Coffeehouse Thread

26 posts

4K Monitors: Anyone have one yet?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • ScanIAm

    It must be psychological, but every time a higher resolution technology comes out, my ability to see pixels suddenly improves.

  • Bas

    This whole 4K televisions thing makes me wonder: what is the resolution of film, and in what resolution are digitally-shot movies being shot? Will we be stuck with a bunch of low-res movies 20 years from now when we all have 32K televisions?

  • Proton2
  • Sven Groot

    @Bas: According to Wikipedia digital movies are usually mastered in 2K (2048x1024), so that would seem to be a limiting factor in the usefulness of 4K or higher displays.

    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.

  • figuerres

    so are we looking for higher res for movies or form the pc ?

    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 ....

  • Kental2

    @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.

  • figuerres

    , 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.

  • Kental2

    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.

  • figuerres

    , 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.

     

  • JoshRoss

    OMG QFHD FTW!

  • JoshRoss

    Sorry.

  • TLapworth93

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

  • cheong

    The screen must have high update frequency with such a high resolution, or flickering is guaranteed.

    Recent Achievement unlocked: Code Avenger Tier 4/6: You see dead program. A lot!
    Last modified
  • figuerres

    , TLapworth93 wrote

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

    READING!!

  • wkempf

    , 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.

  • GoddersUK

    , figuerres wrote

    *snip*

    READING!!

    We already have eink for that though Perplexed.

  • wkempf

    , GoddersUK wrote

    *snip*

    We already have eink for that though Perplexed.

    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".

  • cbae

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.