![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
When will we see 3840*2160 monitors?
- Thread starter Oled
- Start date
Godmachine
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 10,472
4k TVs are right around the corner (year to 2 years and seriously expensive) but there has to be a demand before computer monitor manufactures even bother. They don't do jack shit to advance anything other than cutting there costs and passing on shitty designs to there customer base to "deal" with. IPS monitors use to be such wonderful quality monitors now they are just drowning in flaws and the amount of savings passed on to customers is just a joke.
The only recent advancement I can even think of for standard LCD computer monitors is 120hz refresh rate becoming available. I'm seriously sick of the lack of interest to forward the industry. So many possible advancements but unless its ultra profitable and low on investment then its tossed aside as "not doable" or "requires more research". OLED has been in the making for ages and is now coming to a point where its still expensive but the interest seems greater than ever and yet only TV manufactures seem to be bothering to advance that field.
Monitors seem to be catered to the lowest possible dollar. You can get a 16:9 1920x1080p LCD monitor for dirt cheap but the quality will be shit and it probably will have numerous issues down the line or end up with a short life span. Or you can spend easily double for a slightly better monitor but it will still have its own issues to deal with and might even be worse in some aspects than the dirt cheap monitor (hello shitty IPS contrast).
Don't count on a major resolution increase any time soon.
The only recent advancement I can even think of for standard LCD computer monitors is 120hz refresh rate becoming available. I'm seriously sick of the lack of interest to forward the industry. So many possible advancements but unless its ultra profitable and low on investment then its tossed aside as "not doable" or "requires more research". OLED has been in the making for ages and is now coming to a point where its still expensive but the interest seems greater than ever and yet only TV manufactures seem to be bothering to advance that field.
Monitors seem to be catered to the lowest possible dollar. You can get a 16:9 1920x1080p LCD monitor for dirt cheap but the quality will be shit and it probably will have numerous issues down the line or end up with a short life span. Or you can spend easily double for a slightly better monitor but it will still have its own issues to deal with and might even be worse in some aspects than the dirt cheap monitor (hello shitty IPS contrast).
Don't count on a major resolution increase any time soon.
You were thinking of the IBM T221 right? The manufacturer of the panel was IDtech - some sort of joint venture between Chi Mei and IBM - but they closed down in 2005. But they invested a lot of time offering products with high DPIs and high resolutions while also using IPS technology.
But like you said - the problem is reasonable prices. People will need to see a use for 4K, and as long as I see other people recommending 50" plasmas at a viewing distance of 8-10ft, i'm not sure it will ever take off... unless you wanted to pay through the nose.
NEC and IBM both offered a 15" QXGA IPS screen (Idtech) upgrade for some of their laptop series... for about $900 back then. And this is probably part of why the joint-venture was ended.
don't get fooled by high resolutions, the quality of the screen is defined by many factors.
If you look at the screens of today you'll notice that 90% of all monitors have at least one big flaw.
If you go looking in area's that are in this case quite experimental, you'll end up paying much for nothing...
If you look at the screens of today you'll notice that 90% of all monitors have at least one big flaw.
If you go looking in area's that are in this case quite experimental, you'll end up paying much for nothing...
I pay real actors so I can watch instead of a screen. Only problem is where to the bodies when I am doing "fps".
We already know you hate high resolutions and think the current situation is just fine for everyone, so this probably isn't the right thread for you.
There is a market for that sort of things ?
Oled tech might give us 4k horizontal pixels on TVs, though i'm not sure i'd buy a 4k pixel wide monitor unless it's less than 30" in physical size.
I said it from my point of vieuw DEPENDING on what I've learned on this forum allready...
no need to become personal. I do not hate high resolutions, I am just aware that there aren't many screens yet that can perform fast with high res.
I own a 30" 2560*1600 LCD and I am pretty happy with the current pixel density. For general computer use (including Office and gaming), higher pixel density would be detrimental.
On one hand the font would get too small and on the other hand more powerful video card would be necessary to push the additional pixels (without any significant benefit).
I believe that this type of resolution is mostly useful for imaging (hospital) and military purposes.
I would think very soon now. It's the next logical step after the current 1440p monitors. There is this panel which one poster speculated Apple might make a display with..
http://www.chimei-innolux.com/openc...play/products_medical_R278D1.html?__locale=en
Samsung will be adding a 1440p monitor soon (the SA 850). For companies like that the next logical step up is the 3840 x 2160 - or 2160p. This would of course give Apple bragging rights.
I personally think it would work fine on PC's too - as Window 7's scaling is understimated. It works fine - its just some programs/websites aren't implementing things correctly. And since people sit like 2 - 3 foot away from their monitor we clearly would benefit from this pixel density in many applications. I am not sure how high the DPI needs to get before you can't tell at normal distances but its higher then current resolutions that is for sure.
http://www.chimei-innolux.com/openc...play/products_medical_R278D1.html?__locale=en
Samsung will be adding a 1440p monitor soon (the SA 850). For companies like that the next logical step up is the 3840 x 2160 - or 2160p. This would of course give Apple bragging rights.
I personally think it would work fine on PC's too - as Window 7's scaling is understimated. It works fine - its just some programs/websites aren't implementing things correctly. And since people sit like 2 - 3 foot away from their monitor we clearly would benefit from this pixel density in many applications. I am not sure how high the DPI needs to get before you can't tell at normal distances but its higher then current resolutions that is for sure.
Last edited:
dowant120hz
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 632
its very easy to build since you only need to put 4 panels in the same case
but since it isn't a mainstream product i guess we won't see it for at least 5 years
and i guess it will be about 10 years till it has a realistic price tag
but since it isn't a mainstream product i guess we won't see it for at least 5 years
and i guess it will be about 10 years till it has a realistic price tag
For a TV, maybe!
It's not so different from current eyefinity resolutions, so a single 4K display wouldn't be much of a problem to power. Sure, at first powering more than one is gonna be a struggle.. but GPUs will always keep getting faster/gaining more VRAM.
dowant120hz
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 632
higher resolutions make text much smoother and realistic without the need for substitutes like cleartype
I expect Apple will do it first, based on double resolution indications in OSX, success doing the same with iP4, and strong relationship with LG, where Apple has historically defined new panel resolutions or were the first to use them.
I expect it in 2012-2013.
I expect it in 2012-2013.
I really hope they do make 4k screens. For one thing its about the only thing that'll keep high end gfx cards selling well. I don't think anyone else will really push for higher resolution screens that much. The tech companies are still trying to get the general public to accept 1080p as the standard. If they start pushing 4k now it'll hurt 1080p sales & HDTV/BlooRay uptake.
I think you lack imagination. 2560 x 1440p is possible but 3840 x 2160 is a flight of fantasy? Yeah not really.. It's not a problem at all from GPU standards either. A 6950 (2GB) can push this today in some games imagine how easy it will be in one or two years. I think most folks that use a computer have figured out that more pixels is helpful - not just a larger size. So this is a natural progression for the high end buyer. Apple caters to these wealthy people so they will be the first to use this when it comes out. I'd expect to see a company start making 3840 x 2160 panels for better 30 inch display. Didn't apple drop their current 30 inch ACD display?
When they introduce a new one it will fill the void - and probably cost around 2 - 3k. Let's hope its not glossy though.
Thunderbolt.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 22,385
how would it help 1080p content, it would be like watching a dvd on a 1080p monitor and make it look like crap.?
For 1080p content, it'd just be blocks of 2x2 pixels so it would scale perfectly.
Actually, Video is trivial to scale. For video you would likely get a better result just scaling than pixel doubling. Try watching a decent 720p video on a 1080 screen, it is very hard to tell the difference between that and real 1080.
I often watch Cinemascope movies slight zoomed to reduce the black bars a bit and there is no noticeable loss in quality.
It is games/apps that look like crap when run non native because they have perfect pixel alignment and perfect hard edges. But video is inherently soft already and is very easy to scale with no additional quality loss.
Whoisthisreally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,143
It is important to note that the devices with these resolutions are currently made for the medical market which has strict requirements for parameters that you haven't even thought of, like needing a BLU that can drive the monitor above 500 cd/m2. There are also bandwidth considerations, especially given that such panels will need to be driven at 10 bit colour.
Increasing the pixel density in an LCD panel reduces its pixel aperture ratio, so there are trade-offs for such a high resolution display and therefore some justification is needed during design. We also have to consider what technical barriers there may be, like, can it be made on a-Si using the existing factory assets as the conventional 30" Samsung and LG panels? The iphone display uses LTPS.
Then there is the issue of controllers and graphics boards for this resolution. Neither of these are ready outside of in-house solutions.
In short: > 4 MP Mainstream Displays: Maybe.... eventually...
I think Disney Pixar digitally animated movies are made in much higher resolution than HD, then mastered down to 1080p in their Blu Ray releases. So I don't think that would be a problem in terms of video. Eyfinity 6 supports a [theoretical] maximum resolution of 8000x8000 (I think) anyway. I'm sure one day these displays will be possible, but my guess is resolution increases are going to get slower and slower over time anyway. There isn't going to be a lot of other technology that results in the demand for higher resolution displays, outside of some specific professional applications.
Crucible1001
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,611
There is no reason for that resolution unless you want a 40 inch on your desk. I would like to upgrade to that some day...
Whoisthisreally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,143
I have found an interesting article called LCD Monitors: Why we're stuck at 100 ppi.
maverick786us
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,154
I wish these displays come into horizon this year. It will significantly reduce the price of 30 inch display
Interesting read. I like how the poor guy is predicting 21" 2560x1600 displays for the start of 2010, and Vista to come along and fix all Windows' scaling issues.
Whoisthisreally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,143
I know, it is kind of funny that the prediction is way off. It seems that monitors are definitely driven by field area and not so much resolution.
Windows 7 scaling is underrated. The important applications all scale fine - and the things that don't (web pages) can be fixed with zoom. We are just going to have to see about monitors. I think the success of the iphone 4 has wetted peoples appetitie for higher DPI displays - and I think Apple will follow up on it with higher DPI displays. But we shall see..
Sure if by important applications you mean Microsofts applications.
Hardly any applications I have scale correctly at all, they just fall back to blurry-zoom.
So instead of higher DPI fonts, I get low DPI fonts zoomed in. Blech! My image viewers only show me zoomed, blurry images.
Well most modern applications should scale fine. Microsoft has great development tools and most developers can use them. This isn't to say you are wrong - just that there is nothing wrong with Windows 7 scaling. They don't need to catch up. They just need to bring along their developers.
Microsoft takes too much flack for this. They could break old applications (which is an approach Apple would use) OR they can let people live with blurry fonts and have the applications work correctly. They have the framework in though for great scaling and for the applications alot of people use it works very well.
Microsoft has full vector based scaling for applications that use the WPF and XAML APIs. So for most modern applications the scaling is great. This is actually more advanced that what Apple has had for quite a while now. Windows have the scaling edge back when Vista came out.. The Apple changes that everyone was raving about is more of a catchup thing for OSX. (iOS of course was new and made pretty modern from the get go).
I'd certainly buy a high DPI monitor - the apps I use most often work great scaling wise. Sooner or later Microsoft is going to have to push these wayward developers forward. It's better that then being stuck with a lifetime of low DPI monitors.. Near as I can tell there is nothing technically wrong with Microsofts scaling. I don't know what they could do to make it better besides breaking old apps.
Pete
Last edited:
Well wake me when more than Microsoft is actually using them.
I just tested a bit more.
Opera: Blurry
Chrome: Blurry
Firefox: sharp but some mis-sized elements.
irfanView (image viewer): Blurry
Open Office: Blurry.
Comical (comic book reader): Blurry.
VIM: Blurry.
Notepad++: Blurry.
Kalendar (reminder App): Sharp
But then an Kalendar event went off and I got this:
Other than OS components, nearly everything I have is either Broken or Blurry zoomed.
They may have great system in theory, but that doesn't actually make it usable in practice.
First we need some very high DPI displays (~200 DPI) then we need the early adopters to buy them and start complaining at the application writers to fix this.
We have a long way to go, I will be a late adopter on this one. When it is more like 95% working apps and 5% not, then I am on board, but not the other way around.