40" 5120x2160 LG panel in Q1 2021

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,026
I'll try to be brief, not something I'm known for - mostly responding because I don't think you got most of my points or perhaps require more clarification.
There is currently a massive premium associated with FALD on monitors. That driver the cost of those beyond even LG OLEDs. You have a lot more options for less money if you take HDR off the table. I think people balk when they see the same thing with good HDR doubles the price but by comparison something like the super ultrawide Samsung G9 seems to be pretty popular right now because people feel they get a lot of screen for their money.
Sure. But you missed the forest for the trees. The point is there would be more of these options if people were willing to pay for these options. And there would be more higher speced options if people were willing to pay for them. And they aren't, because again most of the market doesn't buy premium anything, let alone gaming monitors.
As for refresh rate, it annoys me to have to use 60 Hz on my MBP for work. While you can certainly live with 60 Hz just fine, when you are used to 120 Hz it's just noticeably worse. It's really annoying that it's still not the standard. I think it's selling it a bit short as "professionals not caring about it" when the option simply does not exist in monitors intended for say professional color grading stuff.
I think you've also missed it here. When an organization pays $30k for a monitor and they're about to just go ahead and buy 50 of them to outfit multiple locations or multiple users, you'd better believe that they have incredibly high, incredibly exacting standards on what that monitor does and what it fulfills. If you don't think the medical industry as an example doesn't ask for very particular things in imaging and not only that have incredibly high tolerances that they test, then I'd say you're missing it. These kinds of customers dictate everything, otherwise there isn't a market. That's partially why this stuff costs as much as it does: the market is small, the demands and the tolerances are high. If 120Hz was something they remotely deemed necessary it would have it. But obviously and clearly they don't.

Technicolor doesn't spend $30k on scientific monitors because it doesn't meet their purposes. If they wanted or needed 120Hz, they'd demand it and manufactuers would build it - if for no other reason than that they could list Technicolor as a part of their client list. And believe me that would matter a lot. Every production house of course wants to also buy into the standards that Technicolor sets, that's better than any form of advertising.
The "average person" buys whatever is cheap and on sale and we can just disregard them when it comes to enthusiast or professional gear.
Again, as restated even in this post, you can't really ignore them because they're the ones driving the market. Every other component in a computer is used for multiple industries and spaces. CPU's/GPU's/Motherboards whatever is used by everyone - which is why they can demand and drive the prices they do and also produce a much wider level of product stack from low end to incredibly high-end. Only Monitors (and perhaps gaming peripherals) are used by the niche gaming group. And until a much larger percentage of said group actually wants to spend $1k+ for monitors it's going to be slower than molasses for technology to get kicked down to levels that apparently the average consumer/gamer is willing to pay. There isn't a reason for these companies to make a wide product stack as no one is basically buying the top end of it (how many people even on the [H], likely one of the most elite computer building communities has ever owned an X27 as an example? 2? Maybe? Whatever the number the point is these are not units that are flying off the shelves). As it stands its been "possible" for 4k 120Hz displays to exist for 5-6 years and we basically still only have about half a dozen. And people basically don't buy any of those options that are available due to cost (all of the other reasons are still cost, like not being able to afford a fast enough GPU to drive 4k 120Hz).

Again to make my point abundantly clear that you seemed to miss: There is no incentive to produce ultra high end gaming monitors because no one (not literally if you're going to be pedantic) buys them. "Enthusiast" or "average person", however you want to define those terms.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,188
Again to make my point abundantly clear that you seemed to miss: There is no incentive to produce ultra high end gaming monitors because no one (not literally if you're going to be pedantic) buys them. "Enthusiast" or "average person", however you want to define those terms.
I wasn't considering the $30K reference or medical stuff at all here, more like the graphics designer grade IPS monitors etc. Companies don't get to dictate the specs on those, they buy what is on the market.

It's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. When all the "pro" monitors are 60 Hz, you can't get high refresh rates no matter what. So manufacturers don't make 120+ Hz versions because they can just sell the 60 Hz ones. Likewise there are only a handful of above 4K res monitors to choose from again because display manufacturers simply do not make them.

There are price point limits that even most enthusiasts are not willing to pay. To me they are hit with things like the nearly 2000 euro 38" high refresh rate ultrawides, 2000-3000 euro FALD displays etc. The price for high refresh rate and FALD is just way too much for the specs, which are still often not top tier at that price range (e.g. low contrast ratio and mediocre HDR on the 38" models, bad response times on the VA panel FALD monitors).
 

AgentQ

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Messages
1,581
The challenge with displays is that cutting edge display controller hardware is always expensive.

I've done some engineering of display hardware. Getting 4Kp30 chips is easy these days. 4Kp60 is a little more expensive. Anything over 60Hz at 4K and you're not finding it on the open market. You have to engage with specialized vendors and invest huge amounts of money just to get the conversation started.

As always, the situation will change as the high end parts trickle down into commodity products.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,188
The challenge with displays is that cutting edge display controller hardware is always expensive.

I've done some engineering of display hardware. Getting 4Kp30 chips is easy these days. 4Kp60 is a little more expensive. Anything over 60Hz at 4K and you're not finding it on the open market. You have to engage with specialized vendors and invest huge amounts of money just to get the conversation started.

As always, the situation will change as the high end parts trickle down into commodity products.

Why is it expensive though? To me it seems like they could just keep iterating on existing solutions, I mean is controlling a 5120x2160 screen really any different from controlling a 3840x2160 screen? High refresh rate should only put more requirement on the panel and maybe some on the controller processing power but you'd think big players like LG and Samsung would have the funds to develop this stuff because I see it as "make it work great once, keep using it for the next 10 years in products with iterative improvement".
 
Top