Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: texshooter on October 15, 2011, 05:15:16 am
-
I've had my 100 PPI 30" Dell monitor for several years now. When I heard they just released a thinner and better version, I was excited until I learned the new one has no more resolution than the old, 100 PPI. If micro processors double in speed every year, why can't the high end monitors get sharper, as well. Don't get me wrong, I like my big *ss monitor, but come on now it's about time for something really new and improved. Inkjet printers can print at 2880 dots per inch. I want a monitor that can resolve at least 300 pixels per inch to boot.
Is it truly rocket science?
-
Is it truly rocket science?
No,
just too expensive. Definitely magnitudes away from your Dell.
cheers
afx
-
Why do you want such a thing?
Your OS will have to provide much higher resolution icons, fonts, etc, in order for the rendering to be appealing on such a screen. If you have a 30" @ 300ppi you're talking a monitor that's 9000 diagonal pixels so that would be about 7847 by 4408 pixels or 34.5MP. Compare that to, say, a full HD monitor at 1920x1080 which is just over 2MP. The memory and GPU power and bandwidth to drive such a monitor would be very significant.
That's not to say that we shan't one day have such a thing, but what is the demand at the moment? At 200dpi, we start to lose (as humans) the ability to truly distiguish the additional resolution - see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/und_resolution.shtml and certainly with a 30" monitor at normal viewing distances, it's gone well before 300dpi.
Don't get me wrong - I think most of us here would be happy to have stunning, super high resolution monitors, but you really should understand the differences between the resolution of a printer and the resolution of an LCD monitor and the useful resolution based on the performance of the human eye, as well as an understanding of the scaling of the resources necessary when you start increasing something exponentially (density of a square area...)
-
Have you worked with a Dell 30"? It's like looking through a fabric softener sheet. You can see grain every where. It's distracting and makes it harder to do critical sharpening. The graininess is caused by all those black empty spaces between the pixels. Sure 300PPI may be over kill, but just a couple more sips from the fidelity fountain would be quite refreshing.
-
Not with a Dell, but with Eizo and Apple. The resolution is better than, say, a 19" 4:3 at 1280x1024 (which was a very common size - still is for a lot of offices for example). Unless you're sticking your face a few centimetres away from the monitor, I really don't find a problem with any modern monitor due to lack of resolution.
At any rate, the next jump shouldn't be too far away, with 4k becoming stronger. You can already get 4k monitors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution#List_of_4K_monitors_and_projectors
The Eizo looks to be the best in terms of resolution and useful size. So, if you want it, you just need the cash.
http://www.eizo.com/global/products/duravision/fdh3601/index.html
-
I looked up the specs on that puppy. With a display area of 32.17"x16.97" and 4096 x 2160 pixels, that gives a resolution of 127 PPI. Not bad, but the Ipod has a resoluton of 326 PPI. Eizo can do better, especially for $36,000. OMG!!!!!!!!!
-
Not with a Dell, but with Eizo and Apple. The resolution is better than, say, a 19" 4:3 at 1280x1024 (which was a very common size - still is for a lot of offices for example). Unless you're sticking your face a few centimetres away from the monitor, I really don't find a problem with any modern monitor due to lack of resolution.
At any rate, the next jump shouldn't be too far away, with 4k becoming stronger. You can already get 4k monitors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution#List_of_4K_monitors_and_projectors
The Eizo looks to be the best in terms of resolution and useful size. So, if you want it, you just need the cash.
http://www.eizo.com/global/products/duravision/fdh3601/index.html
I'm pretty sure that 4K Eizo is only SRGB and not Adobe RGB.
-
Josh - I believe that's right, but Tex just wants more resolution and doesn't seem to appreciate other factors including how LCD panels are made and how QA on an iPod screen is about 4 orders of magnitude easier than on a 36" screen...
-
Scroll down to see what Canon was showing in New York at their Expo last year (8K monitor).
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10055-10894
I was lucky enough to be in NY at the time so able to attend and check out all the goodies in person. The quality of the monitors was remarkable!
-
I am not sure what screens are using this panel, but it for sure is available for sales! :)
http://www.chimei-innolux.com/opencms/cmo/products/lcd_tv/ccfl/products_lcd_ccfl_tv_V562D1.html?__locale=en
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Why do you want 300 PPI?! No fun pixel peeping if you cannot see the pixels!
I've had my 100 PPI 30" Dell monitor for several years now. When I heard they just released a thinner and better version, I was excited until I learned the new one has no more resolution than the old, 100 PPI. If micro processors double in speed every year, why can't the high end monitors get sharper, as well. Don't get me wrong, I like my big *ss monitor, but come on now it's about time for something really new and improved. Inkjet printers can print at 2880 dots per inch. I want a monitor that can resolve at least 300 pixels per inch to boot.
Is it truly rocket science?