The Future Of Flat Panel Display 4096 x 2304

[Protagonist]

So I'm curious, id like to know if anyone knows if as of next year flat panel display resolution/pixels will be increased per inch or what? If so then i think it will be something like this:

1920 x 1080 - 19/20 inches

2048 x 1152 - 21.5/22 inches

2560 x 1440 - 23/24 inches

3840 x 2160 - 27 inches

4096 x 2304 - 30 inches

5120 x 2880 - ??? inches, in the near future??

For Desktop computer displays, what do y'all think or know?

 

[Bo$$]

how far?

 

[Protagonist]

how far?

With Intel Ivy Bridge coming next year and it is said that it will support 4096 x 4096, so i guess the display shift should be happening as we speak

 

[Disparia]

Well, it would be about time. Over the last ten years we've only had a handful of models above 2560x1600. The progress curve is nearly flat for extremely high resolution displays.

 

[claylomax]

Well, it would be about time. Over the last ten years we've only had a handful of models above 2560x1600. The progress curve is nearly flat for extremely high resolution displays.

This.

 

[Bo$$]

when nvidia and AMD start allowing higher resolutions per port, then we will see these displays

 

[Protagonist]

when nvidia and AMD start allowing higher resolutions per port, then we will see these displays

Graphics manufactures say opposite they say when the displays are available then they'll up the res, so that's what Intel is doing coz currently there are displays with 4096 x 2160

 

[pantherx12]

I think there's going to be a big boom in display resolution soon due to phones coming out this month with 720p resolution screens, with small devices such as phones and tablets pushing the DPI to crazy levels bigger screens will have to get higher resolutions or end up looking shitty next to a phone.

 

[Easy Rhino]

display manufacturers need a profit motive to produce higher res displays. consumers wont buy a more expensive high res display if there is no content out there to watch. i guess content providers could sell their movies and shows on the new bluray 100 gig discs. as for live television and VOD you still wont see 1080p anytime in the near future.

 

[jasper1605]

display manufacturers need a profit motive to produce higher res displays. consumers wont buy a more expensive high res display if there is no content out there to watch. i guess content providers could sell their movies and shows on the new bluray 100 gig discs. as for live television and VOD you still wont see 1080p anytime in the near future.

Well said. Though the first company to jump the gun on that would definitely be a welcomed catalyst to the whole "let's make things look even better" progression that would give providers a reason to charge more provide us with better quality content

 

[Neuromancer]

Well, it would be about time. Over the last ten years we've only had a handful of models above 2560x1600. The progress curve is nearly flat for extremely high resolution displays.

I will be happy when that res is affordable in an LCD. I miss my 2304 x 1440 CRTs. ( I ran two of them )

Stuck now with a 1920x1200 LCD that cost more than either one of the CRTs (add its a cheap LCD too)

 

[LordJummy]

I wouldn't mind having some extremely dense panels.

 

[1Kurgan1]

display manufacturers need a profit motive to produce higher res displays. consumers wont buy a more expensive high res display if there is no content out there to watch. i guess content providers could sell their movies and shows on the new bluray 100 gig discs. as for live television and VOD you still wont see 1080p anytime in the near future.

I see the mention of discs, which brings me to the point of, when will we do away with those damn things. I'm waiting for the day when everything comes on a USB stick, way too many discs scratched over the years.

 

[Neuromancer]

I see the mention of discs, which brings me to the point of, when will we do away with those damn things. I'm waiting for the day when everything comes on a USB stick, way too many discs scratched over the years.

LMAO I just wrote a "rant of the day" about that last week.

I have one optical drive in the 5 computers in my house, if I absolutely need something that comes on a disk, I make an ISO of it and network share it

EDIT: http://techreaction.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6721&

 

[Disparia]

Connectivity is not really a problem IMO. All models that have exceeded 2560x1600 have done so with dual or quad inputs. In the early days, yes, you would have wanted a certified video card (or a pair) to drive such a monitor because of the drivers. But today I can't see any reason why common video cards can't do it (AMD Eyefinity, nVidia Surround). In short: I don't see support lacking on the GPU side.

Edit: Disclaimer: Support defined as being able to display that resolution, general application usage, etc. Due to current technical limitations, you may not be able to game without sufficient power (multiple cards) or being able to run 4K video smoothly.

I will be happy when that res is affordable in an LCD. I miss my 2304 x 1440 CRTs. ( I ran two of them )

Stuck now with a 1920x1200 LCD that cost more than either one of the CRTs (add its a cheap LCD too)

The Sony Trinitron 24"? First monitor that popped in my head when hearing that resolution. They were amazing! Never had one myself, but did have the pleasure of using on them a couple occasions.

LMAO I just wrote a "rant of the day" about that last week.

I have one optical drive in the 5 computers in my house, if I absolutely need something that comes on a disk, I make an ISO of it and network share it

EDIT: http://techreaction.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6721&

Oh yeah! Once my new storage server is up, it'll have the Blu-ray drive and I'll stop putting opticals into my systems. I used to have 3 in this system alone, now I'm down to one.

 

[pantherx12]

I have one optical drive in the 5 computers in my house, if I absolutely need something that comes on a disk, I make an ISO of it and network share it

I've only the one optical drive to share as well, I just hate how damn slow optical media is!

 

[Neuromancer]

Yup the sonys 24" widescreen goodness.

 

[Delta6326]

ugh, i can't stand 1920x1080 I want more!! My next Screen will be 2560x1600+

 

[whitrzac]

I have a 15.6 in 16:10 laptop with a WUXGA(1200x1950) screen, I don't think I will ever sell it, I have NEVER seen a laptop screen with a higher res...


This **** 10-80p/FHD/HD thing needs to die a firey death, and soon

 

[FordGT90Concept]

With Intel Ivy Bridge coming next year and it is said that it will support 4096 x 4096, so i guess the display shift should be happening as we speak

As stated in the threads related to that IGP, the limit isn't the GPU, it is the cable. Current cable standards can't go higher than 3840 × 2160 without using multiple cables. There's prefessional displays out there that are 5 mega-pixel or more in ~22" but they have multiple inputs and price tags in around $10,000.

We're not going to see a major jump in resolution until cables improve and higher pixel density becomes cheaper.

 

[pantherx12]

As stated in the threads related to that IGP, the limit isn't the GPU, it is the cable. Current cable standards can't go higher than 3840 × 2160 without using multiple cables. There's prefessional displays out there that are 5 mega-pixel or more in ~22" but they have multiple inputs and price tags in around $10,000.

We're not going to see a major jump in resolution until cables improve and higher pixel density becomes cheaper.

Just to add to this, we know AMD cards can drive up to 24576000 pixels (2560x1600 x 6) so it's definitely not the cards ( Nv cards could do this to if they had the same display output functionality)

 

[Neuromancer]

As stated in the threads related to that IGP, the limit isn't the GPU, it is the cable. Current cable standards can't go higher than 3840 × 2160 without using multiple cables. There's prefessional displays out there that are 5 mega-pixel or more in ~22" but they have multiple inputs and price tags in around $10,000.

We're not going to see a major jump in resolution until cables improve and higher pixel density becomes cheaper.

Still wouldn't you like to see that resolution on your desktop? Even if it meant going say 32" monitor? I had to go 28" to afford 1920x1200 3 years ago *sigh.

Granted it doubles as my bedroom HTPC (in fact it is larger/higher res than my Living room HTPC screen lol)

 

[mastrdrver]

The next "easy" move in resolution is to double "1080p". You get close to 4k.

As stated in the threads related to that IGP, the limit isn't the GPU, it is the cable. Current cable standards can't go higher than 3840 × 2160 without using multiple cables. There's professional displays out there that are 5 mega-pixel or more in ~22" but they have multiple inputs and price tags in around $10,000.

We're not going to see a major jump in resolution until cables improve and higher pixel density becomes cheaper.

I thought OLED was the next move really.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Still wouldn't you like to see that resolution on your desktop?

Not really. There's a physical limit to what the eyes can perceive. The reason why professional displays are so much higher is because old farts (doctors) would rather use a magnifying lense (literaly) than zoom the image digitally. A lot of those screens have been discontinued probably because they didn't sell very well (only the medical field has the money and interest).

 

[Protagonist]

As stated in the threads related to that IGP, the limit isn't the GPU, it is the cable. Current cable standards can't go higher than 3840 × 2160 without using multiple cables. There's prefessional displays out there that are 5 mega-pixel or more in ~22" but they have multiple inputs and price tags in around $10,000.

We're not going to see a major jump in resolution until cables improve and higher pixel density becomes cheaper.

I read in many posts in different websites that Display Port Can Push 4096 x 2304, or even more within that range, some posts say even DVI-D can push 4096 x 2304, but i'm not sure if it's true