When will we see 3840*2160 monitors?

Well to each his own - feel that IE9 is better then any of those other browsers - and I don't need those other programs as I pretty much use office, skype, games and photoshop most often.
 
I have to say, it seems up to 125% scaling works well.

I would definitely much rather have 24" 2560x1600 displays then 30"rs. But I cant live without this resolution so meh.
 
Yeah I say there is a demand but like previous post have said money talks and thus is the reason we have lots of 1080p screens. Some good some bad but in all reality most investors and banks will not fund higher resolution monitors unless theres profit to be had. Sad I know but we live in an era where banks and investors are determining factor of techhnology advancement. :(
 
ltcharles said:
Yeah I say there is a demand but like previous post have said money talks and thus is the reason we have lots of 1080p screens. Some good some bad but in all reality most investors and banks will not fund higher resolution monitors unless theres profit to be had. Sad I know but we live in an era where banks and investors are determining factor of techhnology advancement. :(
Click to expand...

...or lack of advancement.
 
ltcharles said:
Yeah I say there is a demand but like previous post have said money talks and thus is the reason we have lots of 1080p screens. Some good some bad but in all reality most investors and banks will not fund higher resolution monitors unless theres profit to be had. Sad I know but we live in an era where banks and investors are determining factor of techhnology advancement. :(
Click to expand...

They've always been the determining factor, people don't go out and invent and commercialize new technologies for the lulz and because it's cool, they do it to make money.
 
rocket733 said:
They've always been the determining factor, people don't go out and invent and commercialize new technologies for the lulz and because it's cool, they do it to make money.
Click to expand...

Which is why you'll probably get weird resolutions like 2048x1152, 2400x1350, 2800x1575, 3200x1800 and other incremental increases before quadhd. Baby steps are more profitable.
 
You CAN actually make a buck selling something that's just a bit better for alot more. This is basically how Apple has done it's whole business. It's how companies like BMW make their money too. (I know what you are thinking BMW's are way better - well no they are not objectively speaking - it's possible to get 90% of the car for 1/3 price).

So again if some company comes out with not crazy priced panel @ 2160p you might see a "premium" model from Apple or NEC thats not THAT out of reach. This is pretty much what happened with the iphone. Apple saw that it could buy these displays for a premium and use its high DPI as a selling point. They even gave it a catch name.

It's hardly seems shocking to feel that Apple could do the same with a desktop display.

I don't agree on the odd resolutions bit - they tend to die out for standards. You have a 1440p which is already a standard (and will eventually overtake 2560 x 1600) and then logically speaking you would go to 2160p.

It's going to come down to the price of the panel.
 
GuyClinch said:
Apple saw that it could buy these displays for a premium and use its high DPI as a selling point.
Click to expand...
Small displays are generally cheap.. add a bit of higher DPI and it won't really affect much at all due to the high yield. Using a high DPI nor IPS display in a phone is a new invention, and the cost is peanuts compared to a desktop size panel with even just half as good a dpi.

Maybe it will catch on, but i have my doubts since enough people won't be able to appreciate the difference and thus pay for it. What's the larger resolution worth if everybody dpi-scales everything and most people do not even notice the individual pixels of today's 90-100dpi monitors at their current viewing distance either way? Nothing. :p
 
I read most of this thread. Have to admit I skimmed some of that later stuff.
...
..First of all imo if you want 720 and 1080p content I'd just get another (1080p) display as part of your display group. If you can afford a extremely high resolution ips you are daydreaming of, you can prob afford an extra 1080p display off a ceiling or wall mount, on a pillar, (or however you add it) dedicated to video playback or if you are into consoles.
..
..... Like others have said, there is eyefinity, but the OP was talking about pixel density increasing, not just stitching existing densities together. Even if there were bezel-less 19" 1080p screens, a 2x2 config of them would still be a 38" x 38" screen at 3840 x 2160. A 27" 2560x1440 in a 2x2 config would be 54" x 54".
..
.. In my opinion, at a desk a single screen should be 22" to 30", even if part of a monitor group. After that, the perimeter of the single monitors edges into periphery. I've had larger screens and they are too big for at a desk. I moved my 37" back several feet on a pillar stand for awhile before I later sold it several years ago. Perspective wise, I could have had the same rez on a smaller screen, but closer at the desk.
...
... I'm very happy with the scaler-less 27" 2560x1440 ips screen I just bought recently. I really like the pixel density and the size (I replaced a 27.5" 1920x1200 hannspree TN). I wouldn't want the density any greater (pixels any smaller). It would be cool if they ever made bezel-less ones for a triple monitor setups though - for horizontal space and eyefinity gaming. Side-peripheral monitor space is cool with me - however I would not want a huge 37" - 60" ultra high pixel density "wall-of-monitor" in front of me at a desk that I'd have to crane my eyes/neck upward at during regular usage. Of course there is also the gpu power necessary......

For now I have a 19" 900x1440 (portrait) on each side of my main 27" 2560x1440 monitor. Next year I might look into three 27" screens for eyefinity gaming.

This link shows some results and info gathered from some well-known monitor sizing/info sites:
http://3dalchemist.com/hardware-info/screen-sizes.htm
..
..
 
A copy and paste of mine from another thread but the answer is 3840x2160 monitors should be coming out pretty soon... Paste:

Neb said:
I own a U2711 which is a 27" with a 2560x1440 resolution, I can tell you that a 24" with the resolution of my 30" would be really difficult on the eyes.

It's important to consider viewing distance when comparing resolution and screen size. With a laptop or cell phone you're generally sitting much closer to the screen than you would a desktop monitor.



This, as well. Some apps that I use completely break if I bump up the text size in win7 :(
Click to expand...


Bleh... 2560x1600 would just be fine on a 24 inch monitor. I ran it on a 22.2 inch monitor that was pretty far away from my face but stopped due to the fact the refresh rate was to low as it was being scaled. I had no problems reading it at 2560x1600.

Even 3840x2400 on a 22.2 inch display is readable and fine if you ask me although if possible I would prefer that on 24 or 28 inches instead.


OP: If your not a gamer (don't need good response time and 60Hz refresh) then the IBM T221 is an awesome monitor. I use that in combination with a 30 inch on my desktop here at work.

I run it at 3840x2400@48Hz and even FPS gaming is possible but not great due to the refresh rate/response time.

I think apple will be coming out with a 27.8 inch IPS LCD that is 3840x2160. The reason I heard this is someone said they demo'd a smaller 4k cinema display, they recently updated their OS to scale perfectly (for retina displays) and in Q3 of this year chimei is coming out with a 27.8 inch 3840x2160 resolution panel:

http://www.chimei-innolux.com/openc...play/products_medical_R278D1.html?__locale=en

My guess (and hope) is apple will be using this panel in a new 'retina' cinema display. If they do it mans the price of buying a monitor with this panel will be much lower than what it will be otherwise.
 
My eyes might just be shitty, but nonetheless I stand by my statements :)
 
houkouonchi said:
I think apple will be coming out with a 27.8 inch IPS LCD that is 3840x2160. The reason I heard this is someone said they demo'd a smaller 4k cinema display, they recently updated their OS to scale perfectly (for retina displays) and in Q3 of this year chimei is coming out with a 27.8 inch 3840x2160 resolution panel:

http://www.chimei-innolux.com/openc...play/products_medical_R278D1.html?__locale=en

My guess (and hope) is apple will be using this panel in a new 'retina' cinema display. If they do it mans the price of buying a monitor with this panel will be much lower than what it will be otherwise.
Click to expand...

That is a medical display panel. Apple is not going to be using this. It has a 600 cd/m2 luminance rating and it probably costs as much as Goku's life insurance bill.
 
houkouonchi said:
Even 3840x2400 on a 22.2 inch display is readable and fine if you ask me
Click to expand...

Readable and fine? That is complete nonsense.

Most people have issues with font size at that 2560 on 27". I do and I have better than 20/20 vision.

3840 on 22.2 inch = 197 dpi.

Here is a font I grabbed while creating this post on my 94 dpi monitor (24" 1920x1200), and the size it would be at 94dpi, 150 dpi, and the 197 dpi you say would be readable and fine. :rolleyes:

fontdpi.png



Anything much over 100 dpi is going to require good font scaling for the non mutant population.
 
Snowdog said:
Readable and fine? That is complete nonsense.

Most people have issues with font size at that 2560 on 27". I do and I have better than 20/20 vision.

3840 on 22.2 inch = 197 dpi.

Here is a font I grabbed while creating this post on my 94 dpi monitor (24" 1920x1200), and the size it would be at 94dpi, 150 dpi, and the 197 dpi you say would be readable and fine. :rolleyes:

fontdpi.png



Anything much over 100 dpi is going to require good font scaling for the non mutant population.
Click to expand...
...or you could just scale by 200% and have 4x smoother non-pixelated text
 
dowant120hz said:
...or you could just scale by 200% and have 4x smoother non-pixelated text
Click to expand...

I was addressing the ridiculous claim that 197 dpi was fine without scaling.

You did read the bottom line where I said it would require good scaling?

The problem is that scaling seldom works well outside of MS applications, as discussed on previous page.

95% of what I tried just did a blurry low res blow up. The other 5% that was sharp did this:

dpisetting.png
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
Readable and fine? That is complete nonsense.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the point about broken scaling with apps on Windows, but I don't really have a problem reading that image you posted.. obviously it'd be much less messed up on a proper 197 dpi display.

It may just have to be a case of those apps getting fixed as more people with high-DPI displays nag the author about it.

houkouonchi, was it you who had a picture somewhere of a grid of 16 terminals in linux running tiled on the T221?
 
It also depends how far you are sitting from your monitor.

If you are reading off a 27" 2560x1440 at two to three feet from the screen it is a lot different than 6" to 1'. I would have no problem reading the newspaper or a magazine at 1/3 the size of their regular text if I had it up closer to my face :p

At my current distance on the 27" 2560x1440, unscaled at default font size , sitting back in chair my eyes are probably 3' away and the bottom line "197 dpi" is unreadable for all practical purposes... Most of the 150dpi line can be deciphered (helped by the fact that I know what it says already) but its blurry/undefined/"blobby" and would be unusable. The "94dpi" one is actually smaller than the default font size of [H] on my browser. So the "94dpi" one is around the same size as the "additional options" checkbox text beneath the reply to thread windows - which is readable but getting on the small side.

Screen sizes and dpi both have to take distance and perspective into account.

I do get the OP's idea about smoother font edges without cleartype. It would be a lot smoother at ultra rez + scaled than not having cleartype ( -but I have no problem using cleartype so the gains really wouldn't be there for me). I totally agree with snowdog about the non-scaled text as well however. I wouldn't want text any smaller on my 27" 2560x1440 screen since I use it 2'+ away from me as part of a multi-monitor setup. (I am putting it on a good ergotron arm so I may bring it in a little closer to 2' eventually but still).

An ultra high dpi monitor would require everything to be scaled up ui-wise in OS and apps. I don't think the rez vs aliasing would be a benefit when sized up vs AA cost wise on gpu demands for games either. It would be interesting to see a hypothetical comparison of the demands on current high end gpus though (of ultra high rez equivalent view of aliasing vs comparable moderate AA effects on current high rez screens - again distance affects this-).

The only real use for it other than clear-type free text would be images viewed very close up. In that duty I would say such an ultra-high rez screen would be better off dedicated to displaying images as part of a multi-monitor setup - with little to no ui elements on the image-display at all. And that would be for medical imaging and maybe very high end digital art studios.
 
elvn said:
It also depends how far you are sitting from your monitor.

If you are reading off a 27" 2560x1440 at two to three feet from the screen it is a lot different than 6" to 1'. I would have no problem reading the newspaper or a magazine at 1/3 the size of their regular text if I had it up closer to my face :p

At my current distance on the 27" 2560x1440, unscaled at default font size , sitting back in chair my eyes are probably 3' away and the bottom line "197 dpi" is unreadable for all practical purposes... Most of the 150dpi line can be deciphered (helped by the fact that I know what it says already) but its blurry/undefined/"blobby" and would be unusable. The "94dpi" one is actually smaller than the default font size of [H] on my browser. So the "94dpi" one is around the same size as the "additional options" checkbox text beneath the reply to thread windows - which is readable but getting on the small side.
Click to expand...

Yes the 94 dpi font is the options/Post icons font. I am a programmer and this is about the size font I use at work(to cram max code on the screen) and in a fairly large working population of programmers I use among the smallest fonts of my colleagues, I often need to turn up font size when debugging at my desk with someone else.

The test for a font is not whether you can lean in to 3 inches away and decipher it. It is whether you can comfortably work with that font for hours at a regular viewing distance. That anyone can do this with the 150 dpi size is dubious.

I take any claim of doing so at the 197 dpi size as an outright lie.

Mutants/liars excepted, the vast majority of the population will need fonts scaling at anything much over 100 dpi.
 
Last edited:
Tak Ne said:
Which is why you'll probably get weird resolutions like 2048x1152, 2400x1350, 2800x1575, 3200x1800 and other incremental increases before quadhd. Baby steps are more profitable.
Click to expand...

wich is why companies act like babies...
 
I agree. But I'm still waiting for a weird resolution. Someone should do a 35.6" 2560x2560 screen. That (in portrait obviously) with two 30" screens on the sides would be great for Eyefinity. :)
 
Make me a 32 inch 4:3 ratio 2560x1920 and we'll call it even.
 
32" 2560x1600 would be perfect for me. Same 94 DPI as my current monitor.
 
wagoo said:
houkouonchi, was it you who had a picture somewhere of a grid of 16 terminals in linux running tiled on the T221?
Click to expand...

Yup that is me! Except its actually 20 (5x4 not 4x4)

Snowdog said:
Readable and fine? That is complete nonsense.

Most people have issues with font size at that 2560 on 27". I do and I have better than 20/20 vision.

3840 on 22.2 inch = 197 dpi.

Here is a font I grabbed while creating this post on my 94 dpi monitor (24" 1920x1200), and the size it would be at 94dpi, 150 dpi, and the 197 dpi you say would be readable and fine. :rolleyes:

fontdpi.png



Anything much over 100 dpi is going to require good font scaling for the non mutant population.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about man? Do you have a 204 PPI screen sitting in front of you? How can you say what is/is not readable when you don't have the thing sitting in front of you? Scaling down to super small font size on a 100 PPI screen sure that last line is almost unreadable. When I just drag your window over to my T221 at 204 PPI that top line is *PERFECTLY* readable on a 200 PPI monitor. I use 75 DPI setting for X-windows and have my terminal fonts set at size 11 and its perfectly readable up to around 3 feet away from the display.

I think 3840x2160 at small font sizes is a little extreme for a 22.2 inch display but it would be fine on a 29-30 and 2560x1600 would be fine on a 24. There is a huge difference between looking at a small (physical size) font on a low PPI screen and on a high PPI screen. Its so crystal sharp that even when its very tiny its still easily readable.

All my terminals that I can easily read from my desk run at about the same size text as that image you posted. You can see it in this pictures (although a bit blurry as I wasn't taking a picture of the monitor per-say):



If you have problems with font size on a 27 inch I think you must just have something wrong with your eyes and I seroiusly doubt you really have 20/20. I have about 20/20 (corrected) as my eyeglasses prescription is over -5 diopters in both eyes. My dad (in his 50s) also has a 204 PPI Viewsonic VP2290b which he has *no* problems with on default 96 DPI on windows as long as he uses reading glasses (anyone over 44 or so should be using reading glasses when using a computer due to presbyopia.

My prescription is actually 2 years old (I need to update it) so my vision probably isn't even 20/20 now and again I have no problems at reading the display to about 3 feet away (leaning back in my chair)
 
I have a Dell 15" laptop with 1920x1200 (not TN panel!) ... that's 151 dpi, I can't imagine trying to use 200 dpi, but it is a thing of beauty ...
 
houkouonchi said:
Scaling down to super small font size on a 100 PPI screen sure that last line is almost unreadable. When I just drag your window over to my T221 at 204 PPI that top line is *PERFECTLY* readable on a 200 PPI monitor. I use 75 DPI setting for X-windows and have my terminal fonts set at size 11 and its perfectly readable up to around 3 feet away from the display.

All my terminals that I can easily read from my desk run at about the same size text as that image you posted.

If you have problems with font size on a 27 inch I think you must just have something wrong with your eyes a

My dad (in his 50s) also has a 204 PPI Viewsonic VP2290b which he has *no* problems with on default 96 DPI on windows as long as he uses reading glasses
Click to expand...

That was directed at snowdog vs default font on 27" 2560x1440 I guess. I said I have no problem with 96dpi on mine. The real argument for everyone concerned was the two lines below it in every day usage. (- dependent on the distance your eyes are from the screen). There is a big difference between 96 and 196. I have exceptional eyesight so please don't try to say my eyes are bad. :cool:

elvn said:
At my current distance on the 27" 2560x1440, unscaled at default font size , sitting back in chair my eyes are probably 3' away and the bottom line "197 dpi" is unreadable for all practical purposes... Most of the 150dpi line can be deciphered (helped by the fact that I know what it says already) but its blurry/undefined/"blobby" and would be unusable. The "94dpi" one is actually smaller than the default font size of [H] on my browser. So the "94dpi" one is around the same size as the "additional options" checkbox text beneath the reply to thread windows - which is readable but getting on the small side.
Click to expand...

As I said before, screen sizes and dpi both have to take distance and perspective into account. I should also add that your display settings can make a difference as well. Some monitors come with presets for that reason - using low contrast settings for "text mode", to keep the whites from blasting your eyes but also to keep the edges of the fonts appearing more crisp. Cleartype being on or off, and how you fine-tune the cleartype settings if its on also affects how readable very fine small text is considerably. Of course the actual font type can make a difference too.

However this is a side argument that has developed.. --- > The intent of the OP as far as text was concerned was to upscale everything . He did not want an ultra high rez screen so that his text was as tiny as he could possibly get it, nor his UI elements. He wanted to upscale text cleanly so that the fonts would not show pixelization when cleartype was disabled.
..
..
 
Last edited:
houkouonchi said:
If you have problems with font size on a 27 inch I think you must just have something wrong with your eyes and I seroiusly doubt you really have 20/20.

My prescription is actually 2 years old (I need to update it) so my vision probably isn't even 20/20 now and again I have no problems at reading the display to about 3 feet away (leaning back in my chair)
Click to expand...

I have BCVA of 20:15. If you claim you can read the equivalent of that small line(or equiv) on your display that is like the 20:10 line of the eye chart. It isn't about sharpness it is about size. That text is smaller than any fine legal print meant to be unreadable on paper.

As I stated the issues isn't whether you can decipher something, it is whether it is comfortable for long term usage at normal viewing distances. I have no trouble reading any text on a 150 dpi laptop, but 150 dpi desktop I would consider unusable without scaling. Is this point sinking in yet? Distance and comfort matters.

The 197 dpi line on my monitor is about the same as the thickness of a dime. So in essence you are claiming it is comfortable and fine to read text printed on the EDGE (not face) of a dime at 3 feet? That is absurd. Even if you could do it, it wouldn't be usable.

I did the following simply for a sizing comparison. But I invite people to actually get a measuring tape and position their eyes a real 3 feet from the screen and decide for themselves wether they think if the bottom line was properly rendered if they really think it would be readable at that size. It clearly would not IMO. It would require better than 20:20 vision and even then it would be at limits of decipher-ability and hardly be considered comfortable to use.
fontdpi.png
 
Last edited:
I have a 27" 2560x1440 display and I find text very, very comfortable to read at the default font size in Windows 7.
 
Snowdog said:
I have BCVA of 20:15. If you claim you can read the equivalent of that small line(or equiv) on your display that is like the 20:10 line of the eye chart. It isn't about sharpness it is about size. That text is smaller than any fine legal print meant to be unreadable on paper.

As I stated the issues isn't whether you can decipher something, it is whether it is comfortable for long term usage at normal viewing distances. I have no trouble reading any text on a 150 dpi laptop, but 150 dpi desktop I would consider unusable without scaling. Is this point sinking in yet? Distance and comfort matters.

The 197 dpi line on my monitor is about the same as the thickness of a dime. So in essence you are claiming it is comfortable and fine to read text printed on the EDGE (not face) of a dime at 3 feet? That is absurd. Even if you could do it, it wouldn't be usable.

I did the following simply for a sizing comparison. But I invite people to actually get a measuring tape and position their eyes a real 3 feet from the screen and decide for themselves wether they think if the bottom line was properly rendered if they really think it would be readable at that size. It clearly would not IMO. It would require better than 20:20 vision and even then it would be at limits of decipher-ability and hardly be considered comfortable to use.
fontdpi.png
Click to expand...

Who uses a normal-sized (20-24") computer monitor at 3 feet eye distance?!? That's huge. Of course you may have difficulty reading something at 200 dpi at 3 feet. Try a more realistic distance for the rest of us, like 28" (my estimated viewing distance for my T221 - my 15.4" laptop sits at about 2 feet).

I should add that your dime analogy fails because there's no way to print text at the level of contrast that a monitor provides. Oh, and I did a quick little experiment with some text (albeit all-caps) that is the same height as the thickness of a dime (1.38mm, although the text is actually a little thinner), and I have no trouble reading it up to about 50".

In angular terms, using a larger monitor is going to change things, obviously. You're going to want to sit farther away, depending on your particular preferences for angle of view. I'm not going to argue against larger sizes - realistically speaking, it's probably easier on the eyes to have a bigger monitor farther away - but that adds huge costs, and I'll be damned if I'm going to sacrifice apparent pixel size (smaller is better) for a bigger monitor. And it's apparent pixel size based on viewing distance that we should ultimately be concerned with.

Unfortunately, I don't have my T221 with me (Yes I own one, and I'm overseas now), but I think I would indeed be able to read that size text perfectly rendered at 3 feet. I'm not sure if PNGs properly scale in FF to your monitor's PPI, and I'm too lazy to look it up. I'm viewing on my 146 PPI laptop LCD, which unscaled would make that image appear smaller than on the 94 dpi monitor it was created on. (For reference, the "150 DPI" line measures approximately 1.1 mm on my laptop's screen, measured with my calipers.) Also, I should note that when the doctor takes the time to do so, I measure 20/15 vision.

Would it be comfortable? No, probably not. But regardless, the argument that you can't read something at that size or that it is not comfortable to do so does not mean that the detail is not highly beneficial!



There's a multitude of reasons why ultra-high (200+) DPI is extremely beneficial. These are a result of my own personal experience with the T221.


1. As mentioned before, normal sized text is very smooth - it's roughly analogous to looking at a laser-printed document, or a book. It's much easier on the eyes than Cleartype, and it increases the maximum viewing distance for text of the same size as well, as contrast is greatly improved. That means that the effective comfortable minimum viewable text size is somewhat smaller (depending on your vision, of course) - good for increasing content. This includes PDFs - which look amazing on the T221.


2. Minor resizing of windows, text, and other desktop objects (icons, etc.) has little effect on sharpness and can be done quite effectively when there are more pixels to play with and using vector-based methods (notwithstanding currently incompatible software). It's very easy to fit two browser windows side-by-side with no horizontal scrolling needed for each, and acceptably large and very sharp text in both, on the T221 (Firefox does an excellent job with its zoom feature - although images don't increase in resolution as they increase in size, of course). Try that on any other 22" monitor. Oh, that's right, it looks like shit on every other monitor with no more than 1920 horizontal pixels. This would give GUI designers more freedom in creating user elements as well.


3. If you don't think you will benefit from the increased detail, think again. Everything benefits. Text has been mentioned before - until you've seen a 200 PPI monitor in normal use, don't even try to argue on that point. Imaging applications - well, they're what the T221 was designed for - are certainly the final, and certainly the easiest to realize with today's technology - major application of high resolution displays.

The 200 ppi actually meets or exceeds the practical resolution of many printing applications - most magazines, books, and newspapers, and typical (non-enthusiast) home photo prints - as DPI in printing isn't quite analogous to PPI in monitors. Each pixel has, of course, three sub-pixels - the closest thing to dots in the printing world, although pixels have a large range of gradations available to them (depending on the bit rate of the monitor and GPU).

Typical printers (inkjet included) are limited to a fixed intensity of each ink, so the number of colors for each dot is limited to 2^n, where n is the number of ink colors (typically 4 in a CMYK printer, thus 16 colors possible per dot), and thus a three-dot grouping is capable of (2^n)^3 colors - 4096 in our typical printer, or say in a 7-color photo printer, 2 million. Compare that to 16 million [derived from (2^8)^3] for a typical pixel group in an 8-bit IPS LCD. Thus, it takes a varying, larger amount of dots to represent one pixel group - it's dependent on the printer, but often 3-6 times or even more dots linearly than whole pixels.

Anyway, my point is that photos, video games, and any other graphic-based application takes on a whole new life with high-PPI monitors. Anti-aliasing is not a substitute - and has been mentioned before, becomes entirely extraneous at high PPIs. The increase in the level of detail visible - and thus the realism - is absolutely huge.

Take for example, Medieval 2: Total War. It's an older RTS that is easily run at decent frame rates for the full 3840x2400 resolution with modern hardware. The level of detail in the units and buildings is much easier appreciated - the detail that was formerly only apparent by zooming in close becomes visible at normal commanding altitudes.

Or, how about the demanding Crysis. I'm not sure that there's really any current hardware that will do it total justice on ultra-high settings - with a 5770 I got a meager 3-5 FPS with the T221. But the detail you can see in the faces, for example, is amazing. Basically, all the textures you had to get really close for before are now visible farther away. Oh, and for the record, that makes sniping a whole lot easier.

I of course use it for editing photos, too. Well, I shouldn't really have to say much other than that the T221 approaches or exceeds the so-called "3D" look of exceptionally good slides. It's amazing. 10 MP photos require minimal scaling (8 MP require none) when viewing full screen, and it's pretty much insane. Of course, sometimes I blow them up to more than 100% to be able to more easily make spot corrections. But lets just say that I'll never go back to normal PPI monitors again.



For those who say that the aperture ratio is lower - and that is a huge drawback - you haven't seen a T221, have you? Yes, the aperture ratio is only 28%. But the lines themselves between the pixels are smaller - there's just more of them. The moire-esque zebra-patterning you get on normal PPI LCDs, exaggerated by the large sub-pixels - is entirely absent without a magnifying glass. There is indeed reduced efficiency of the backlight - the 22.2" T221 uses about 160 Watts in operation! (Although a lot of that is from the LCD panel itself and not the backlight.) But the pixels and the black matrix between them are so small that the normal problems with pixelation (software problems excepted) and seeing the intra-pixel lines are entirely absent, resulting in an amazingly smooth image.



Now, onto the practical problems...

Obviously, compatibility has been and still is one of the biggest problems (beyond yields of panels). This ground has been covered before, so I won't waste my time here, but I agree that at this point it seems as if Apple is in the best position market-wise towards releasing a high-PPI monitor. Because their system is closed-loop - that is, the software and hardware is developed, or at least specified by Apple - they are perhaps in the best position and with the most incentive to push high-PPI monitors. They can control both ends of the market - meanwhile, both software and hardware manufacturers lag in putting out anything without a consumer market created by the other half. Apple can do that by itself, and market it as an innovative technology (when it is really the business management that makes the difference).
 
Last edited:
Gotta admit, I was seriously considering an IBM T221 or the Viewsonic equivalent (always forget the name). Since i already have a 171DPI panel from the same manufacturer (although in 15") i kinda somewhat knew what to expect (both being DD-IPS).
But for me, the high resolution has one big "drawback". On a normal monitor (say XGA @15") i would happily maximize my applications to see everything. These days i nearly always do the same on the higher DPI screen, because a 1024x768 window feels cramped and small. So the space for a multiple applications side-by side isn't existing.

But that being said, i have heard a lot of comments similar to "wow, you have a lot of icons on your desktop" and then "i can't read what it says". I don't think i've ever met anyone that was comfortable with that kind of dpi. For desktop/office use i believe it wouldn't be very popular if it was introduced in a desktop monitor today.

Actually, by stating that you didn't see pixels without a magnifying glass makes it sound quite like you are losing out on visible details. Yes, it may look smooth, but 180 ppi (or whatever) at equal distance may have looked completely equivalent.

So i ended up buying a NED LCD2490WUXi as a comparatively much more modern monitor (in performance, but also due to warranty issues) and the pixel size does not bother me at all - no screen door effect. But yes, a slightly higher resolution would have been nice.
 
After a bit of googling, it does seem like the next standard resolution jump is now settling out to be 4k instead of 2160p, at least in the medical and military fields where these resolutions are actually being used, and are very useful - would resolution would you prefer your laproscopic surgeon to use? The two problems I see with mainstream consumer adoption of this resolution is the lack of content and the size of people's living rooms.

Blu-Ray is still struggling against the DVD (17% to 83% in February 2011) and digital download. Try to find anybody talking about making or selling 4k media, besides Youtube dipping its toe in the water. Streaming 4k content? The ISPs that throttle you if you hit 150GB are going to love that.

Refer to the chart on the first page of this thread. Most consumers are never going to get a TV larger than 60 inches, and living rooms aren't usually bigger than 15 or 20 feet, so they are barely utilizing 720p.
 
tk-don said:
Gotta admit, I was seriously considering an IBM T221 or the Viewsonic equivalent (always forget the name). Since i already have a 171DPI panel from the same manufacturer (although in 15") i kinda somewhat knew what to expect (both being DD-IPS).
But for me, the high resolution has one big "drawback". On a normal monitor (say XGA @15") i would happily maximize my applications to see everything. These days i nearly always do the same on the higher DPI screen, because a 1024x768 window feels cramped and small. So the space for a multiple applications side-by side isn't existing.

But that being said, i have heard a lot of comments similar to "wow, you have a lot of icons on your desktop" and then "i can't read what it says". I don't think i've ever met anyone that was comfortable with that kind of dpi. For desktop/office use i believe it wouldn't be very popular if it was introduced in a desktop monitor today.

Actually, by stating that you didn't see pixels without a magnifying glass makes it sound quite like you are losing out on visible details. Yes, it may look smooth, but 180 ppi (or whatever) at equal distance may have looked completely equivalent.

So i ended up buying a NED LCD2490WUXi as a comparatively much more modern monitor (in performance, but also due to warranty issues) and the pixel size does not bother me at all - no screen door effect. But yes, a slightly higher resolution would have been nice.
Click to expand...

No, you're not losing out (rather, wasting) at all. If there's a stuck sub-pixel (on or off), you can still see it at normal viewing distances. My copy has one stuck (off) whole pixel, and while visible, it's small enough that it just looks like a speck of dust or something. The other copy I had (and sold) had one green sub-pixel stuck on, which was more annoying and certainly still visible on dark screens.

I just mean that when they're all on the same color, you have to use a magnifying glass to pick out individual sub-pixels (i.e. little contrast between them). In actual use, all 204 PPI are used, and even more would ultimately be beneficial. Ideally, you would have just enough PPI that you would not be able to see an individual stuck pixel - any larger and you're not meeting the potential of our eyes.




evilsofa said:
After a bit of googling, it does seem like the next standard resolution jump is now settling out to be 4k instead of 2160p, at least in the medical and military fields where these resolutions are actually being used, and are very useful - would resolution would you prefer your laproscopic surgeon to use? The two problems I see with mainstream consumer adoption of this resolution is the lack of content and the size of people's living rooms.

Blu-Ray is still struggling against the DVD (17% to 83% in February 2011) and digital download. Try to find anybody talking about making or selling 4k media, besides Youtube dipping its toe in the water. Streaming 4k content? The ISPs that throttle you if you hit 150GB are going to love that.

Refer to the chart on the first page of this thread. Most consumers are never going to get a TV larger than 60 inches, and living rooms aren't usually bigger than 15 or 20 feet, so they are barely utilizing 720p.
Click to expand...

Which resolution would I prefer my surgeon to use? 4k versus 3840x2160? Well, some even call 3840x2160 4k, although it isn't of course quite 4000 pixels wide... But there are certainly quite a few large displays at that resolution anyway; perhaps more than those at 4096x2048 (although I bet there's more projectors at the various 4k resolutions) and similar resolution (which is only 1% more anyway, and the T221 beats all of them).

Really, the whole thing is stupid that there hasn't been one width (in pixels) that has been standardized yet - although content scaling (especially done by studios) isn't going to make that much of a difference at such resolutions. But honestly, for consumers - and lets face it, they drive the mass market (rather than the ultra-high end medical/military/content-production market) - 3840 makes the most sense as it's an exact doubling of 1920 and a tripling of 1280. Wider-aspect-ratio cinema applications can easily use less of the vertical resolution than provided, just as they do with BR and DVD. I just wish that we would see another 3840x2400 display, but it's unlikely that we ever will. 16:9 unfortunately, to the detriment of productivity, rules the roost now.

We're talking about desktop monitors anyway, where the content that really matters - GUIs, photos, and games - already can use (for the most part) or even exceed (greatly, in the case of images) the resolution such displays can offer. It also means yields will be larger than for large monitors/TVs thanks to the smaller displays typically used.

As for that chart... Well, it's worth nothing without any information as to how the data was chosen. What is fine to one person with 20/25 vision may look noticeably worse to someone with 20/15 vision. The particular application is video anyway, where increased temporal resolution is as much or more important than spacial resolution. Ahh, the beauty of gaming at 100+ Hz... For static or near-static applications (most computer use other than video - including sometimes in video games) - spacial resolution is far more important than in dedicated video applications.
 
Snowdog said:
I have BCVA of 20:15. If you claim you can read the equivalent of that small line(or equiv) on your display that is like the 20:10 line of the eye chart. It isn't about sharpness it is about size. That text is smaller than any fine legal print meant to be unreadable on paper.

As I stated the issues isn't whether you can decipher something, it is whether it is comfortable for long term usage at normal viewing distances. I have no trouble reading any text on a 150 dpi laptop, but 150 dpi desktop I would consider unusable without scaling. Is this point sinking in yet? Distance and comfort matters.

The 197 dpi line on my monitor is about the same as the thickness of a dime. So in essence you are claiming it is comfortable and fine to read text printed on the EDGE (not face) of a dime at 3 feet? That is absurd. Even if you could do it, it wouldn't be usable.

I did the following simply for a sizing comparison. But I invite people to actually get a measuring tape and position their eyes a real 3 feet from the screen and decide for themselves wether they think if the bottom line was properly rendered if they really think it would be readable at that size. It clearly would not IMO. It would require better than 20:20 vision and even then it would be at limits of decipher-ability and hardly be considered comfortable to use.
fontdpi.png
Click to expand...

I tested with a nickel and yes its about the same thicknes. What I am saying is with my *normal* viewing distance of 1.5-2.5 feet from the monitor that 197 DPI line is completely unreadable on my 30 inch (100DPI) display.

The 96 DPI (which is the about the same size as the 197 DPI was on the 30 inch) on my 22.2 inch 204 DPI monitor is *perfectly* readable. The line height is also about thickness of a nickel/dim for me. From what I have heard 200 PPI is about close to 600 PPI printed text. Like I said it is a bit smaller than I personally would like but I can easily comfortably read it at my normal viewing distances.

The problem is none of you guys have a 200 PPI display so you cant be the judge of that.. Maybe I should grab a camera and show you a picture. Basically because your scaling it down to 197 DPI size on a 100 DPI monitor the antialiasing in the font is causing it to become translucent and very unclear (unreadable on the 30 inch even though its the same physical size as the 96 DPI line on the 22.2 inch which is *very* readable). Your image really just doesn't work.. A better test would be maybe look at the 96 inch line from twice as far back as you normally sit from the monitor instead?
 
houkouonchi said:
I tested with a nickel and yes its about the same thicknes. What I am saying is with my *normal* viewing distance of 1.5-2.5 feet from the monitor that 197 DPI line is completely unreadable on my 30 inch (100DPI) display.

The 96 DPI (which is the about the same size as the 197 DPI was on the 30 inch) on my 22.2 inch 204 DPI monitor is *perfectly* readable. The line height is also about thickness of a nickel/dim for me. From what I have heard 200 PPI is about close to 600 PPI printed text. Like I said it is a bit smaller than I personally would like but I can easily comfortably read it at my normal viewing distances.

The problem is none of you guys have a 200 PPI display so you cant be the judge of that.. Maybe I should grab a camera and show you a picture. Basically because your scaling it down to 197 DPI size on a 100 DPI monitor the antialiasing in the font is causing it to become translucent and very unclear (unreadable on the 30 inch even though its the same physical size as the 96 DPI line on the 22.2 inch which is *very* readable). Your image really just doesn't work.. A better test would be maybe look at the 96 inch line from twice as far back as you normally sit from the monitor instead?
Click to expand...

Okay, so I was right, there's no scaling on that PNG according to set monitor PPI or anything. Your results are exactly what I would expect if I had my T221 with me, and correlate with my informal test with printed text of approximately the same size. And yes, you're right - it would be much better to view the 96 DPI line from twice as far away if you're using an approximately 100 PPI monitor.

And PC Magazine couldn't be more correct. "There is no going back," once you've seen 200 PPI on a full sized monitor. I suspect that until mass production monitors catch up, I will be using the T221 as my primary monitor with only an FW900 or 120 Hz LCD for gaming.



To think about it though, with all the improvements in video cards and connectors, today a manufacturer could come out with such a monitor that would actually be consumer-friendly. I can't help but imagine that the T221 panel's design team improved the panel after the DG5 came out; perhaps an improved version of the same panel is capable of 60 Hz, although I can imagine the response time still would be rather poor. DisplayPort 1.2 would make a single connection possible - no more of this 1-4 DVI connections, hard-to-set-up spanning, complicated on-board processing, Dual Link DVI splitters, and limited video card compatibility (well, beyond those with DP 1.2, which at the moment is only in the newest cards - but a legacy mode at 30 Hz would certainly be possible). Tweak the color response of the panel for LED backlights, and you massively improve the power efficiency. Then you've got a decently modern monitor, although I can imagine that newer tech and new panels would probably be more feasible. But the point is that all the major end-user problems other than price (i.e. panel yield) with the T221 have been overcome.





The PPI (pixels, for all digital applications) -> DPI (dots, for printers and printers only and is something that the user never, ever has any input to because it is a conversion done by the printer, analogous but not the same as a digital to analog conversion for audio) conversion isn't really exact; 600 PPI is an oft-quoted number due to the three color sub-pixels in digital applications, but it is not really accurate thanks to the higher variability in color of each sub-pixel than each dot from printers. Therefore, a varying and somewhat higher DPI than that is usually needed (depending on the number of colors), unless you're using a printer with an extraordinarily large number of colors - even 7 colors requires more than three dots per pixel. I'm not even sure if there are any printers with more than that.



To make it even more confusing (and this isn't directed at anyone in particular), nearly everyone has no clue what DPI really is - most think that it is the number of pixels per inch on the print itself. Anyone who thinks that magazines (i.e. high quality offset printers) print at 300 DPI doesn't know what they're talking about - they want images to have at least 300 PPI, and the DPI of the actual print is much, much higher (although for offset printing lines per inch (LPI) is how printing resolution is measured - making things even more confusing). The user and the computer never have anything to do with DPI - Adobe, Microsoft, Apple, and everyone else that isn't a printer manufacturer just have their heads up their asses and (blatantly) wrongly call PPI applied to photos as "DPI" in EXIF info and computer settings. This understandably results in what should be avoidable mass ignorance on the part of the public.

Although I can't help but think that this is a dual usage of the term DPI - with printer manufacturers using the true definition, and software and camera companies using an invented, false definition. The false definition wouldn't really matter if printers weren't marketed on DPI, and instead marketed on equivalent PPI - but that isn't a rigidly definable number compared to the specification of the printer's DPI, so it wouldn't really be accurate. So we're left with the software/camera companies (in particular, Adobe, who with Photoshop started this whole DPI lie), who should revert to the proper term of PPI rather than DPI. But I doubt that will ever happen...

I think I've found yet another reason for me to hate Adobe...
 
Last edited:
The real cavet for 2160p Pc monitors is the small installed base of compatible Video Cards.

NO integrated chipset can drive 2160p.

Only DP Video cards can do it, and i doubt it will be done without hassles.

The former resolution king was the 1600p used in Dual-Link DVI connections. when 2560x1600 monitors reached "consumer " market back in 2004 the graphics cards were not able to "game" at 25x16, in truth the majority of the cards was not even able to drive a DL-DVI connection.:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/2004-27gpu2.html

The hardcore parts were Geforce 6800 Ultra and Radeon x850, with meager 256Mb of video memory.

game reviews were made in 1600x1200. You will have a very hard time finding "gaming "reviews of 25x16 resolutions until SLIs 8800 GTX. Back then elder scrolls Oblivion was what Crysis would be in 2008.

using 2160p today would require an installed base of Displayport cards, remenber that Apple waited for the lauch of the Geforce 6800 to put the 30'ACD on the market.

Naybe ATI should seriouly consider adding Displayport support for integrated graphics in the next chipset. Then i could see a future for 2160p displays.

On a side note, 2160p could NOT be much cheaper than 1600p.

the formula "Just glue 4 1080p Tn panels together and you are good to go" wont owrk that easy:

Currently on Newegg the smallest 1080p panels in stock are 22" actually 21.5" viewable area. we are talking 42" Tn panels here, something that was never done before, for a number of reasons.

it would be a massive screen viewable for a single user, sit beside the center and you will see nothing.

A curved 42" 2160p display would be awesome for its single user/owner

and cost wise things are not that bright either.


4x$150 equals $600, just for the dispalys.

A conservative estimative would be triple that price to cover quality issues with dead pixels, reinforced bezel and expensive electronics inside to handle the gigantic resolution.

And add a little extra for the niche market. It is much easier to find buyers for a $150 22" 1080p TN than for a $2000 42" 2160p.

Taking that into account i must commend AMD personnel for eyefinity. They solved the problem of driving massive resolutions using cheap displays.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top