When will we see 3840*2160 monitors?

[wagoo]

On a side note, 2160p could be much cheaper than 1600p.

Just glue 4 1080p Tn panels together and you are good to go.

hehe, don't give them any ideas like that!

 

[Blackbeard Ben]

How many people are driving a 2560x1600 display off of integrated graphics, even today? Hardly anybody - if you have the money for a $1000+ monitor, you either need heavy graphics processing anyway, or have enough money that you wouldn't have integrated graphics because you would want "the best".

There's already a fairly large base with DisplayPort anyway - Virtually every Mac has had them for some time, including (actually, especially) the laptops, many ThinkPads have them, and all of the Eyefinity-capable cards have had them - that's what, more than a year and a half's worth of enthusiast cards? 1.2 is newer and thus rarer, but out there and increasing. IOW, I think there's sufficient user-base out there - at least equivalent to when the 30"ers came out. Although, we know that they haven't been as popular as some predicted - but I believe that is a size and yield problem, along with the "halo-effect" of being the largest, highest resolution mass-produced computer monitors.

Compare to the T221, where there were all of three or so cards that worked with them when they came out - and that was even before dual-link DVI, so the T221 didn't even support that until they came up with the converter box for the DG5, which was a decidedly backwards solution. Still, IBM sold quite a few of them since there was absolutely nothing to compare. Now today, almost every card can at least run the T221 with a single DVI link.

Oh, and I forgot - you could also have a mode just like the T221 where it can run at the full refresh rate at 1/4 resolution, even if you don't have a card capable of the bandwidth needed for both the full res and full refresh rate (i.e. not DP 1.2). That would allow someone with a legacy card to lower the resolution for gaming, and then easily go back to the full resolution at reduced frequency for normal use. With only a single link it'd be a lot easier than switching the T221 when you're spanning.

 

[Snowdog]

Now today, almost every card can at least run the T221 with a single DVI link.

They can't even run 2560x1440 with single link DVI.

 

[jeremyshaw]

They can't even run 2560x1440 with single link DVI.

at a lower refresh rate, they can run well over 2560x1440

 

[Blackbeard Ben]

They can't even run 2560x1440 with single link DVI.

at a lower refresh rate, they can run well over 2560x1440

Yes, if it won't work by default you just have to set up a custom resolution/refresh rate - whether in the video card software or by making a custom EDID with your own timings. Now, some cards really don't work (i.e. single link Mac Minis), but most will.

You can do that even if it works to tweak the monitor timings - if you're good at it and the monitor/card allow it, you may be able to get a refresh rate even higher than the normal limits. For example, I was able to get 3840x2400 @ 35 Hz on my T221 DG3 with two DVI links, even though you would expect to get only 30 Hz maximum (and the default EDID allows only 20 Hz). The same goes for one link - I can get 17 Hz, despite the expected maximum of 15 Hz and the default EDID at 10 Hz. (I didn't work out the timings myself.)

 

[geok1ng]

the talk about the T221 made me curious.

The monitor costed 8k+. then viewsonic made an OEM version the VP2290b:

"The VP2290b not only costs $6200 but it also requires a $2500 Matrox dual channel DVI display card! So you're really looking at $8700 for a 22" high res monitor in this space. "

Hardly what i would call consumer product.

The $6200 price tag make the Triple 30"monitor setup drived by Tri-SLied 3GB 580s that Vega is building here look like a budget alternative.

So, NOPE, i will pass the T221 as a massive resolution solution for consumer market.

Now the funny part:


Blackbeard Ben [H]Lite, 1.1 Years

Status:
How many people are driving a 2560x1600 display off of integrated graphics, even today? Hardly anybody - if you have the money for a $1000+ monitor, you either need heavy graphics processing anyway, or have enough money that you wouldn't have integrated graphics because you would want "the best"

I did it once. It was amazing. I was building a Pc for a buddy, mainly for online poker and stock market. he wanted it small, silent and cold. A 785G made it work flawlessly. And could use an HDMI/VGA monitor as a sidekicker as well, when/if the need arises.

 

[wagoo]

So, NOPE, i will pass the T221 as a massive resolution solution for consumer market.

The point is they came out nearly TEN years ago now.. and we still have nothing comparable. Pretty sad, don't you think?

 

[xorbe]

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.

That 197 DPI "example" is also missing 75% of its pixels. Think about it ...

 

[jeremyshaw]

The point is they came out nearly TEN years ago now.. and we still have nothing comparable. Pretty sad, don't you think?

bingo!! well, maybe "royal flush" XD

 

[Blackbeard Ben]

The point is they came out nearly TEN years ago now.. and we still have nothing comparable. Pretty sad, don't you think?

Exactly. Ten years ago, how much did a 15" 1080x768 LCD cost? A couple hundred dollars, maybe?

Actually, I just checked and found that the 15", 1080x768 Apple LCD cost $600 in 2001.

Now that same monitor goes for around $25 on eBay. A new 15.6",1366x768 Acer LCD monitor goes for $75, and you can move up to a 21.5", 1920x1080 Acer for just $120 (just looking at the bottom of the barrel on TigerDirect). Without a doubt even those are better than those early Apples in every way except perhaps in uncalibrated color.



The T220 cost $50000 in June 2001. By October, $22000. December, $16000. The T221 DG1 cost $8400 in 2002, later replaced by the DL-DVI and faster refresh rate DG5 at the same price and the similar (to the DG1) DG3 at around $7500. Later, both the DG3 and DG5 (and the Viewsonic-branded ones) dropped in price even further. I don't know how low they ultimately went, as I'm sure there were discounts after they were discontinued - but I believe at least in the ballpark of $5500 or so.

I've seen NIB T221 DG5s go for about $2000 in the last year and a half. DG5s usually go for $1500-$1700 or so. DG3s, DG1s, and T220s usually go for $800-$1000, although I've seen a Viewsonic one go for as low as $500 because the seller didn't reference the T221 at all in the auction title.



I don't know how much an updated version would cost today - yes, it wasn't a consumer display but it sold quite well as far as ultra-high-end monitors go. It was and still is (used) relatively inexpensive compared to its competition - for what it is.

I do think that an updated version of the same panel would sell reasonably well if at or under the $2000 mark - there are lots of those same industry professionals that would save money by buying such a monitor over the extremely expensive competitors today (just like they did in 2001-2005).

The high-end consumer market might have trouble with something that expensive (if it could compete with 30" displays in price, perhaps not) - although, like I've said before, if Apple were to throw its marketing and style weight behind something like this... The "Apple Retina Cinema Display"...

 

[houkouonchi]

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.

You are kind of assuming 60Hz here. I could run 3840x2400 off many laptops. *TONS* of video cards support 3840x2400 or 3840x2160. I am sure many integrated ones support this as well (there is reason not to as long as it fits within bandwidth constraints). Also 2xdual link DVI is more than enough to drive one at 60Hz which I could ass as an alternative method to a single display port.

I could run 3840x2400@48Hz (or 60 if the monitor did it) on an old ass nvidia 6800 GT AGP (yes AGP).

 

[houkouonchi]

The T220 cost $50000 in June 2001. By October, $22000. December, $16000. The T221 DG1 cost $8400 in 2002, later replaced by the DL-DVI and faster refresh rate DG5 at the same price and the similar (to the DG1) DG3 at around $7500. Later, both the DG3 and DG5 (and the Viewsonic-branded ones) dropped in price even further. I don't know how low they ultimately went, as I'm sure there were discounts after they were discontinued - but I believe at least in the ballpark of $5500 or so.

I've seen NIB T221 DG5s go for about $2000 in the last year and a half. DG5s usually go for $1500-$1700 or so. DG3s, DG1s, and T220s usually go for $800-$1000, although I've seen a Viewsonic one go for as low as $500 because the seller didn't reference the T221 at all in the auction title.

I got my IBM T221 9503-DGP (same as the DG5 with no converter box) for $550 shipped in pristine condition from Japan. Its still fairly common and extremely cheap in Japan but hard to get in the U.S.

 

[Blackbeard Ben]

I got my IBM T221 9503-DGP (same as the DG5 with no converter box) for $550 shipped in pristine condition from Japan. Its still fairly common and extremely cheap in Japan but hard to get in the U.S.

Well, I paid $300 in person for my DG3!

Actually, I got two of them at $300 each and one with a cracked screen for $50. Sold one of the working ones for $1000 (kept the better one for myself) and the broken one for $100 (although looking back, I would have kept the broken one for parts for when the backlight goes).

 

[Oled]

A 27.8 inch 3840x2160 monitor will be released this summer. But it will not be cheap!

"The first 4k-3D monitor for stereo post production has previewed at NAB. Jointly developed with Korea’s Redrover and Japanese developer Keisoku Giken, the monitor employs half-mirror technology and will be released this summer priced US$120,000.

According to Tsukasa Baba of Keisoku Giken, “The monitor is a world first with 4K full resolution suitable for stereoscopic post production. As this system uses two 4K panels for your left eye and right eye and shows images simultaneously, there are no flickers as you might have see with shutter glass systems and there is no compromise on resolution as you might see with interleaved systems.”


This system consists of two 27.8 inch LCD panels divided by a half mirror providing a resolution of 3840x2160 (4Kx2K). The two panels are mounted at 90 degrees to each other. One panel is mounted behind the half mirror and the other one is on the upper side of the monitor. Between those panels a half mirror or beam splitter is mounted.


”The light from the right monitor comes to your right eye through the half mirror and the light from the left monitor comes to your left eye after it has been bent on the surface of the half mirror,” explains Baba. “One light is polarized at 0 degrees while other is at 90 degrees.”


3D glasses with the same polarization characteristics are necessary. “So you can view only the light of 0 degree polarized by 3D glass with 0 degree polarization while the other light polarized for 90 degree can be viewed by 3D glass that are polarized 90 degrees,” he adds.

Video content shown on the prototype monitor at Giken’s NAB booth was produced by NICT (National Institute of Information and Communications Technology) and Rikkyo University as a reference video image intended to be used to evaluate 4K-3D systems.
In the final production model DCI-4K, 50Hz and DVI-D inputs as well as colour adjustment features will be implemented. It will be marketed under the Redrover brand."
http://www.tvbeurope.com/newsletter...d;jsessionid=8127AD8BF082044CFC810D34B036DB7F

 

[MetaGenie]

I would love to have a 3840x2160 monitor. The reason I got a 30" 2560x1600 was primarily for photo viewing, but that's still barely adequate for viewing 5184x3456 photos in anything approaching their full glory.

This system consists of two 27.8 inch LCD panels divided by a half mirror providing a resolution of 3840x2160 (4Kx2K). The two panels are mounted at 90 degrees to each other. One panel is mounted behind the half mirror and the other one is on the upper side of the monitor. Between those panels a half mirror or beam splitter is mounted.

Does this system have two 3840x2160 panels or two 1920x2160 panels? Does every pixel in the 3840x2160 get the 3D treatment or do pixels at even x-coordinates go to one eye while odd x-coordinates go to the other eye?

The article seems to go out of its way to avoid answering this question.

 

[evilsofa]

Does this system have two 3840x2160 panels or two 1920x2160 panels? Does every pixel in the 3840x2160 get the 3D treatment or do pixels at even x-coordinates go to one eye while odd x-coordinates go to the other eye?

The article seems to go out of its way to avoid answering this question.

"this system uses two 4K panels"
"$120,000"

I'm going to go with two 3840x2160 panels.

 

[drtc]

The IBM T221 may have been released nearly ten years ago and technology may have advanced since, yet human vision has not...
These monitors are catered to a niche market, mostly medical and such, that use special software, optimized for this kind of high pixel pitch res.

Unless mainstream OS graphical user interface become resolution independent (as has been promised for long), based on vector redrawing instead of bitmap scaling, there will always be problems with high pixel pitch displays 'cause most GUI target the vast majority of users low pixel pitch displays.

 

[suiken_2mieu]

The IBM T221 may have been released nearly ten years ago and technology may have advanced since, yet human vision has not...
These monitors are catered to a niche market, mostly medical and such, that use special software, optimized for this kind of high pixel pitch res.

Unless mainstream OS graphical user interface become resolution independent (as has been promised for long), based on vector redrawing instead of bitmap scaling, there will always be problems with high pixel pitch displays 'cause most GUI target the vast majority of users low pixel pitch displays.

in which is the biggest crime of all. It should be that hard to implement into an os. Because I could see the benefit even just at 2560x1600 on a 30" or 1600x1200 on a 20".

 

[Oled]

Here it is.

Model Name R278D1
Panel Size 27.8"
Technology IPS
Resolution 3840x2160
Pixel Pitch(mm) 0.1605
Active Area(mm) 616.32x346.68
Outline(mm) 649x385(87)
Luminance(nits) (600)
View Angle (U/D/R/L) 85° in all azimuth >CR 20:1
Contrast Ratio 800:1
Support Color 1.07G
Power Consumption (w) (200)
Response Time(ms) 25
Weight (g) (13600)
Electrical Interface LVDS
Mass Production 2011Q3
Remark 8 mega-pixel, 10-bit Driving

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

 

[Ashok0]

Well, that R278D1 is a medical panel. That being said, LG actually did unveil some promotional tidbits regarding consumer 3840x2160 panels at SID2011. http://www.buy1080phdtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/lg-ips-lcd-4k-by-84-and-55-inches.jpg

No ETA, but it appears 2160p is (slowly) on its way.

 

[brod]

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.

30" monitor with great PPI? One can only hope.

http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?a5c8962e4817d62e88af96572cdadf41

 

[fattypants]

If we hold out for 7680x4320, all existing 1920x1080 content will scale nicely.

 

[brod]

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-).

Well it's not like reducing the need for AA would be the only benefit of higher res for PC gaming. Imagine the texture detail that would be possible, and the improved benefits of anisotropic filtering.

 

[brod]

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.

Not denying the benefits of high PPI monitors, but you must have hawk vision if you find 'intra-pixel lines' to be a problem on 94-109 PPI monitors.

 

[elvn]

From the LG desktop monitor advert at CES it was listed as a 27" not 30" , and of course 3840x2160 is 16:9. The 166ppi they quoted resolved to 26.5" viewable.
... I hope that it remains one very high rez at 16:9 now and the arbitrary choice of producing one aspect ratio with more pixels than the other in the same class goes away. It would be nice if they someday made them virtually bezel-less too but that's not on the radar. I have no interest in the TVs, they are too big for a desk, will be much MUCH too expensive, the Sharp is VA.. which is great for hd video but not a computer monitor usually, and the resolution for a tv is useless to me, as 1080p is barely within range for me in my living room now.

"Quad full HD"
Quad full HD IPS panels - perhaps as early as in the next year (or two).. 3840x2160 27" 16:9 option eventually that could swallow current resolutions whole ..
.
http://flatpanelshd.com/pictures/lgsid2011-1l.jpg
..
.. 1920 vs 2560x
..
.. 1920 vs 2560 ~> +320 left, +320 right (+640 wider)
...1200 vs 1440 ~> +120 top, +120 bottom (+240 taller)
...1200 vs 1600 ~> +200 top, +200 bottom (+400 taller)
...1080 vs 1440 ~> +180 top, +180 bottom (+360 taller)
...1080 vs 1600 ~> +260 top, +260 bottom (+520 taller)


.. "block of four 1080p resolutions ~ Quad Full HD 3840x2160"

.. 1920 vs 3840 ~> +960 left, +960 right (+1920 wider)
.. 1200 vs 2160 ~> +480 top, + 480 bottom(+960 taller)
...1080 vs 2160 ~> +540 top, +540 bottom (+1080 taller)

.. 2560 vs 3840 ~> +640 px left , +640px right.. (+1280 wider)
...1600 vs 2160 ~> +280 px top, +280px bottom (+560 taller)
...1440 vs 2160 ~> +360 px top , +360px bottom (+720 taller)

..
Pixel densities
-------------------------------

4.3"....................960 x 540.........256.15 ppi.....0.0992 mm <- phone
..
(LG Quad full HD)
26.5"................3840 x 2160.......166.26 ppi ....0.1528 mm <-- 166ppi quoted resolves to 26.5"
27"...................3840 x 2160.......163.18 ppi.....0.1557 mm <-- may not be viewable size if ppi quote is accurate

10.1"................1280 x 800.........146.55 ppi....0.1783 mm <- tablet
17"...................1920 x 1080.......129.58 ppi....0.1960 mm <-- laptop

22.5" (24").......2304 x 1440.......118.13 ppi....0.2150 mm <--- FW900 widescreen CRT max rez 22.5" viewable (80hz) ..
27"...................2560 x 1440.......108.8 ppi....0.2335 mm
30"...................2560 x 1600.......100.6 ppi....0.2524 mm

22"...................1920 x 1080........100.132 ppi..0.2530 mm
20.1"................1680 x 1050..........98.4 ppi ..0.258 mm

23"...................1920 x 1080.........95.78 ppi....0.2652 mm <-- 60hz/120hz
24"...................1920 x 1200.........94.3 ppi....0.2692 mm

24"...................1920 x 1080..........91.8 ppi....0.2767 mm
19"...................1440 x 900...........89.37 ppi....0.2842 mm
27.5"(28")........1920 x 1200..........82.33 ppi....0.3085 mm
27"...................1920 x 1080.........81.59 ppi....0.3113 mm <-- 60hz / 120hz panels

---Too Large for a Desk imo, greater viewing distances suggested ----

36.4"................4096 x 2160.......127.22 ppi...0.1997 mm <--- Eizo FDH3601 4K2K 16:9 , sept 2011 release est. $36,000 usd
42"...................3840 x 2160.......104.9 ppi....0.2421 mm <----LG Quad Full HD IPS, 42" tv version
85"...................7680 x 4320.......103.67 ppi...0.245mm <--- Sharp 85" 8Kx4K VA
30"...................1920 x 1080.........73.43 ppi...0.345 mm
32"...................1920 x 1080.........68.84 ppi...0.368 mm
37"...................1920 x 1080.........59.54 ppi..0.4266 mm
40"...................1920 x 1080.........55.07 ppi...0.4612 mm
42"...................1920 x 1080.........52.45 ppi...0.4843 mm

---------------------------------------

 

[brod]

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.

Good point. I think I'd rather have a 4K (4096x2304) monitor too, especially given that it's going to be the new standard for movies. Digital cinema 4K standard is 4096x1714 (2.39:1).

27" 4096x2304 = 174.06 PPI

27" 3840x2160 = 163.18 PPI

A 27.8 inch 3840x2160 monitor will be released this summer. But it will not be cheap!

"The first 4k-3D monitor for stereo post production has previewed at NAB. Jointly developed with Korea&#8217;s Redrover and Japanese developer Keisoku Giken, the monitor employs half-mirror technology and will be released this summer priced US$120,000.

According to Tsukasa Baba of Keisoku Giken, &#8220;The monitor is a world first with 4K full resolution suitable for stereoscopic post production. As this system uses two 4K panels for your left eye and right eye and shows images simultaneously, there are no flickers as you might have see with shutter glass systems and there is no compromise on resolution as you might see with interleaved systems.&#8221;

They really shouldn't be calling that monitor 4K resolution. It's 2160p.

Unless mainstream OS graphical user interface become resolution independent (as has been promised for long), based on vector redrawing instead of bitmap scaling, there will always be problems with high pixel pitch displays 'cause most GUI target the vast majority of users low pixel pitch displays.

Very true. I think that 27" 2560x1440 is pretty much at the limit of what is usable for Windows with no scaling. Comfortable viewing distance for most people would be about 50-60cm at 109 PPI.

It's not reasonable to expect people to have large monitors closer to their eyes than 50cm, so any display with higher pixel density than that is going to need proper resolution independence support from the OS.

 

[Snowdog]

Good point. I think I'd rather have a 4K (4096x2304) monitor too,

It hardly matters what you want or what Digital Cinema in the real theaters are using.

It looks a lot more likely that the next computer monitor jump will be QFHD (3840x2160), being that there examples shown and if you look what is happening in TVs the jump we are seeing there is also to QFHD. Note that sometimes the terms are used interchangeably and that leads to confusion. But make no mistake, it looks like all home gear is converging on QFHD, not 4096x2304.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/01/toshibas-glasses-free-3d-tv-launches-in-europe-as-the-zl2-in-de/
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/15/tvlogic-debuts-56-inch-lum-560w-4k-x-2k-lcd-a-few-years-ahead-of/

My bet is still down on an Apple iMac to have the first QFHD home computer display. As early as next year.

 

[elvn]

.
..I also feel that 3840 x 2160 is the rez that you will see on a monitor, and that apple and maybe even LG could have one next year sometime (apple using LG's Quad Full HD ips panel). The ~ 27" 166ppi would be nice if it comes down around or less than what a new model 1080p 46" - 50" TV's price with some new tech (like when LED, 3D first came out for example) cost, at least eventually ($1600- $3000). The monitors should cost considerably less than the quad HD tvs to start with but I have no idea what the early adoption cost would be on the desktop ones. There will be some 4k TVs along with the the quad full HD tvs... "These TV prices are IN-SAYYYYYNE!" but not in a good way
.
... I have no interest in the TVs as 1080p is within a noticeable rez "limit" at my couch distance. I don't need a TV any closer so the increased rez would not be a worthwhile upgrade on a tv for me. If I get a quad full hd panel someday it will probably be the ~27" LG IPS panel for my desk, whether apple or not. I don't watch movies on ips.. va is much better for that. VA blacklevels+detail in blacks are very good (especially on the glossy tv I have). There is really no comparison other than crt or plasma. IPS and TN black level+detail-in-blacks are poor for movies imo, and I don't watch movies at my desk either. Sharp is making a 8k that is va so maybe some 4k, 8k and QFHD will be va.. but that is not desirable in a monitor for me. So really for me its all about the much higher computer resolution IPS panel not 4k movies at all. A desktop sized QFHD at the right price would end up on my desk someday. You can probably find more people interested in 4k movies and tvs that support them on avsforum.com

 

[brod]

It looks a lot more likely that the next computer monitor jump will be QFHD (3840x2160), being that there examples shown and if you look what is happening in TVs the jump we are seeing there is also to QFHD. Note that sometimes the terms are used interchangeably and that leads to confusion. But make no mistake, it looks like all home gear is converging on QFHD, not 4096x2304.

Probably true. Computer monitors will most likely be limited by TV standards, as they have been for the most part with 1080p.

Don't be surprised if you see a few companies breaking the mould and making 4096x2304 monitors though, in the same way that Dell made the SP2309W with a resolution of 2048x1152 (known as "2K" in the film industry).

You might even see monitors that are 1.33x higher resolution than 3840x2160.

1920x1080 is to 2048x1152 is to 2560x1440
as
3840x2160 is to 4096x2304 is to 5120x2880

 

[BrePu]

It took Apple over a year (maybe even 2 years in case the iPad 3 will be released as late as next summer) to get from iPhone 4 retina displays to iPad 3 retina displays. They encountered a number of issues, otherwise they would have released the iPad 2 with a retina display. Apple won't release any high DPI Cinema Displays before the iPad 3 has been released. But as soon as we can hold the first retina display of an iPad 3 in our hands, we are a huge step closer to high DPI computer displays. I think Apple will attempt to get decent 27" retina displays working as soon as the iPad 3 production is working properly.

 

[brod]

If the iPad 3 has a high PPI display it will be manufactured by LG Display using their new AH-IPS panel technology. It will be up to LG to manufacture a 27" 3840x2160 (163.18 PPI) panel for Apple/Dell/Other to purchase and use in a monitor.

LG have already demonstrated a 4.5 inch 1280x720 screen (326 PPI) so the fine pixel pitch shouldn't cause any major problems.

 

[GuyClinch]

Would 1920 x 1080 look pretty good on these monitors? Or am I missing something..

 

[brod]

Would 1920 x 1080 look pretty good on these monitors?

If the display did simple pixel doubling (1 pixel = 4 pixels) then 1080p content could look as good on a 3840x2160 monitor as it does on a 1920x1080 monitor. The vast majority of high resolution monitors do not do pixel doubling scaling for half resolution content though, so the more realistic scenario is that it will not look as good.

 

[Snowdog]

Probably true. Computer monitors will most likely be limited by TV standards, as they have been for the most part with 1080p.

Don't be surprised if you see a few companies breaking the mould and making 4096x2304 monitors though, in the same way that Dell made the SP2309W with a resolution of 2048x1152 (known as "2K" in the film industry).

You might even see monitors that are 1.33x higher resolution than 3840x2160.

1920x1080 is to 2048x1152 is to 2560x1440
as
3840x2160 is to 4096x2304 is to 5120x2880

Dubious at best. Those examples of what happened were all intermediate steps BEHIND the King of the Hill 2560x1600 home monitor, not steps ahead of it. In all the years that the 2560x1600 monitor existed, not one manufacturer tried to build a home monitor to surpass it.

3840x2160 will be a significant challenge to build, and a challenge to feed multiple beasts like this. It isn't like just having one monitor is acceptable. Think of the graphics power needed to push 2 or 3 of these monsters.

It is much more likely that 2160p will be the new king of the hill for home resolution and no one will be interested in pushing past it for some time again.

 

[BrePu]

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/13/microsoft-also-preparing-for-desktoplaptop-retina-displays/

There you go. So high DPI displays are definitely the next thing to come.

 

[brod]

Dubious at best. Those examples of what happened were all intermediate steps BEHIND the King of the Hill 2560x1600 home monitor, not steps ahead of it. In all the years that the 2560x1600 monitor existed, not one manufacturer tried to build a home monitor to surpass it.

3840x2160 will be a significant challenge to build, and a challenge to feed multiple beasts like this. It isn't like just having one monitor is acceptable. Think of the graphics power needed to push 2 or 3 of these monsters.

It is much more likely that 2160p will be the new king of the hill for home resolution and no one will be interested in pushing past it for some time again.

I don't think you're thinking far enough ahead. 2160p will be the new standard eventually, and if companies are selling 2160p TN panels for $200 it's all but guaranteed that higher resolutions will be available for the high end monitor market (Dell, Apple, etc).

 

[Snowdog]

I don't think you're thinking far enough ahead. 2160p will be the new standard eventually, and if companies are selling 2160p TN panels for $200 it's all but guaranteed that higher resolutions will be available for the high end monitor market (Dell, Apple, etc).

I am looking at the foreseeable future. Up to about 5 years out. Naturally 2160p will be surpassed eventually, but that is likely years away.

2160p has to actually get here and get established before we see anything surpassing it.

2560x1600 Home computer LCDs came out in 2004 and 7 years later they still haven't been surpassed!

 

[RadXge]

For 30" and less, I do not see much value into having higher resolutions such as 3840*2160 (although this may not be true for medical or military purposes).
Why add more pixels when the human will not be able to see the difference?

What we really need is higher contrast ratio, better black and more calibration options.

 

[brod]

Naturally 2160p will be surpassed eventually, but that is likely years away.

2160p has to actually get here and get established before we see anything surpassing it.

I don't dispute this.

 

[Ashok0]

For 30" and less, I do not see much value into having higher resolutions such as 3840*2160 (although this may not be true for medical or military purposes).
Why add more pixels when the human will not be able to see the difference?

What we really need is higher contrast ratio, better black and more calibration options.

I disagree... on my 30" DELL U3011, I could still see pixels even sitting a couple feet away. Sure, it looked AMAZING compared to a 27" 1080p display, but imho there is still a wide margin for improvement.