That same article also says that the resolution of film is hard to determine, but probably effectively quite a lot higher than 2K, although projected analogue film in theatres probably have far less resolution due to duplication and limitations of the projection system.

Though I have to say, I saw the Hobbit last Saturday, and there were a few places (particularly the (Japanese) subtitles) where the limited resolution of the digital projection was really noticeable. Mind you, we didn't make reservations so we were sitting in row 3, quite close to the screen.

Then again, I always thought regular analogue projection looked blurry, and at least digital film doesn't have the problem that if you see a movie two months after it opened the print is full of scratches and dirt.

I want it for working on the pc and laptop , something close to 300 ppi for windows displays w/o having to pay 10K  something like a 20 inch @ 260ppi that costs less than a grand.

right now it seems like all the displays are trapped at 1920x1080 no matter how big the size.

unless you want to pay a *LOT* for them.... and even then few to pick from.

I do not want a 30 inch @ 1920x1080 nor a 26 inch ....

18 minutes ago, Kental2 wrote

@figuerres: I'm sporting a pair of Samsung 305T's that are 30", 2560 x 1600 resolution.  They set me back about $1300 a pop though, and I'm not sure if this particular model is still being manufactured.  I have seen equivalent Dell displays, however.  I also saw an Apple display with the same resolution, but as you'd expect it costs about 3 times as much as every other one for the privilege.

do the math, you are still at about 80-90 ppi with that large screen .... it's not even close to 200 ppi.

take that 2560x1600 but put it on like a 15 inch display!  then you are getting close.

4 minutes ago, Kental2 wrote

Haha, fair point.... I basically glossed over the 300 ppi point and was speaking specifically to the resolution.  But I agree, that'd be amazing.

Apple has done what they call the "retina" display on the iPhone, the iPad and the mac book.

the rest of the hardware vendors have not even come close to that.

small screens like the iPhone have had 200 ppi for a while now.  time for the larger ones to catch up.

6 hours ago, TLapworth93 wrote

I think these ridiculously high res screens will probably be best suited for gaming.

READING!!

20 hours ago, figuerres wrote

*snip*

Apple has done what they call the "retina" display on the iPhone, the iPad and the mac book.

the rest of the hardware vendors have not even come close to that.

small screens like the iPhone have had 200 ppi for a while now.  time for the larger ones to catch up.

 

Actually, most vendors have done better than "retina", so I assume you're really saying no large monitors have done "retina" or better yet. This includes monitors from Apple. This might help you to understand why: http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/viewsonic-vp3280-led-4k-monitor-hands-on/

Granted, that's a rather large monitor, which is why it's only getting 150 ppi, but 4k displays are still rather expensive to make. Not to mention what it takes to pump that many bits out to a display. ViewSonic claims a Core i5 is only able to display still images on their 4k display. To get video you need a Core i7. Both of these are things that can be overcome, and we're getting there, but don't expect it this year.

As for movies, most movies now are being shot with 4k cameras, AFAIK. Pretty much none are being shot on film, regardless. The real issue with 4k content is just getting it to you, though it sounds like we may have solutions for that as well, now. Up until recently everything I read indicated you could only fit about 15 minutes of 4k video on a Blu-ray disc. At CES though, Red (the largest manufacturer of 4k cameras) announced REDRAY, a 4k player. This uses a codec that supposedly can fit a full 4k movie onto a Blu-ray. Movies are stored on a very large internal HD. I assume dedicated hardware is then used to process that codec fast enough to output the video to a 4k TV/display. In other words, I don't think the codec is enough on it's own to solve the bandwidth issues involved with 4k processing, but it's still a huge advancement.

50 minutes ago, figuerres wrote

*snip*

READING!!

We already have eink for that though .

52 minutes ago, GoddersUK wrote

*snip*

We already have eink for that though .

That depends. eInk is ideal for reading long narrative text, such as fiction novels. It is decidedly non-ideal for reference text with illustrations and tables. In this case, though, I'm going to guess he meant something more along the lines of reading web pages (eInk stinks at that), source code in the IDE, etc., rather than "reading a book".

1 day ago, Proton2 wrote

http://www.nextpowerup.com/news/478/panasonic-unveils-first-tablet-with-4k-resolution.html

Who is that on the right? Lisa Ling?

1 hour ago, wkempf wrote

*snip*

Actually, most vendors have done better than "retina", so I assume you're really saying no large monitors have done "retina" or better yet. This includes monitors from Apple. This might help you to understand why: http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/viewsonic-vp3280-led-4k-monitor-hands-on/

Granted, that's a rather large monitor, which is why it's only getting 150 ppi, but 4k displays are still rather expensive to make. Not to mention what it takes to pump that many bits out to a display. ViewSonic claims a Core i5 is only able to display still images on their 4k display. To get video you need a Core i7. Both of these are things that can be overcome, and we're getting there, but don't expect it this year.

As for movies, most movies now are being shot with 4k cameras, AFAIK. Pretty much none are being shot on film, regardless. The real issue with 4k content is just getting it to you, though it sounds like we may have solutions for that as well, now. Up until recently everything I read indicated you could only fit about 15 minutes of 4k video on a Blu-ray disc. At CES though, Red (the largest manufacturer of 4k cameras) announced REDRAY, a 4k player. This uses a codec that supposedly can fit a full 4k movie onto a Blu-ray. Movies are stored on a very large internal HD. I assume dedicated hardware is then used to process that codec fast enough to output the video to a 4k TV/display. In other words, I don't think the codec is enough on it's own to solve the bandwidth issues involved with 4k processing, but it's still a huge advancement.

well part of my issue is that there is a huge gap with all the common monitors being stuck at 70 to 90 ppi in general and so few "desktop" displays that go past 90ppi.

300ppi is a "nearly ideal goal"   for having displays where we stop even counting the dots and just enjoy it.

but in the mean time I would like to see desktop displays that are more than 100 ppi be more common.  in laptops they do it, why not for a desktop screen ?

22 hours ago, figuerres wrote

*snip*

Apple has done what they call the "retina" display on the iPhone, the iPad and the mac book.

the rest of the hardware vendors have not even come close to that.

small screens like the iPhone have had 200 ppi for a while now.  time for the larger ones to catch up.

Take a mid-grade Android phone from 2 years ago, blow it up to 9.7", 15", and 17" and you have a "Retina" display. And the pixel density of the "Retina" display on the iPhone has been surpassed long ago.

To say that "the rest of the hardware vendors have not even come close to that" is just plain silly, especially since Apple doesn't even manufacture any of these displays.

1 hour ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Take a mid-grade Android phone from 2 years ago, blow it up to 9.7", 15", and 17" and you have a "Retina" display. And the pixel density of the "Retina" display on the iPhone has been surpassed long ago.

To say that "the rest of the hardware vendors have not even come close to that" is just plain silly, especially since Apple doesn't even manufacture any of these displays.

 

ok so where can I buy a 20 inch 200ppi monitor for less than $2000.00 right now ?

the issue is that the desktop monitors we can buy are still not even getting close to 200 ppi

almost all of them are 80 to 90.  the few that have more than 1920x1080 are generally also 25 to 30 inch screens so they still come in at around 80-90 ppi.

or you have to special order some $4000.00 screen that is never sold in a retail shop.

yes I know they can be made and that cell phones have them....

and as they have been making them they should have gotten the process to a point where they can offer a desktop display that is at least close.

1 hour ago, figuerres wrote

*snip*

well part of my issue is that there is a huge gap with all the common monitors being stuck at 70 to 90 ppi in general and so few "desktop" displays that go past 90ppi.

300ppi is a "nearly ideal goal"   for having displays where we stop even counting the dots and just enjoy it.

but in the mean time I would like to see desktop displays that are more than 100 ppi be more common.  in laptops they do it, why not for a desktop screen ?

You do know that "retina" isn't based on ppi, right? It's a fuzzy term invented by Apple that means "you shouldn't be able to perceive pixels at a normal viewing distance". A "normal viewing distance" is not specified, and is going to vary greatly depending on the device. The 15" MacBook Pro retina display has a 220 ppi, for instance, not the 300 ppi of the iPhone retina display.

Wikipedia has an equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display) you can use to try and guess what a "retina" desktop monitor would need in terms of ppi. This SO question does a slightly better job (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12593936/what-is-the-formula-to-determine-if-a-screen-is-retina-resolution). At 24" (many computer desks I've found in a quick search have 25.5" depth) the ppi is only 143 for retina displays. The "normal viewing distance" is probably less than this, but more than for the MBP. I'd guess probably around 180 ppi, but I'm just guessing, since that magical "normal viewing distance" isn't specified.

7 minutes ago, wkempf wrote

*snip*

You do know that "retina" isn't based on ppi, right? It's a fuzzy term invented by Apple that means "you shouldn't be able to perceive pixels at a normal viewing distance". A "normal viewing distance" is not specified, and is going to vary greatly depending on the device. The 15" MacBook Pro retina display has a 220 ppi, for instance, not the 300 ppi of the iPhone retina display.

Wikipedia has an equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display) you can use to try and guess what a "retina" desktop monitor would need in terms of ppi. This SO question does a slightly better job (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12593936/what-is-the-formula-to-determine-if-a-screen-is-retina-resolution). At 24" (many computer desks I've found in a quick search have 25.5" depth) the ppi is only 143 for retina displays. The "normal viewing distance" is probably less than this, but more than for the MBP. I'd guess probably around 180 ppi, but I'm just guessing, since that magical "normal viewing distance" isn't specified.

yeah, it's just that it's a handy term to get the general idea....

I think Bill Hill would understand what I am looking for if he were still around, RIP BILL

Also, like I pointed out the problem isn't with packing pixels in. The problem is that the large you make the screen while maintaining the same ppi the more overall pixels you're going to have to push to the display, and that makes it much more difficult to interface with. Making a 24" 300 ppi display wouldn't be hard, but making it actually work is a different matter all together.

5 hours ago, figuerres wrote

*snip*

ok so where can I buy a 20 inch 200ppi monitor for less than $2000.00 right now ?

Not from Apple.

1 day ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Who is that on the right? Lisa Ling?

From that link (the point has also been made here):

"Even if not a product consumers at large will be holding any time soon, it's yet another insult to PC monitor makers that still have the audacity of charging $500 for 27-inch monitors with 1080p."

Seconded. Even a low end monitor isn't particularly cheap if you want 1920*1080 resolution, and you can't get that resolution on the smaller monitors without paying a fortune.