designing a home theater (or buying a new HDTV for more than most people's used cars cost), then you'll figure out pretty quickly that a lot of the things AVS Forum discusses are unattainable. True, we sort of do the same thing here, but there's big a difference between the $1200 30" monitors in most of these forums and the $6000 displays taking up most of those forums. Take Vega's threads and his setups and how expensive those are to attain (what, $3000 for the rig?), then put them next to an AVS enthusiast's setup and that doesn't even cover the cost of a single component! The only reason I go there anymore is to check out their DLP and 1080p projector threads, because everything else I will either need to win the lottery for or get rid of my girlfriend for. Beautiful women > electronics, in my case, which is why I'm stuck here on [H] reading videocard benchmarks instead of daydreaming on AVS about the new $10,000 TV someone bought.
 
blitzkommando said:
LCD, namely because my eyes don't bleed when viewing content on them and I'm not constantly irritated by the high-frequency hum that I've heard on every CRT I've ever encountered from dirt cheap Chinese crap monitors to Trinitrons. I absolutely loathed CRTs when they were around and have zero reason to be convinced to change that view.
Click to expand...


This. Also I like the thinness of today's monitor's. I agree that making higher resolution, thinner tv's is a dead-end road, but for the time being, if that's all we have available really, I'll take the thin one that still looks great. I can't tell the difference. I'm sorry, but I just can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top