Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:37 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:16 am
Posts: 237
It seems that every six months or so, a new graphics card comes out that makes all current cards obsolete (slight exaggeration). But all of that extra power is being used to push 1080p or 2560x1600 at slightly higher frame rates. TV technology tends to push towards larger sizes. It seems natural to me to think there would be some demand for an extremely large, extremely high resolution monitor with middling frame rates. Not everyone is a gamer. Wouldn't photographers/graphic design professionals find a use for, say, a 42", 8MP, IPS display? (This would be approximately 3600x2250. At roughly 100ppi, this is not higher density than existing 30" IPS monitors.)

Such a monitor wouldn't even have to be that expensive. If a 30", 100ppi, IPS monitor goes for roughly $1000, then this hypothetical 42" monitor could be priced around $3000 and still expect to sell to a small market of professionals.

There's probably some natural upper limit to the reasonable size of a monitor (unlike a TV), since you sit so close to it. But I'm sitting in front of dual 23" monitors, and I could go for some more space. So I don't understand why monitors stop at 30".

This didn't come out of nowhere, by the way. I was reading this Tech Report blurb about a GTX 550 Ti 4GB graphics card. They point out that the 4GB of memory are silly on a graphics card that can only play games acceptably at a resolution of 1680x1050. But those 4GB wouldn't go to waste if you had an extremely high resolution monitor and didn't care about gaming.

_________________
Body: Canon Rebel XS, Canon EOS 7D
Lenses: Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.0 OS HSM DC Macro, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II, Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM, Canon EF 85mm f1.8 II USM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8052
Location: UK
I think screen sizes on monitors can only get so physically big before you get a case of tennis watching neck from turning your head so often.

Personally I'd like to see them go another direction: increased depth (both resolution and dynamic range). Imagine a 16 bit per channel display in the mainstream, not this 8 bit that we've had since... around the early 90's?

I also think it would be useful if you increase the pixel density further. I'm running 1920x1200 on a 24 inch display, and even at normal viewing distances I can just about make out the pixels if I look for them. If you double that linearly, I think that would make it imperceptible while still being easy to pixel bin down to 1080. Operating systems would need to be a little smarter about drawing the interface though...

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D2, 7D1, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 10-18, 15-85
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 50/1.4A, 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS
Compacts: Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:16 am
Posts: 237
Increased pixel density would mean a new manufacturing process and, probably, lower yield. I don't know what 16 bits per channel would require. Don't get me wrong, these would also be welcome changes to current monitors. I picked the size of the monitor because the technology exists and the manufacturing process is already capable of it. (Large TN/IPS panels are manufactured and then cut into the appropriate sizes. So the only change would be in the cutting process.)

As for the tennis watching neck, my current monitors side by side are about 42" long. I don't think I'd want anything longer than that, but a 42" (diagonal) monitor would be shorter.

_________________
Body: Canon Rebel XS, Canon EOS 7D
Lenses: Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.0 OS HSM DC Macro, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II, Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM, Canon EF 85mm f1.8 II USM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8052
Location: UK
My 15 inch laptop screen is 1080p, so they can certainly go higher density than most current bigger desktop displays. If the laptop screen were scaled up to 24 inch for example, we're looking at around 3072x1728. I nice boost I think.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D2, 7D1, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 10-18, 15-85
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 50/1.4A, 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS
Compacts: Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 3:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:16 am
Posts: 237
That's a good point. A 15" 1080p display has something like 150ppi. Scaling that up to a 30" display would give a resolution of 3920x2205, an 8.6MP display that's still no larger than current largest monitors. Or, taking this one step further, a 42" monitor with a 16:10 aspect ratio could have a resolution of 5344x3340. At 17.8MP, this would allow most DSLR owners to view images at or near 100%.

_________________
Body: Canon Rebel XS, Canon EOS 7D
Lenses: Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.0 OS HSM DC Macro, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II, Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM, Canon EF 85mm f1.8 II USM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:08 am 
My friend has the 27" imac and when I use it I get lost. I honestly think its too big. I can understand going higher in ppi but 24" is the perfect number. I think industry professionals value color accuracy over resolution and top of the line monitors are already at the 2-3k range so I don't think $3000 is a reasonable price point for a proffessional monitor of that size.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group