I'm just curious!

[bustaplz]

I've got a modest stable of Displays at my house. The only kind I haven't really had experience with yet is a 2560x1600 panel, though I have of course used them briefly. They are pretty great, but looking at my Toshiba 37" LCD@1080p and the Dell P2010H I currently have set up next to it. Even though this P2010 is(I think) a TN panel, and I'm no expert on panel technologies, it's resolution and size make for a much clearer picture than my 37.

There is a pretty obvious reason for that, the Dell has ~50% display size and ~70% amount of pixels displayed.

Now I find myself trying to decide what display setup I would like to move to the next time I decide to throw away some hard-earned cash. Would I rather run a BIG! display or maybe an Eyefinity setup so I can have a 5760x1080 resolution? A lot of people I know can't imagine how I use a 37" display in a normal desktop fashion, two to three feet from my face the way all the normal folk use a 20" display. After about 4 hours of getting accustomed to the 37 when I got it, I've been ecstatic with it. But I still run extra displays to have more desktop real estate.

If you're wondering what the hell my point is, we're on the same page!

But seriously, why do I have to choose between a screen of substantial size and a screen with - for lack of a known term to use here - higher pixel density due to a smaller size? I wish for someone to explain to me - if possible - what the obstacle is for creating a 40" display with a resolution like 10,000x5625? Will it happen soon?

Somebody tell me!

 

[sethk]

Since you asked here's my list of "40 inch Display with 10000 x 5625 resolution obstacles":
1. Cost
2. Market Demand
3. Content
4. Standards to deliver this resolution
5. Monitor / TV electronics to drive this sort of panel
6. Pixel defect handling at this size / density
7. That's not a resolution that makes sense (not divisible by 8 in the vertical) but I get your point, so you can mostly discard this one.
8. Cost. I know I already mentioned this, but it's a biggie, so I'll list it twice.

 

[bustaplz]

Since you asked here's my list of "40 inch Display with 10000 x 5625 resolution obstacles":
1. Cost
Fair point, but I think it is well known that EVERY product has a market. The EVGA SR-2 comes to mind.
2. Market Demand
I think I've touched on this point, but I haven't seen any company talk about technologies that will take us from the current high-end of 1080p to something more.
3. Content
4. Standards to deliver this resolution
Maybe I'm showing my ignorance here, but why is it so impossible to deliver current content at a high resolution? 10k x 5k was just a high number, but eyefinity resolutions can be pretty high, yet we have content(only video games so far) suited for it. Could you elaborate on point #4 a bit? Are you referring to media to store and transfer video for something higher than 1920x1080? Because I think we have that handled!
5. Monitor / TV electronics to drive this sort of panel
I don't know much about the subject in discussion so I will take your word!
6. Pixel defect handling at this size / density
Again, I'm not well schooled on display tech so I may sound dumb. Are you referring to manufacture of panels with 25x the amount of pixels with reliable consistency?
7. That's not a resolution that makes sense (not divisible by 8 in the vertical) but I get your point, so you can mostly discard this one.
Again, that was just a number to illustrate my train of though.
8. Cost. I know I already mentioned this, but it's a biggie, so I'll list it twice.
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition

Fair arguments?

 

[sethk]

When it comes to price, I'm not kidding. This monitor @ 40" would be a bigger price jump than a regular X58 (@ ~$200) to the SR-2 (~$600) or a regular i7 to an extreme edition. Because of the issues listed above, a mass manufactured display today (the tech exists, just not mass market) would cost well over $10,000 (just a very low estimate based on defect rates and the price of 4K displays, which are less than 1/4 of your proposed resolution). I don't think the market exists for a 40", $50,000 display. Just saying.

This is already a long post so I won't get really into my point about standards, but there is a litany of standards issues. There are no Eyefinity single monitors supporting 3 x 1080p even, and that would be much simpler than a 10K resolution.

Super Hi-Vision is probably the most likely next standard to support close to the sort of resolutions you are looking at (still less than half of your proposed res), just as Hi-Vision was the precursor to the common HD standards in use today.

 

[Nightbird]

If OLED is made seamless, can't you piece them together? Where the edges meet won't be perfect, but if they can get it to a 1 pixel width, then I'd use it without hesitation.

My preferred resolution would be 3840x1200 or 5120x1600, both 32x10 ratios for nice surround gaming and work real-estate space. I guess if they made three 11x10 ratio screens and pieced them together, that'd be good as well.