4k resolution coming

Discussion in 'PC Hardware, Software and Displays' started by jeff_rigby, Dec 27, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dr Evil

    Dr Evil Anas platyrhynchos
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    5,764
    Likes Received:
    772
    Location:
    Finland
    A friend of mine bought one of those 29" 21:9 1080p screens and I saw it yesterday for the first time. I have to say I was quite impressed by it. Games really did look great on it and it was very nice to have two web pages side by side. That 34" 1440p would probably be quite sweet.
     
  2. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland

    I really need to test one myself, for my 3D works could be good, but i have really some pain for now to imagine exactly how it will look. I admit i can use extra size on the left and right for set my UI ( command lists, icon, tools palet, shortcut, etc... ),

    The problem so far was mostly the size, but with a 34", this start to be really really interesting.
     
    #402 lanek, Apr 2, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 2, 2014
  3. Blazkowicz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    256
    Nice vertical resolution yes, and it should be a lot better than using two 1080p displays.

    I wonder about the scaling, does it have sufficient options? (like 1:1 for arbritrary res, scaling to 2560x1440 with black bars on the side etc.) and preferably an OSD menu that doesn't suck ass but that one is too much to ask.

    It would be nice if it can work at real 72Hz refresh (nice for wide movies at 24Hz, but also because 60Hz is not enough for computer use)

    A few pictures that simulate 2.35, 1.85 and 4:3 movies on a 2.35 display (this LCD is 2.388889 though)
    http://www.projectorcentral.com/235_home_theater.htm
     
  4. Pressure

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,317
    Likes Received:
    243
    I'm waiting till we get a native 4K display that doesn't need MST to function at 4K @ 60Hz.

    Not going back to anything less than 2800 x 1800 after using this MacBook Pro with retina display.
     
  5. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    40,409
    Likes Received:
    10,776
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    Price is stupid. For development/professional use, the main purpose for anyone not a PC Leet Gamer, dual monitors is way cheaper and more flexible. Even a 1440p monitor costs far more than dual 1080p monitors with less screen-space. Maybe the market is just Leet PC gamers?
     
  6. UniversalTruth

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    22
    For me it is still not interesting. It is too big, too wide and with too low dpi. :lol:

    I need a 26 inch monitor with resolution 3840x2160. Then I will be more than happy.
     
  7. Blazkowicz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    256
    There's the argument that 1920x1200 is better than 1600x1200.
    Sure, 3200x2400 is even better.

    I would be reasonably happy with a cheap, non-TN and excellent 1920x1200 display.
    Else if we go high DPI maybe I can tolerate 3200x1800, which would be a counterpart to the half-decent 1600x900 resolution.. Not great but if industry could standardize on that for cheap ass monitors we could live with it.
     
  8. Blazkowicz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    256
    Dual 1080p is a bit ugly. It works but it is extremely wide and with annoying separation, not much incentive to look at the secund screen.

    Now that's a bad ass setup rofl (a 16:10 flanked by two 4:3)
    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=102l2co&s=3#.Uzvh1o93_gE
     
  9. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    40,409
    Likes Received:
    10,776
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    I agree, but sadly monitors are mostly widescreen using TV panels, and using other aspects gets expensive. Even the cheapest of 1920x1200 is barely less than dual 1280x1024's which offer more estate. 768p monitors are the lowest end, and you can get 3 or 4 for the price of a cheap ultra-wide display.

    The monitor situation is pretty tragic IMO. You have TV res for the masses, and then high premium enthusiast/business displays.
     
  10. Blazkowicz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    256
    We tend to forget that in Good Old Times (tm) the awesome displays were expensive, i.e. the CRT that did 1600x1200 @ 85Hz had a similar cost to nowadays's 2560x1600 or higher monitor, the cheap stuff did 1024x768.

    Currently cheap stuff worth buying is 1600x900 or 1920x1080, both are higher res than 1024x768 or even 1280x1024.

    A 2x2 grid of 1600x900 displays on a single graphics card would be a funny configuration if you're after pixel amount. Else you have Seiki 3.8K display for as much cheap, albeit at 30Hz.
    It is not clear if we'll get awesome deals in the near future or not. I guess we'll know better after HDMI 2.0 TVs are out.
     
    #410 Blazkowicz, Apr 2, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 2, 2014
  11. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    40,409
    Likes Received:
    10,776
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    Tech has progressed considerably allowing remarkably cheap monitors, but where technological progress meant an increasing resolution, now it's capped off. So where we can now afford multiple 720/1080p monitors where once upon a time multiple 1024x768 monitors was prohibitively expensive, the relative price of single larger screens has remained very high, making large desktop screen-estate far more affordable with multiple screens than large screens (whereas once upon a time we wouldn't even have considered large desktop and just used task switching). This price disparity is going to retard higher resolution desktop display adoption, which in turn is going to retard super high-res screen price reductions overall. Only 4k in the consumer space is going to push screen pricing down, but it'll be a long time before 4k is as commodity-priced as 1080p is.

    What we failed to have was a continuation of that resolution progress. Displays hit 1080p and stopped by and large, with higher resolutions remaining frustratingly niche.

    In the professional/development space, multiple monitors actually makes a lot of sense though. Multitasking can have one application per screen (game development environment on one screen, code IDE or 3D modelling package on another). Only very complex interfaces (3D modelling) ideally benefit from everything all on the one large screen.
     
  12. UniversalTruth

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ok, but why? What advantages do you get from so narrow screens? Does it help you for multi-tasking or what?
     
  13. OpenGL guy

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    28
    Photos are still 3:2. You can always view 16:9 at full resolution on 3:2 with black bars and top and bottom, not so the other way around. For coding, I prefer as much real estate as possible.
     
  14. UniversalTruth

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    22
    My Sony Xperia S produces amazing photos at 4000x2250, this is 16:9, isn't it?
     
  15. OpenGL guy

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    28
    Your photos are still 3:2, are they not?
     
  16. rcf

    rcf
    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    Messages:
    366
    Likes Received:
    302
    Because 4:3 monitors have more real estate than similarly sized widescreen monitors and are better if used in portrait mode.
    Widescreen monitors are better for video, but they are worse for texts, web browsing or anything more vertically oriented. IMO, widescreens don't have a very good balance between horizontal and vertical resolutions, while 4:3 screens are more versatile.
     
  17. UniversalTruth

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    22
    Web pages nowadays are intentionally done in this, for me stupid way, to drive smartphones sales. :lol:

    Otherwise, 16:9 fits far better to our natural vision.
     
  18. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    40,409
    Likes Received:
    10,776
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    I think he means the camera is taking 16:9 snapshots at 4000x2250 pixels. And Googling, it's a 4:3 image sensor producing 4:3 shots and cropping. I think people tend to prefer widescreen photos these days, so not much need for legacy 3:2 format. We can crop everything digitally anyhoo.

    Relative to horizontal size, true - narrower aspects afford more room top and bottom. But unless desk space is a problem, overall there's little advantage to any aspect. In some content that's not full screen, one or other aspect will have a shortcoming.

     
  19. rcf

    rcf
    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    Messages:
    366
    Likes Received:
    302
    Web pages are vertical since the 90s.

    But it only makes a real difference if the screen is huge (like in a movie theater) or if you are sitting too close to your computer screen.
    I care more about most types of content fitting properly in the screen.
     
  20. Npl

    Npl
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,905
    Likes Received:
    6
    Bull.... Our peripheral is > 180degree vertically so flat monitors would need to be 1 to infinity to "match". Anyway, we really cant see sharply anything outside of 40-60 degree and this is the important thing - this area is closer to 4:3: Central angle view

    Its just the same nonsense that gets brought up time and time again with the "realism" of 24FPS.

    16:9 is a compromise for movies (which incidently where shot with wide angle in mind aswell, might have something to do with the rooms housing people scaling better in the horizontal direction), nothing else. Funny note aside, high-end cinema like IMAX has an aspect rate close to 4:3.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...