1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

NEW 2048x1536 LCD monitor wanted

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by qubit, Dec 6, 2009.

  1. UbErN00b New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    257 (0.32/day)
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Location:
    Ingerland
    [​IMG]
     
  2. 3870x2

    3870x2

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,875 (1.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    689
    Location:
    Joplin, Mo
    Thats it, you're going to Time Out for 5 minutes. Sit in the chair in the corner.
     
  3. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,871 (3.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,501
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    @mandelbrot

    I used to prefer 4:3 hands down myself too, but not any more. Widescreen works better for human vision, because it's naturally easier and more comfortable for us to look side to side than up and down.

    I've currently got a 26" 1920x1200 monitor and it's beautiful. However, I'm about to replace it with the Asus VG278HE 1080p monitor when it arrives, because of its headline feature of 144Hz and 3D Vision compatibility.

    I wanted to see if I could stand the feeling of crampedness by having less height, so I set my current monitor to 1080 to test it. After the initial feeling of being slightly squashed went away, I actually found it a little bit easier to use, since the height was less and there wasn't so much vertical motion. I was quite surprised by this, but I might just end up preferring 16:9 monitors because of this alone. I'll have to wait and see.

    Welcome to TPU. :toast:
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2012
  4. mandelbrot New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Well, compared to Beta-max VHS sucked.
    Compared to mechanical (alps or cherry switches) keyboards, 99.99% of the new keyboards (=rubber dome keys) totally suck.
    So, in itself, popularity doesn't say sh!t about suckability.

    Anyway, as someone already posted, there _are_ some 2048x1536 TFT's (at least already available since 2006). I found one for just $5393.10:
    http://www.provantage.com/eizo-gs320-cl-p-bk~9EIZL06Q.htm
    Oh wait... This one is only grayscale.

    Another one:
    http://www.retrevo.com/search?q=Eizo FA-2090&rt=sp&modelid=1360695
    Here, it says its color. But on an old Ebay listing it says again 'medical'; I assume that means grayscale again:
    http://www.ebay.com/itm/Eizo-FA-2090-20-8-LCD-Monitor-2048-x-1536-Medical-/150611104836
    A 2560x2048 one:
    http://www.edldisplays.com/roadmap/3028.php
    They also have a 2048x2048 one:
    [​IMG]
    Typical applications include (for all EDL-monitors):
    Air Traffic Control
    Vessel Traffic Control
    Shipboard Navigation
    Shipboard Process Control
    Industrial Process Control
    Flight Simulation
    Control Rooms
    Command Centers
    Their ISO 13406-2 allows 28 (sub)pixeldefects... I think that's alarming (to say the least) when using such monitors for air traffic control!!

    About the iPad3 2048x1536: it can be used as a desktop monitor, but it's too small for such.
    Thanx!
    I'm disappointed that you know too prefer widescreen... I guess you got just accustomed to it simply because there are no affordable large 4:3 TFT's.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2012
  5. johnspack

    johnspack

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    4,382 (1.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    865
    Location:
    Nelson B.C. Canada
    I'm sorry, but 1920x1200 blows away 4:3, and 1080 res equally. I can use all, and I always come back to 16:10 every time! Yes, an entry level 24" 1920x1200 comes in at 320us or more, but why not?
     
  6. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    That all depends. If the horizontal resolution is equal, the 4:3 would be better than both 16:9 and 16:10. Take 1920 for a horizontal resolution as an example. It would be 1920x1080, 1920x1200 and 1920x1440 for 16:9, 16:10 and 4:3, respectively. The 4:3 monitor would display both what the 16:9 and 16:10 could, with a 1:1 pixel ratio. Sure, you get bars at the top and bottom, but the picture is 100% identical. Then you still have the extra vertical resolution for those things that benefit from it.

    I'd take a 4:3 monitor any day over either of the other 2, so long as the horizontal resolution is the same. If they actually made those 1920x1440 monitors, I'd have one instead of this 1920x1200 unit.

    Now, on the flip side, if the vertical resolutions stay the same, wider would be better. 1600x1200, 1920x1200 and 2133x1200 for 4:3, 16:10 and 16:9 respectively.
     
  7. SaltyFish

    SaltyFish

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    354 (0.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    89
    Pixel Count

    Since this is an aspect ratio discussion, the fairest way to do a comparison is by pixel count. Given n pixels, how would you like them arranged?

    I will use 1920 x 1080 as the base since it is currently the most common monitor resolution. That resolution has a pixel count of 2,073,600. The other ratios will list the two hypothetical resolutions whose pixel counts are closest to that, with the closer one bolded.

    Code:
    [b]1:1   --> 1440 x 1440 = 2,073,600[/b]
    
    5:4   --> 1605 x 1284 = 2,060,820
    [b]5:4   --> 1610 x 1288 = 2,073,680[/b]
    
    4:3   --> 1660 x 1245 = 2,066,700
    [b]4:3   --> 1664 x 1248 = 2,076,672[/b]
    
    16:10 --> 1816 x 1135 = 2,061,160
    [b]16:10 --> 1824 x 1140 = 2,079,360[/b]
    
    [b]16:9  --> 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600[/b]
    
    64:27 --> 2176 x  918 = 1,997,568
    [b]64:27 --> 2240 x  945 = 2,116,800[/b]
    
    I'm sure someone more talented at math than I am can work out the resolutions for all these ratios that have the same pixel count. But the basic idea is that if you had a choice between the bolded resolutions, which would you prefer?
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2012
  8. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    Unfortunately, 1920x1080, only because that's what most media is.

    And this just proves it's a matter of perspective. If media weren't 1080p, we would pick something different.

    But in real world selection, resolution is the more important factor over aspect ratio. I'd take a 2560x1440 display over my 1920x1200 any day. But I would not take a 1080p monitor over my 1200.
     
  9. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,683 (6.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,984
    Location:
    some AF base
  10. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,847 (11.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,714
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    The only high-res 4:3 monitors left in the market are professional/military-grade ones, and they're priced upwards of 2,000 quids. Try NEC MD211G3.
     
  11. PopcornMachine

    PopcornMachine

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,563 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    459
    Location:
    Los Angeles/Orange County CA
    Since my Samsung 1920x1200 lcd died a few months back, I've been using my 10-year old Dell 2000fp 1600x1200. It's still a champ. Games look great, but I would like a wider view.

    Only so much room on a desktop for vertical growth, but a wider image means more peripheral vision. It's ok for now, but when I have the money I will get a 1920x1200, 2560x1440, or 2560x1600 if they miraculously drop in price.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2012
  12. Completely Bonkers New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,580 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    516
    Retina 4 teh win

    Where are they?

    Hopefully Apple will soon release a retina Cinema Display to go with their premium desktops. I'm OK with 2560x1800 on 21". I really don't want a bigger screen... I just want IPS and high pixel density to get über-quality font rendering. Gaming and media isnt important. Media... never watch on a PC except for youtube... that's why we have a sofa and a TV. And gaming... can be scaled.
     
  13. DaedalusHelios

    DaedalusHelios

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,965 (2.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    826
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC, USA
    I enjoy my Auria 27" 2560x1440 and I bought it at Microcenter for $400. That is fairly cheap. I may overclock it(to higher refresh rates) after possibly taking it apart and adding heatsinks....... if that isn't too crazy sounding. :)

    For some reason it looks like the tempest line. http://www.overlordcomputer.com/Default.asp
     
  14. SaltyFish

    SaltyFish

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    354 (0.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    89
    I chose 1920x1080 as a reference because of its current pervasiveness. I could've used 720p or even some non-standard resolution as the basis for comparison.

    Also, do people find letterboxing and pillarboxing annoying? I've been using 16:10 screens for almost a decade now and the boxing on both 4:3 and 16:9 didn't bother me at all.
     
  15. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    Boxing has no effect on me.
     
  16. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,871 (3.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,501
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    I'm not so bothered about letterboxing either. Watching 16:9 videos on my 16:10 monitor gives some room at the bottom for player controls with impacting on the video area too much or at all, for example.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page