Will we ever see anything past 2560 x 1600?

B

Blazestorm

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
6,940
There have only been a few monitors past that resolution, and they were pretty specialty (I forget the exact model, but it was like 6-8MP, but was meant just for photo work and not for normal usage

Are we gonna see anything past 2560 x 1600 anytime soon? I guess if 4K film/TV's pick up we might get smaller versions closer to 32" possibly for computer work?
I'm just curious... I wouldn't mind a slight size increase if we got even more pixels... :)

After moving from 2 x 24"s to a single 30" I doubt I'd consider a multi-monitor setup unless it was absolutely necessary...
We've been at 2560 x 1600 for a few years now... since 04 (Apple 30" came out around then and probably others too)

Or QuadHD ? 3840x2160 in a 34-37" form?
 
Yeah, pixel density is what gets me. Before I knew anything about monitors I bought a TN 22" (pity checks can be made out to... Q_Q) thinking size was all that really mattered. Since then I've had a 1920X1200 22" to play with and fell in love with it.

so yeah, a 2.5k by 1.6k screen at 24" or something that that would be awesome.
 
Yep... only reason I got a 30" was the pixel density...

I would have considered a 22" @ 1920 x 1200, but they were roughly the cost of 2 x 24" Soyo's at the time (~$300 a piece) so I went with that first... then I got the 3007WFP-HC for $900 off Dell Outlet (which dropped to $750 like 2 months after >_< )

I always tell people to get a 19 or 20" @ 1680 x 1050 cause there's no point in getting a 22" at the same resolution... atleast in my opinion...
They make laptop screens 15.4" @ 1920 x 1200 ... haha... they can definitely make pixels small... I just did the math real quick... that's essentially the same dot-pitch as a 30" @ 3840 x 2160...

So it's possible... atleast I'd think, I dunno much about the LCD manufacturing process... that's be 8 million pixels they'd have to worry about heh...
 
If you can track down an IBM T221 or ViewSonic VP2290b (both discontinued), they both give you the ultimate resolution of 3840x2400 on a 22" screen. Of course, if you indeed can find one, it will cost you a pretty penny.
 
Yea, that's the one I was talking about... from what I remember they're not even close to practical for normal usage and are really just for photo editing... the dot-pitch on those has to be ridiculous >_<

I'm wanting 3840 x 2160... 30" screen... with no input lag / low response time, IPS panel... and maybe keep it under $2 grand at release? :D?

I guess the other issue is connection / bandwidth of cables... might need 2 dual-link DVI's to get that much resolution/data to a screen...

I guess 2560 x 1600 is close to topping out Dual-link DVI... that's why they were trying to move to displayport.
 
not much higher... It seems pointless to me to go too much higher than that... its pretty much as clear as I could ever see practical
 
holinger said:
not much higher... It seems pointless to me to go too much higher than that... its pretty much as clear as I could ever see practical
Click to expand...

In print we usually have 300ppi (300 pixels per inch) resolution which is considered the minimum for somewhat clear graphics (digital picture resolution, print resolution will be higher)

a 2560x1600 30'' screen is about 100ppi so going by print standards we should have a 7680x4800 res @ 30'' to give us a picture clear enough to look good even without hiding it's jaggyness behind antialiasing. (and text quality equal to low quality print [black/white text print tends to be in the 2400dpi+ range])

It's a simplified comparison since I'm not taking sitting distance into account, but it should be enough to make the point that higher resolutions do make sense at reading distance.

For TV use we'll probably stick with 1920x1080 for the next 20+ years (industry adaption/sitting distance at normal TV size)

But as PC display, even for office use, the move to 200+ppi feels overdue,
it's not that we couldn't use better pictures, its just that we're to used to seeing crap to feel the need. (maybe I should put that sentence in my sig ^^; )
(try setting a 1920x1200 15'' laptop to 200% textsize to see what we're missing out on potential text quality on our bigger screens.)

Blazestorm said:
There have only been a few monitors past that resolution, and they were pretty specialty (I forget the exact model, but it was like 6-8MP, but was meant just for photo work and not for normal usage
Click to expand...
The only one I can remember of being in production at the moment http://www.barco.com/medical/en/products/product_specs.asp?element=4076&lid=EN
 
Last edited:
holinger said:
not much higher... It seems pointless to me to go too much higher than that... its pretty much as clear as I could ever see practical
Click to expand...

Yea, but then it'd be getting to the point where you wouldn't be seeing the individual pixels :D

Which is already pretty hard on 2560 x 1600...

I don't think TV's will be at 1080p for 20 years, atleast I think the move to 4K might happen in bigger LCD's meant for home theaters... keep the 1080p for the smaller stuff...

One can hope atleast :p
 
Decent increase though... 50% more pixels than the current 30"s... ;)

But worth 20x what I paid? No...
 
TV rez is only as big as they need to be. there's no TV/movie/etc resolution above 1080p so i doubt we'll see TVs bigger than that for quite a while. 20 years? thats a stretech, but probably within 7-10 years. certainly not less than 5 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top