27" IPS 2560 x 1440 for new iMac, standalone display coming?

p4gs

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
503
LED backlit as well.

The closest thing I can think of is Apple's LED Backlit 24" Cinema Display :\
 

Archer75

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 10, 2001
Messages
6,465
Nice display. I wonder if the ATI 4850 would have trouble with that resolution and any modern games?

I would think if this were a standalone display it would cost $1000+? What do you think?
 
Last edited:

TotalLamer

Gawd
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
761
Nice display. I wonder if the ATI 4850 would have trouble with that resolution and any modern games?

I would think if this were a standalone display it would cost $1000+? What do you think?

Price depends on if it's an Apple display or not. Who does Apple use for their LCD panels?
 

IanM

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
1,289
The IPS displays mainly come from LG Display (LPL) which was originally LG.Philips LCD
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
Maybe we will soon see more 27" 2560x1440 monitors.

I assume that is essentially the 30" 2560x1600 monitor with a chunk cut off, so price should be under the 30" monsters (on non LED models).

This is one 16:9 monitor I can tolerate. :)
 
Last edited:

Uberbob102000

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
2,243
Yea I was hoping to see one fairly soon. This is exactly what I'm looking for to do my HD video and stuff because it's second native resolution is 1280x720 so it'll look great and I'll have more space when I actually use my laptop for something other than watching video.
 

aaronearles

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,016
What? Sorry, I'm kind of a display noob, but I'm thinking about buying the new 27" imac, but I'm a little concerned about 3d graphics performance from the 4850 at that res, of course games look like ass at non native, but would they be close to the same quality if you ran at 50% or 1280x720?
 

aaronearles

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,016
Then what good is it??

Just wondering if it's worth it to turn down settings and run at native, or crank them at half res. It's not worth it to run at non-native on my notebook, but I've never tried half cause that's.. 640x400 lol
 

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
12,676
Nice display. I wonder if the ATI 4850 would have trouble with that resolution and any modern games?

I would think if this were a standalone display it would cost $1000+? What do you think?

Well, considering Apple still charges 1799 for their 30", and you can get this 27" iMac for $200 more, it'll be interesting to see how the prices come out if they end up releasing one.
 

King of Heroes

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
2,006
The new 21.5-inch iMac at 1920x1080 is also IPS with an LED backlight. With the HD5000-series all coming with DisplayPort standard, nobody can bitch about the single mini-DisplayPort connector the standalone monitors (assuming they materialize) will inevitably ship with.
 

evilsofa

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
10,078
What? Sorry, I'm kind of a display noob, but I'm thinking about buying the new 27" imac, but I'm a little concerned about 3d graphics performance from the 4850 at that res, of course games look like ass at non native, but would they be close to the same quality if you ran at 50% or 1280x720?

Since 1280 x 2 = 2560, and 720 x 2 = 1440, a 2560x1440 display will display 1280x720 with no quality loss at all, since it will merely display 4 pixels of each original pixel. This is called pixel doubling, and can (obviously) increase the blockiness of a picture.

It looked really blocky back in the day when I would play Doom 1 at 320x240 on a 640x480 monitor. I don't think I ever saw 800x600 content on a 1600x1200 monitor; maybe someone else can comment on that. I wonder if the blockiness will still be obvious when doing 1280x720 on a 2560x1440 monitor.
 

Armatoste

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
380
Maybe we will soon see more 27" 2560x1440 monitors.

I assume that is essentially the 30" 2560x1600 monitor with a chunk cut off, so price should be under the 30" monsters (on non LED models).

This is one 16:9 monitor I can tolerate. :)

That's what I thought too, kinda like a 23" 1080p is like a 24" 19x12 with the top cut off.

But after going to tvcalculator.com I found out that a 30" lcd is 2 inches wider than this new imac. The pixel density is amazing.
Hope it's a panel with no qc issues.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
But after going to tvcalculator.com I found out that a 30" lcd is 2 inches wider than this new imac. The pixel density is amazing.
Hope it's a panel with no qc issues.

I don't think I would call that amazing. Too small maybe. The 30" already has a pixel density that is pushing it for it's size.
 

nomu

Gawd
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
818
$1700 for a Mac and a 3.7MP IPS sounds like the bargain of the century. I guess that's just because of all the time I've spent on these forums, but still. This is either a lesson in the effect of volume on pricing or evidence of huge margins on enthusiast/professional displays. Or both.
 

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
12,676
I don't think I would call that amazing. Too small maybe. The 30" already has a pixel density that is pushing it for it's size.

Dot pitch on a 30" is .250, a 15.4" 1920x1200 laptop has a dot pitch of .173 for comparison sake. Definitely won't be too small, I'd have been happy with a 23-24" with that resolution.
 

Jonte

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
191
Sounds sweet!
Really hope NEC or Eizo picks up this panel, it would make one hell of a monitor in pivot mode. :D
 

tybert7

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
2,745
Nice display. I wonder if the ATI 4850 would have trouble with that resolution and any modern games?

I would think if this were a standalone display it would cost $1000+? What do you think?

The answer is of course it will depending on the game and settings. But there should be a decent number of titles that work fine on it.

Though if you want to play the latest games, with all the settings turned up, and on an ultra high resolution screen, I think you would be much better off with a tower system and a pc at that.

But then that should not be the same target population as the imac series anyway.
 

tybert7

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
2,745
What? Sorry, I'm kind of a display noob, but I'm thinking about buying the new 27" imac, but I'm a little concerned about 3d graphics performance from the 4850 at that res, of course games look like ass at non native, but would they be close to the same quality if you ran at 50% or 1280x720?

For what it's worth you could probably run in windowed mode ( can you on macs? ) to drive the game at a lower resolution.

Don't like that? then don't try and drive the latest and greatest game on an imac, or ANY form factor that does not have tower esque upgrade options.
 

Salavat23

Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
651
I'd like one too. Currently on a 24" and after a year of usage, and dual monitor experiments, its starting to feel a bit small. 30" is too expensive, while 27" might be just right. If I could get a sub $900 IPS panel or sub $500-600 TN panel, I'd jump right ahead.
 
Last edited:

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
Dot pitch on a 30" is .250, a 15.4" 1920x1200 laptop has a dot pitch of .173 for comparison sake. Definitely won't be too small, I'd have been happy with a 23-24" with that resolution.

Laptops are meant to be viewed a lot closer, But obviously this is personal preference and some will like that tiny pitch.

I like to sit about 2-3 feet away from my desktop screen. I find text elements are already about as small as I like them on my 24" with .27 pitch. I had a Dell 3007 for about a week. I thought the .25 pitch on a screen that size was really pushing it.

Actually the more I look at this the less interested I get. A 27" 16:9 is only 1/2 an inch taller than my 24" 16:10, coupled with the .23 pitch, and my interest is dropping.
 

Chops

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
439
I can't wait for the 27" panel to make its way to other OEMs. I'm hoping for a ~$699 price point.

I'm also interested to know if it's a S-IPS, H-IPS, or e-IPS panel.

It's also encouraging to see Apple, Dell, and LG begin to advertise their panels as IPS. Bringing more attention to the technology should spark sales and hopefully drive down costs. Win for everyone.
 

Falling Anvil

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
1,570
I was going to post about this when I had the chance. It's a very intriguing display option, nothing else exists on the current market that can match a 27" 2560x1440 LED backlit glossy IPS monitor.

Since by now Apple is a market force to be reckoned with(if the flash memory supply during the new ipod launches were anything to go by), I'd expect to see a new 1440p standard around for monitors as a good resolution to bridge the gap between 1920x1200/1080 and 2560x1600. That would be great.
 
Last edited:

Xcelerate

n00b
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
62
Since 1280 x 2 = 2560, and 720 x 2 = 1440, a 2560x1440 display will display 1280x720 with no quality loss at all, since it will merely display 4 pixels of each original pixel. This is called pixel doubling, and can (obviously) increase the blockiness of a picture.

Pixel doubling will make it look good, with no quality loss; however to really utilize those extra pixels, Lanczos resampling would produce the best looking image. Imagine if you had a square display with four giant pixels. There will obviously be huge aliasing. Now say you want to show the same image on a display that is 16x16 pixels. You could simply map each of the large pixels to four smaller pixels, but it will still be aliased. If you use a better resampling function (bicubic, lanczos.. anything close to the sinc function), you will get an image better approximating what was captured at the camera.

:: End of weird technical rant that nobody probably cares about ;) ::
 

Anemone

Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
903
If Samsung can make a S-PVA in this res @ 27" and with an LED backlight I'd buy one. You can make text as big as you like, the dot pitch has nothing to do with it.

I think the world has wanted a "tweener" resolution between 24 (1920x1200) and 30 (2560..)

Now finally someone has gotten the message. It's at least a 16:9 I can live with, but still generally despise 16:9. But I would buy one for sure. Just not really into the IPS thing much. But it's a perfect size and res for those who don't want the space a 30 takes up.

Oh and a scaling chip (like the 2408 and 3008) would deal with video that had to be run at a lower resolution (like laptops).
 

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
12,676
Laptops are meant to be viewed a lot closer, But obviously this is personal preference and some will like that tiny pitch.

I like to sit about 2-3 feet away from my desktop screen. I find text elements are already about as small as I like them on my 24" with .27 pitch. I had a Dell 3007 for about a week. I thought the .25 pitch on a screen that size was really pushing it.

Actually the more I look at this the less interested I get. A 27" 16:9 is only 1/2 an inch taller than my 24" 16:10, coupled with the .23 pitch, and my interest is dropping.

Yes, it depends on use, my laptop sits in it's docking station right next to my 24" monitor and I'm 2 to 3 feet away from each of them. There's a huge difference when I go between the two and I wish my 2407 had a higher resolution. A lot of it is what you get used to using, but pixel pitch on the 27" is larger then the dot pitch on a 13.3 macbook. I'm sure people sit 3 feet away from their macbooks when it's sitting on a desk.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
24,961
I'd be interested in a side-by-side with my 3007WFP-HC to see the pixel density and how it actually affects the sharpness of the picture... :eek: . I've always wanted an LCD with a better density.

For anyone saying "but the text will be too small" that's what the DPI setting in Windows is for :).

Glossy puts me off, but the higher pixel density and slightly easier-on-the-computer resolution interests me as does the LED backlighting (vs. my 2560x1600 display). Hopefully no scaler will be present so that there's no added input lag.
 

notalent420

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
351
Still quite pricy for just a monitor alone, however, looking on Apple's website, it appears that it has a mini DisplayPort which allows both input and output:

The Mini DisplayPort lets you connect an external display, including the Apple LED Cinema Display, to your iMac. On the 27-inch iMac, the same port offers input, too. So you can connect any external source that has DisplayPort output — including a MacBook or MacBook Pro — and use your iMac as a display.

http://www.apple.com/imac/features.html
 

sphinx99

Gawd
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
958
This is the display I've wanted for several years. Something beyond 1920x1080 in both directions for editing HD video in a window but smaller than 30" which starts to get rather large for many work areas. IPS and LED backlighting only add to the appeal.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
For anyone saying "but the text will be too small" that's what the DPI setting in Windows is for :).

I tried this in WinXP when I had the 3007 and it messes stuff up. Windows has the setting but it really isn't meant to be used.
 

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
12,676
I tried this in WinXP when I had the 3007 and it messes stuff up. Windows has the setting but it really isn't meant to be used.

You still running 10.4 as well? Actually more like running 10.1 since it was released around the same time as XP.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
24,961
I tried this in WinXP when I had the 3007 and it messes stuff up. Windows has the setting but it really isn't meant to be used.

It works fine in Vista and Win7... XP was released long before 30" LCD's with 2560x1600 resolutions.
 

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
12,676
And is this i7 CPU in the 27inch iMac a mobile CPU or a Desktop Lynfield CPU? I am not sure becuase the iMac uses notebook RAMs. Anyone know this?

Have to be lynnfield based, the notebook ones top out at 2.0 with a rediculous turbo mode, the i7 in the iMac is a 2.8 GHz chip.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
It works fine in Vista and Win7... XP was released long before 30" LCD's with 2560x1600 resolutions.

Sticking with XP for some time to come.

Still what is the point of having the extra resolution if you are just going to up the font size and get no more screen real estate in the end.

I have owned and seen a number of monitors. At about 20" distance on my 24" I can no longer discern the individual pixels and I am not going to be any closer than that. So tinier pixels buy me nothing.

From what I have seen .27mm is ideal for desktop viewing distance for me. I find it starting to get pixelated on 19" ( .29mm), the 30" at .25 was pusing too small. So for me .27 is just right.

I would be much more interested if this were a .27 pixel size 31" 16:9.

Maybe someone will release a 1440 TV. That would work nicely at common 32" size.
 
Last edited:

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
24,961
Sticking with XP for some time to come.

Still what is the point of having the extra resolution if you are just going to up the font size and get no more screen real estate in the end.

I have owned and seen a number of monitors. At about 20" distance on my 24" I can no longer discern the individual pixels and I am not going to be any closer than that. So tinier pixels buy me nothing.

From what I have seen .27mm is ideal for desktop viewing distance for me. I find it starting to get pixelated on 19" ( .29mm), the 30" at .25 was pusing too small. So for me .27 is just right.

I would be much more interested if this were a .27 pixel size 31" 16:9.

Maybe someone will release a 1440 TV. That would work nicely at common 32" size.

If you're sticking with an old/deprecated OS, that's your perogative... just don't say that DPI settings don't work as though it's something current :).

If you up the font size at a higher dot pitch, you end up with sharper/smoother text. More pixels representing the same data = better quality. That's the same reason higher resolution is valued for games. Add in more pixels total and you end up with more data shown plus a larger screen to boot.

I sit at maybe a 17-19" distance from my eyes to the screen of my 30" Dell 3007WFP-HC, and I can tell pixels on the edges of text readily. In games I can still see aliasing very easily if I don't have AA on, and usually crank it to 4-8x to make it so I can't.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
If you're sticking with an old/deprecated OS, that's your perogative... just don't say that DPI settings don't work as though it's something current :).

If you up the font size at a higher dot pitch, you end up with sharper/smoother text. More pixels representing the same data = better quality. That's the same reason higher resolution is valued for games. Add in more pixels total and you end up with more data shown plus a larger screen to boot.

I sit at maybe a 17-19" distance from my eyes to the screen of my 30" Dell 3007WFP-HC, and I can tell pixels on the edges of text readily. In games I can still see aliasing very easily if I don't have AA on, and usually crank it to 4-8x to make it so I can't.

Aliasing in games, I can see that too, but often it is much bigger than one pixel, unless you turn on AA. Normal fonts with cleartype all look perfectly smooth to me.

18" from 30" screen. That is a heck of angle side to side.

I am at about 30" from 24" screen, so I can take everything in with turning my head. :)

But that certainly explains some of the difference in dot pitch preference.
 
Top