Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: narikin on November 11, 2012, 12:26:23 pm

Title: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: narikin on November 11, 2012, 12:26:23 pm
Now that almost every modern phone, tablet and laptop has screens over 200dpi, and often over 300dpi, surely its time for NEC and other high end critical pro monitors to up their resolution?

If I can get the equivalent res as the top line NEC 30" 2560x1600 on a 10" tablet for under $500 now, then surely NEC, Eizo etc has to step it up? IBM showed the way with their T220 & T221 (nee Viewsonic) monitors over a decade ago, with 3840x2400 resolution, exceeding 200dpi.

Modern graphics cards can take it (with software update) but the monitor makers seem to be asleep at the wheel.
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: Schewe on November 11, 2012, 06:29:30 pm
Yeah, it's one thing to jam 2560x1600 on a 10" tablet, but it's an entirely different thing to do so on a 30" display. Eizo showcased their 36" 4K display (http://www.eizo.com/global/products/duravision/fdh3601/index.html) at NAB...only problem is it's gonna cost $35,000 for 4,096 x 2,160...so, exactly how much would you be willing to spend? And exactly what would you hope to gain? If you understood human visual acuity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity), you would understand why having a super high rez small display makes sense but not a really large display.
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: howardm on November 12, 2012, 08:49:35 am
Jeff,

Can you dumb it down a bit?  I couldn't really get through that Wiki article on acuity.
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: Rand47 on November 12, 2012, 10:01:41 am
Jeff,

Can you dumb it down a bit?  I couldn't really get through that Wiki article on acuity.

I "second" that!  Is it that "that much resolution" "that big" is visual overload for human eyes?  That's kinda what I got from my reading. 
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: Scott Martin on November 12, 2012, 10:52:04 am
I really like taking a close look at my high res 20x30 prints and would love to see them at the same resolution at nearly the same size onscreen. Having used Lightroom's 4.3RC HiDPI support on a MacBookPro since last week I'm pretty darn blown away with it, but it makes looking at the current 27-20" displays difficult. Images just look that much better! And the visual representation of sharpness and noise gives the fine printmaker a far better idea how these things will look when printed. It's nuts.

We've been living in the dark ages with these low res displays and I, for one, can't wait till we have HiDPI 27-30" displays.
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: narikin on November 12, 2012, 11:19:16 am
I am a trained doctorate level Microscopist, so yes, I understand about Acuity.

And as everyone here probably knows, according to theory there's "no need" for XL prints to be anything above poster grade resolution as people will only ever view them from the officially sanctioned appropriate distance.  Despite this fact, every single art exhibition I have been to I've seen people with their noses up against the glass looking at the detail.  Me too.

We've had 2560x1600 for what 15 years now? its beyond time to step it up, despite what anyone says. Once people acclimatize to 300dpi images being the norm, they will not accept high end photo editing at ~100dpi. Acuity theory or not.


Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: Schewe on November 12, 2012, 11:26:11 am
Can you dumb it down a bit?  I couldn't really get through that Wiki article on acuity.

Human visual acuity is measured as being about 1 minute of a degree arc. What that means is that the eye can see more resolution up close and less further away. You can read more in this article: The Right Resolution (http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/workflow/the-right-resolution.html). The bottom line is that holding something closer to your eyes needs higher resolution that seeing something further away so an iPad or iPhone display held close needs to be higher resolution that something like a 30" display that should be an arm's length away (or more).
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: Schewe on November 12, 2012, 11:28:30 am
We've had 2560x1600 for what 15 years now? its beyond time to step it up, despite what anyone says.

Then buy the Eizo for a cool $35K....
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: Simon Garrett on November 12, 2012, 11:52:40 am
And as everyone here probably knows, according to theory there's "no need" for XL prints to be anything above poster grade resolution as people will only ever view them from the officially sanctioned appropriate distance.  Despite this fact, every single art exhibition I have been to I've seen people with their noses up against the glass looking at the detail.  Me too.
Too true!  When judges assess prints submitted to the Royal Photographic Society in the UK, the first thing they do is pick up the print and hold it close to their faces and judge the sharpness.  I've watched them do it.  Any visible blur and the print is rejected. 

The take-away from that: submit prints at A4/Letter size, and not A3/11x17!  That way the prints look sharper. 
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: Scott Martin on November 12, 2012, 12:05:28 pm
When I place my retinaMacBookPro side-by-side between a 30" NEC and Apple's Thunderbolt display at normal computer viewing distance, the retinaMBP obviously shows far greater image detail. As for $35K displays something tells me Apple is going to use their economy of scale to release a retina Cinema Display when they can. Maybe when the new MacPro concept comes out next year. The video industry's movement towards 4K capture and delivery will also surely fuel 4K+ display technology...
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: AFairley on November 12, 2012, 12:18:01 pm
Yes, but....  I can already judge "sharpness" in the image by viewing the image at 100%, and I don't think I need Retina-level of resolution to be able to effectively adjust tonality.  I do like having a larger monitor size-wise since I get a better sense of the overall effect of the print than on a smaller display, but I already have that with current pixel pitch monitors.  I mean, I would love to be able to see stuff on a 30" Retina dpi display, but the expenditure would be at the bottom of my want list.
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: Scott Martin on November 12, 2012, 12:21:58 pm
Yes, but....  I can already judge "sharpness" in the image by viewing the image at 100%, and I don't think I need Retina-level of resolution to be able to effectively adjust tonality. 

Am I right that you haven't worked with your images on a retina display then? Its incredible and you'll never want to judge sharpness as 100% again - that's a terrible hack we've had to live with for so long and doing this at high res is way better. Gotta see this to believe it.
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 12, 2012, 12:39:57 pm
We've been living in the dark ages with these low res displays and I, for one, can't wait till we have HiDPI 27-30" displays.

Hi Scott,

But there is a reason for this low resolution compromise. A HiDPI screen requires some 9x as many display pixels to be processed (and refreshed some 60x per second to avoid flicker). That would take some serious hardware to perform, and fast software to render the image for display in the first place. The result is high cost (for the components and lower dead-pixel-free yield for the displays) and probably a considerable amount of electrical power.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: Scott Martin on November 12, 2012, 01:18:04 pm
But there is a reason for this low resolution compromise.

I get that. Today's rMBP is a glimpse into the future for what we'll eventually have on the desktop.
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: narikin on November 12, 2012, 03:07:35 pm
But there is a reason for this low resolution compromise. A HiDPI screen requires some 9x as many display pixels to be processed (and refreshed some 60x per second to avoid flicker). That would take some serious hardware to perform, and fast software to render the image for display in the first place. The result is high cost (for the components and lower dead-pixel-free yield for the displays) and probably a considerable amount of electrical power.

Most modern desktop graphics cards are so powerful these days that they could handle a 4k display at decent refresh rate. They don't even need to be an extreme or expensive one.

Remember how people had to upgrade their graphics card to pro models to handle 30" displays 12 years ago?  Now nearly everyone's desktop can do it.

No, if they build it, for under/around $5k, it will be come, no question.
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: bjanes on November 12, 2012, 05:01:09 pm
Human visual acuity is measured as being about 1 minute of a degree arc. What that means is that the eye can see more resolution up close and less further away. You can read more in this article: The Right Resolution (http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/workflow/the-right-resolution.html). The bottom line is that holding something closer to your eyes needs higher resolution that seeing something further away so an iPad or iPhone display held close needs to be higher resolution that something like a 30" display that should be an arm's length away (or more).

I extended Bruce's calculations as shown below. The screen specs for the Ipad4 are shown along with those of my current monitor. A viewing distance of about 12 inches for the Ipad would match the screen resolution to that of the eye (assuming that the angular resolution of the eye is 1 minute of arc). The corresponding viewing distance for my monitor would be about 3 feet. Actually, I view the screen at about 16-18 inches, so the monitor does not appear as sharp as an Ipad. At a viewing distance of 24 inches (approximately an arm's length), a monitor would have to have a resolution of 143 ppi to equal the resolution of the eye. For a screen 30 inches wide, this would be a pixel width of 4290 or approximately 4K pixels.

At 100 yards, one minute of arc equals about one inch, a figure that is familiar to target shooters adjusting their sights.

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: Schewe on November 12, 2012, 06:20:40 pm
At a viewing distance of 24 inches (approximately an arm's length), a monitor would have to have a resolution of 143 ppi to equal the resolution of the eye.

Boy, you must have short arms...my sleeve length is 34" and for my dual 30" displays, I find the optimal distance to be about 36" which works out to about 95 PPI which is under what my display resolves at 101.3 PPI. I couldn't stand to work 16-18 inches away from a 30" display. A laptop maybe, but not a 30" display.

I'm not arguing against higher rez displays, but at $35K, I won't be standing in line for one any time soon. The Eizo DuraVision FDH3601 is designed for for use in "geophysical services" industries and air traffic control and can be driven up to up to 700 cd/m2-which would pretty darn bright to use for soft proofing...they don't mention the gamut of the display.

Also, don't ignore what Bart said about processing power requirements...ACR and Lightroom are already kinda pokey on a 30" with 2560 x 1600 pixels...image how much slower the response time to sliders a 4K display would be? Ouch!
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: bjanes on November 12, 2012, 07:30:49 pm
Boy, you must have short arms...my sleeve length is 34" and for my dual 30" displays, I find the optimal distance to be about 36" which works out to about 95 PPI which is under what my display resolves at 101.3 PPI. I couldn't stand to work 16-18 inches away from a 30" display. A laptop maybe, but not a 30" display.

My sleeve length (http://www.wikihow.com/Measure-Your-Neck-Size-and-Sleeve-Length) for shirts is 32 inches. This measurement if from the middle of the back to the end of the sleeve. The distance from the shoulder of the shirt to the cuff is 24 inches. As I stated, I view my 24 inch monitor (diagonal measurement) from about 24 inches. YMMV, but you do view your dual 30" displays at about 36 inches, which sounds reasonable and is nearly proportional to my parameters for a 24 inch screen. I would imagine that one would sit somewhat further from a dual display setup than a single monitor setup.

I'm not arguing against higher rez displays, but at $35K, I won't be standing in line for one any time soon. The Eizo DuraVision FDH3601 is designed for for use in "geophysical services" industries and air traffic control and can be driven up to up to 700 cd/m2-which would pretty darn bright to use for soft proofing...they don't mention the gamut of the display.

Also, don't ignore what Bart said about processing power requirements...ACR and Lightroom are already kinda pokey on a 30" with 2560 x 1600 pixels...image how much slower the response time to sliders a 4K display would be? Ouch!

Points well taken.
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: SunnyUK on November 15, 2012, 08:40:23 am
Having taken delivery of an NEC Spectraview Reference 271W today, I hope it'll be several years before 4K monitors come down in price.  But that's just me being selfish, I know.  ;D
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: indusphoto on November 22, 2012, 03:10:01 pm
The world was quite happy with iPhone 3G/3GS screen until they saw iPhone 4 screen. Same thing is happening with MacBook Retina vs the older generation MacBooks (whose screen I did not like for lack of resolution).

I have 1920x1200 pixels on my 15" thinkpad. This was the highest resolution display before Macbook Retina came along, and I noticed the difference between my screen and other displays of the time.

The production cost has little to do with number of pixels, it has much more to do with economy of scale. Eizo is certainly not in a position to have that kind of economy, even NEC is not there. Only Apple, Sony, Samsung, and the likes have the muscle to pull this off. I am sure Apple retina laptops have set the wheels in motion for other makers to offer something similar (for one thing, the factories building displays for Apple already have the production processes in place). So, hopefully in a year or two we will see better densities on LCD monitors.

Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: Paul2660 on November 23, 2012, 11:30:09 am
Jeff, in regards to LR's processing speeds on a 30" monitor, do you see anything coming down the pipe from LR to help address this issue?  It's quite a difference in speed between say a 26" NEC and the 30" NEC.  I notice that the 30" seems to bog down over time, sliders start to jerk, etc.  A reboot seems to fix it but after 30 minutes or so, the slow downs start up again.

This is running on a Win7 64 bit machine, 16GB of ram, 3.2 quad core, nvidia Card with 1GB of ram.

Thanks
Paul
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: tived on November 24, 2012, 02:24:51 am
Paul, what video card do you have?

Not all are equal ?

Henrik
Title: Re: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?
Post by: Paul2660 on November 24, 2012, 12:19:19 pm
Henrik

I am currently using a Gigabyte GTX470, which uses the nvidia GTX 470 shipset, with 1280MB  GDDR5/32 bit ram.

In CS5 and 6 extended with the Open GL expansion turned on, I believe I can see a difference, mainly in how images are painted at 100% and when you move around an image. 

In LR, really since I started using a 30" monitor, it just doesn't seem to run as smoothly as on my system with a 26" NEC.   I have looked in the LR pref's but have never found any setting devoted to the use of Open GL or a setting allowing you to use the video ram like photoshop does.

Paul