![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
WQUXGA
- Thread starter Jospeh
- Start date
Interesting, the 22.2" 3840x2400 Viewsonic VP2290B is only $1863:
http://compuvest.us/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=350543
That's not an insane price at all. No idea whether it's VA or IPS, or what input lag it has, so that would be a lot of money to gamble just to find out if it's any good for gaming. In fact, with a resolution and price like that, I'd wonder what's wrong with it that it's so cheap.
If you want an insane price, the Coronis Fusion 6MP DL (MDCC-6130), a 30" 3280 x 2048 medical LCD monitor, goes for $17,500.
http://compuvest.us/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=350543
That's not an insane price at all. No idea whether it's VA or IPS, or what input lag it has, so that would be a lot of money to gamble just to find out if it's any good for gaming. In fact, with a resolution and price like that, I'd wonder what's wrong with it that it's so cheap.
If you want an insane price, the Coronis Fusion 6MP DL (MDCC-6130), a 30" 3280 x 2048 medical LCD monitor, goes for $17,500.
They are IPS panels. I believe the maximum refresh rate is 48hz, and the pixel response time is about 50ms. That, coupled with the massive amount of pixels to drive, makes gaming on these displays quite absurd. These are only be good for high resolution static images, like medical use. I have never seen one, but I imagine the high resolution and pixel density is an incredible sight to behold.
Blazestorm
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 6,940
Pretty sure it gets to the point where you can't even see the individual pixels anymore and it just looks like an image. Eventually that's how it will all be hopefully 
Something like 300dpi
Something like 300dpi
Radiologists use those screens
As an X-Ray Tech ( we take the pictures )
Radiologists have to look at them to diagnose what may be wrong with you.
The X-Ray Tech is able to adjust the picture a bit, before it is sent to the Radiologist.
But we have to hold our selfs back from doing so.
Because, what is on the cheep low resolution screens in the tech area looks NOTHING like it does on the Radiologist screen.
And that is a problem, because for the past hundred and twenty years we have been told only send the Very best image to the Radiologist. Now we have to judge the image on a 800x600 screen before we submit it. The image can look like crap on our screen, But walk into the Radiologist office to check and what a different s. It is like night & day.
.
As an X-Ray Tech ( we take the pictures )
Radiologists have to look at them to diagnose what may be wrong with you.
The X-Ray Tech is able to adjust the picture a bit, before it is sent to the Radiologist.
But we have to hold our selfs back from doing so.
Because, what is on the cheep low resolution screens in the tech area looks NOTHING like it does on the Radiologist screen.
And that is a problem, because for the past hundred and twenty years we have been told only send the Very best image to the Radiologist. Now we have to judge the image on a 800x600 screen before we submit it. The image can look like crap on our screen, But walk into the Radiologist office to check and what a different s. It is like night & day.
.
As mentioned, it is not suitable for gaming. It is complicated to drive this monitor at the max refresh rate, which is 41hz. The monitor will only accept single link DVI and up to 4 of them. If you only use one DVI you will get 13hz refresh rate. And no, you don't just hook up 4 DVI and call it a day, it's not that simple, and too complicated to get into. It is not suitable for everday usage as the pixel pitch is way too small for everyday reading. The price is 'cheap' since it has been discontinued for several years already.
This is something like what the resolution would look like. It fits 4 1920x1200 quadrants side by side.
This is assuming you have a pixel pitch close to 0.27mm, i.e. a standard pixel-density monitor like 22" 1680x1050 or 24" 1920x1200, etc.
Of course, the entire picture would be as sharp and contain as much detail as in the inset. But everything would be *that* small.
P.S. I would love to have a monitor like that just to play around with it.
This is assuming you have a pixel pitch close to 0.27mm, i.e. a standard pixel-density monitor like 22" 1680x1050 or 24" 1920x1200, etc.
Of course, the entire picture would be as sharp and contain as much detail as in the inset. But everything would be *that* small.
P.S. I would love to have a monitor like that just to play around with it.
Last edited:
Seems to be the case. Now I have a question, how bad do games play on that thing?
Blazestorm
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 6,940
This is something like what the resolution would look like. It fits 4 1920x1200 quadrants side by side.
This is assuming you have a pixel pitch close to 0.27mm, i.e. a standard pixel-density monitor like 22" 1680x1050 or 24" 1920x1200, etc.
Of course, the entire picture would be as sharp and contain as much detail as in the inset. But everything would be *that* small.
P.S. I would love to have a monitor like that just to play around with it.
I think once resolution increases, so will the DPI of pictures and images... it's just going to make everything look sharper have the ability for more detail.
We don't have to keep text/images/icon's at the same size, that's ridiculous...
We can start increasing it as time goes on... certain things can stay the same size so you can fit more info/data on the same page like with worksheets, programming, video editing, 3d animation... photoshop... etc...darn.. looks like I might have just bought a used Viewsonic vp2290b (relatively cheap) but without LFH-60 cables or converter box..
anyone know what optins I have to drive this thing at full res? (can't find pure LFH-60 cables anywhere, getting a matrox card wouldn't be a problem... but only with LFH-60 to DVI cables..)
anyone know what optins I have to drive this thing at full res? (can't find pure LFH-60 cables anywhere, getting a matrox card wouldn't be a problem... but only with LFH-60 to DVI cables..)
Last edited:
But before that happens, operating systems need to handle DPI changes better. Ever change Windows from the default 96 DPI to higher DPI?
Newer revisions could, at least with an adapter, take Dual Link DVI - only requiring two cables.
And the 50 ms response time might seem horrendous but the main difference is that this isn't aimed at stupid Joe - they don't have to lie about the specs.
There are no newer revisions of the VP2290B. You cannot use a converter box with it. I should clarify, you can use dual link DVI cables/card output.. but it will be dumbed down to single link functionality.
You are getting confused between a VP2290B and the IBM T221 DG5.
As for the LFH60 cable, you can use the Matrox cable as substitute.
And you gamers out there... there is absolutely no point in finding a high res monitor for your games. Are the games actually made for high res? If not, it's just going to be like watching DVD resolution on this high res screen, it will look crappy. And lastly, it's 50ms response time, plus you're not going to get even close to 41hz. Do you want to buy a specialized Matrox card at $1.2K to drive it at 41hz that also is crap for gaming? Are you guys for real, that are thinking about buying this? You know you can get a modern day 30" for <$1K?
The ViewSonic VP2290b-3 is based upon IBM T221 9503-DG5, according to wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T221
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T221
I don't know of anyone, or seen any VP that have the '3' suffex, sold with a converter box. Do you realize how much the converter box cost alone if you can even find one? we're talking over $500. Plus that only converts one of the LFH cables, there is still the other to deal with. And that brings us to... your OS. Other than XP (and using Nvidia Spanning mode), you're going to get multiple seperate desktops on the monitor per DVI input. Even the converter box will only reduce this from 2 to one on the one LFH side.
If by now you all are still not convinced enought of the complication and the limited use of the monitor... knock yourselves out and buy one and welcome to the club.
I don't know of anyone, or seen any VP that have the '3' suffex, sold with a converter box. Do you realize how much the converter box cost alone if you can even find one? we're talking over $500. Plus that only converts one of the LFH cables, there is still the other to deal with. And that brings us to... your OS. Other than XP (and using Nvidia Spanning mode), you're going to get multiple seperate desktops on the monitor per DVI input. Even the converter box will only reduce this from 2 to one on the one LFH side.
If by now you all are still not convinced enought of the complication and the limited use of the monitor... knock yourselves out and buy one and welcome to the club.
Ok, but why would the adapter cost much? (to produce that is, I wouldn't be surprised if it was expensive - just because)
Dual link DVI basically is two single-link connections in one cable. I'm not sure of the specification but doesn't seem hard to split them. And the 9503-DG5 seems to have some circuitry required for the adapter to work which seems to me that pretty much all the work is done in the monitor and the adapter is just rewiring the cables (and perhaps 'mirroring' some of the cables). But I could of course be very wrong.
Most people I've seen (ehm, read - haven't seen one in real life
) using the T221 use it with a dual link DVI and a single link DVI. I'm well aware of the limitations of the monitor and the *real* uses for me would probably be quite limited (I wouldn't game or watch movies on it, thats for sure though (more than perhaps just testing it )), still it would be pure awesomeness to own one (after all, I'm a resolution-freak). As a student though I think I'll pass, with a bit of luck I'll come across one in the future.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Messages
- 15,838
i still drool over the T221... i have a pair of T210's and wont give them up for anything
watching blu-rays on it i feel like im going to fal in lol
watching blu-rays on it i feel like im going to fal in lol
Bit of a bump. But I have a serious question/comment.
The biggest problem with this monitor for consumer use is driving it, since it requires a fancy specialized and expensive video card to produce the four DVI outputs and combine them in the right way. This is, presumably, because at the time that the monitor was released no consumer video card existed that could even come close to meeting the needs of this monitor. Dual-link DVI didn't exist, it didnt come along till 2004 with the release of the 30 Apple Cinema Display and that big long Nvidia 6800 Ultra DDL. From memory, not even cards with two single-link DVI outputs for multi-monitor setups were around back then.
Now, things are a different. Video cards with two dual-link DVI outputs are commonplace. Technically, such cards should be capable of driving this monitor at its full resolution and refresh rate. The main limitation would probably be the drivers, although there may be hardware limitations in how the dual-link TMDS transmitters can be used. The main problem is that standard dual-link interfaces interleaves the two channels, while the monitor expects two separate 1920x1200 signals from each dual-link connector. So, has anyone tried this monitor on a modern video card and had any success?
Even if standard video cards dont work, there is another solution. Eyefinity! The Eyefinity 6 edition is capable of outputting four 1920x1200 images in a 2x2 configuration. All you need is a cable or an adaptor to split a dual link connector into two single links. So, as far as I can tell, this should almost certainly work. Thoughts?
If it is possible to drive this monitor using a standard video card, and if the monitors themselves really can be found for <$2k, then the thought of owning one has become a lot more attractive.
The biggest problem with this monitor for consumer use is driving it, since it requires a fancy specialized and expensive video card to produce the four DVI outputs and combine them in the right way. This is, presumably, because at the time that the monitor was released no consumer video card existed that could even come close to meeting the needs of this monitor. Dual-link DVI didn't exist, it didnt come along till 2004 with the release of the 30 Apple Cinema Display and that big long Nvidia 6800 Ultra DDL. From memory, not even cards with two single-link DVI outputs for multi-monitor setups were around back then.
Now, things are a different. Video cards with two dual-link DVI outputs are commonplace. Technically, such cards should be capable of driving this monitor at its full resolution and refresh rate. The main limitation would probably be the drivers, although there may be hardware limitations in how the dual-link TMDS transmitters can be used. The main problem is that standard dual-link interfaces interleaves the two channels, while the monitor expects two separate 1920x1200 signals from each dual-link connector. So, has anyone tried this monitor on a modern video card and had any success?
Even if standard video cards dont work, there is another solution. Eyefinity! The Eyefinity 6 edition is capable of outputting four 1920x1200 images in a 2x2 configuration. All you need is a cable or an adaptor to split a dual link connector into two single links. So, as far as I can tell, this should almost certainly work. Thoughts?
If it is possible to drive this monitor using a standard video card, and if the monitors themselves really can be found for <$2k, then the thought of owning one has become a lot more attractive.
houkouonchi
RIP
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,622
Eyefinity will indeed work but you need two active DVI adapters that are around $100/piece from dell.
Also I ended up paying almost $700 in DVI detectives and matrox tripple head 2 go's to get 3840x2400@60z using a common dual dual-link DVI video card (gtx 260). It will take 60Hz but it is still a 41Hz internal refresh rate.
At 41hz gaming is actually doable on it as I use it @ work and run quake-live on it and I am still able to do ok. I definitely do better from home on my 3007WFP even though my ping is higher. The response time isn't that noticeable due to the 41Hz refresh rate.
Here are some pics of my setup (A couple running quake 3 but not quakelive):
Also back then I was running off a 8800 GT but I couldn't get a constant 125FPS on quake live @ 3840x2400. It would sometimes go down to 50-60 FPS. Interesting enough the input starts getting really laggy when the FPS go down like that so I still need it to be a high (125 FPS constant) even though the monitor is only 41Hz.
Also I ended up paying almost $700 in DVI detectives and matrox tripple head 2 go's to get 3840x2400@60z using a common dual dual-link DVI video card (gtx 260). It will take 60Hz but it is still a 41Hz internal refresh rate.
At 41hz gaming is actually doable on it as I use it @ work and run quake-live on it and I am still able to do ok. I definitely do better from home on my 3007WFP even though my ping is higher. The response time isn't that noticeable due to the 41Hz refresh rate.
Here are some pics of my setup (A couple running quake 3 but not quakelive):
Also back then I was running off a 8800 GT but I couldn't get a constant 125FPS on quake live @ 3840x2400. It would sometimes go down to 50-60 FPS. Interesting enough the input starts getting really laggy when the FPS go down like that so I still need it to be a high (125 FPS constant) even though the monitor is only 41Hz.
I spy with my little eye a FAS920c...