"computer" displays bigger than 30" possible?

J

JVC

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
1,280
i think that for the huge resolution, 30"s are too small imo. anything bigger in the future?
 
Westinghouse LVM-37WSE.....1920x1080 res, crisp, and 37" of love. GREAT as a computer display.....
 
yup, its got a mile long thread for a reason :)

other than that though, any good 1080p LCD HDTV with 1:1 pixel mapping and low input lag would be good as a monitor as well. Samsung's 1080p 40" for example is supposed to be good, as is Sharp's new 32" 1080p set.
 
When will people realise that getting a 37" with the standard low resolution of 1920x1080 just makes you push the screen further back, eliminating the reason for purchasing a large screen in the first place. 1920x1080 on a 37" at normal computer display distances looks like utter garbage.
 
Vega said:
When will people realise that getting a 37" with the standard low resolution of 1920x1080 just makes you push the screen further back, eliminating the reason for purchasing a large screen in the first place. 1920x1080 on a 37" at normal computer display distances looks like utter garbage.
Click to expand...

If you use the screen for more than just your computer it's a great monitor. I don't know about you but I'm still rockin a circa 1307 BC SDTV with about 7 pixels and its painful to mess with my 360 on it. Definitely considering an LCD TV as my next monitor.
 
Vega said:
When will people realise that getting a 37" with the standard low resolution of 1920x1080 just makes you push the screen further back, eliminating the reason for purchasing a large screen in the first place. 1920x1080 on a 37" at normal computer display distances looks like utter garbage.
Click to expand...

ignorant
 
With 2 20" screens in pivot mode next to the 30" you get 4960x1600.
That will be ok.
I just ordered the Dell 2007FP to accompany my 3007FP.
Now i have to get one more 20" and i can put the existing 17" as a fourth screen on top of the 30".
I will post some pictures when it's ready...
 
willi42 said:
With 2 20" screens in pivot mode next to the 30" you get 4960x1600.
That will be ok.
I just ordered the Dell 2007FP to accompany my 3007FP.
Now i have to get one more 20" and i can put the existing 17" as a fourth screen on top of the 30".
I will post some pictures when it's ready...
Click to expand...

That's..... ridiculous.... I like the idea. PICS OR SHENS :D
 
Vega said:
When will people realise that getting a 37" with the standard low resolution of 1920x1080 just makes you push the screen further back, eliminating the reason for purchasing a large screen in the first place. 1920x1080 on a 37" at normal computer display distances looks like utter garbage.
Click to expand...

Your post directly contradicts thousands of posts in the Westy thread, and my own experience. I sit as close as 2.5 - 3 feet away from mine and it looks perfectly fine. Have you actually used a properly setup display of this sort? It doesn't sound like you have.
 
Blahman said:
yup, its got a mile long thread for a reason :)

other than that though, any good 1080p LCD HDTV with 1:1 pixel mapping and low input lag would be good as a monitor as well. Samsung's 1080p 40" for example is supposed to be good, as is Sharp's new 32" 1080p set.
Click to expand...


Hi Blahman,

Can you provide a link to the Samsung and Sharp models you are talking about? I just returned a 42" HDTV LCD after being burned by a lack of 1:1 pixel mapping.

-G.
 
people. i should had been more clear. anything bigger in size with a resolution of 2500x1600 like in the 30ins computer monitors????
 
JVC said:
i think that for the huge resolution, 30"s are too small imo. anything bigger in the future?
Click to expand...

FYI 30" monitors at 25x16 have a dot pitch of 0.25in, which is fairly standard. The 22" monitors @ 16x10 have a dot pitch of ~0.27 (~10% larger). If you put a 22" next to a 30" and display the same window/screen or move a window between the two, it will be noticeably larger on the 22", but not that much larger.
 
It just seems somewhat impractical to get close to displays larger than 30" or so. No, I am only looking for a good 28" for a decent price. Maybe next year. Larger monitors start to look like SciFi whole wall monitors. While they'd be cool, until they actually go full wall they just seem ungainly. Too much Tennis match neck for me.
 
JVC said:
people. i should had been more clear. anything bigger in size with a resolution of 2500x1600 like in the 30ins computer monitors????
Click to expand...

Not as mainstream hardware. There have been a handful of 3840X2400 monitors produced over the last 7 years, but they're targeted primarily for medicial imaging applications, are priced extremely high, and won't run on standard gfx cards.

here's an blurb about a recent one, the article is incorrect in one point though. That bandwidth requires quadlink DVI bandwidth. This would mean either 2 dual link DVI-D or one DMS-59 cable.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/02/toshibas-22-inch-monitor-touts-insane-3-840-x-2-400-resolution/

Until HDMI 1.3 or DisplayPort connections, both with a 2x the max bandwidth of a duallink DVI cable start to become mainstream 2560x1600x24bitx60hz remains the maximum available resolution. Farthermore, at least some of the extra bandwidth is probably going to be used to increase the number of bits per pixel, allowing extended gamut devices to be able to display both sRGB and native color depth images correctly simultainiously by mapping the 8bit/subpixel images to the 9+ bit per sub pixel hardware hardware at the OS level.
 
Blahman said:
ignorant
Click to expand...

What an insightful and informative response!

However, Vega is right - that Westinghouse monitor will have pixels over 0.40mm in size. That's a pretty coarse resolution and would be considered unacceptable by a lot of people who were interested in something other than just having something big. Those of us who've been using 0.25 pixels for over a decade would find it a poor choice. In fact, anything larger than a 22" monitor at 1920x1200 will have poorer resolution. The 30" at 2560x1600 are fine, however. Your perception of the issue is entirely yours.

To get the kind of resolution that one would have come to expect from a decent modern monitor, you'd have to push that monitor well back. There is one market for that - those with poor near vision. Moving such a monitor further away gives them a decent sized monitor while allowing them to view it with distance vision rather than close up. For example, moving it twice as far away as a normal monitor makes it a decent 18.5" (equivalent) monitor with 0.2mm pixels in apparent size - that makes for a sharp, high resolution monitor for someone with that need.

Anyone who read Jerry Pournelle's columns in Byte many years ago will know how he always sold this idea for writers and such who wanted to work without going cross-eyed with a too-close monitor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top