The Future Of Flat Panel Display 4096 x 2304

[Animalpak]

Well well dual GPU and SLI config. will become finally A MUST HAVE with those resolutions.

 

[Protagonist]

Well well dual GPU and SLI config. will become finally A MUST HAVE with those resolutions.

Not exactly, Intel Ivy Bridge to support 4096 x 4096, maybe dual GPUs for gaming at resolutions such as 4096 x 2304

 

[Protagonist]

4096 x 2304 sounds practical

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

I don't get the logic.

Television implementation of LCD technology drives the LCD research. If you've noticed, only a select few monitor go over 1920x1080 resolution. Of course, the amount of screens at the 1920x1080 resolution are astounding.

Moving forward, it will take TV being upped to make higher resolutions a common occurance. Nvidea and AMD have both seen this reality, choosing to focus on multi-monitor setups rather than a single giant high resolution display.

While everyone wants to say their resolution is comically great, the likelihood of it happening is low. 1920x1080 penetrating into smaller monitors is most assuredly a reality. I do have to question the reasonability of 720p video on phones though. You've got a display that would require a magnifying glass to find individual pixels on, but want even more crammed in there. If that kind of logic was applied everywhere then printers would have 1000dpi rather than 300. There is a limit to your vision, whether you like it or not.


Summing up the idea, resolutions are not likely to increase in the near future. High resolution displays will remain a niche product. If you're dying for more on the screen then setup a multimonitor display with a quartet of 1920x1080 monitors, and deal with the bezels.

 

[LordJummy]

Last night I saw a QUAD HD TV at this restaurant/bar that was running 4x HD resolution somehow, and it had four separate HD channels on it at once. It was just running them all at the same time, one in each corner. It was pretty crazy looking.

 

[Protagonist]

Last night I saw a QUAD HD TV at this restaurant/bar that was running 4x HD resolution somehow, and it had four separate HD channels on it at once. It was just running them all at the same time, one in each corner. It was pretty crazy looking.

Most news rooms have more than what you've seen

 

[newtekie1]

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?

I hope not, I have a 21.5" 1920 x 1080 display right now, and everything is way to small, text is pretty much unreadable. I have to run it at 1600 x 900 to make anything readable at any reasonable distance...

Last night I saw a QUAD HD TV at this restaurant/bar that was running 4x HD resolution somehow, and it had four separate HD channels on it at once. It was just running them all at the same time, one in each corner. It was pretty crazy looking.

Just because it was displaying 4 HD video feeds doesn't mean each was actually being displayed at HD resolution. The TV I have at home will display all 4 of the HDMI feeds on the screen at once and it is only a 1080p screen, it just displays each feed at 960 x 540, which isn't that much of a downgrade from 720p HD, and still an upgrade from SD.

And when I was working for a video recording company that did real time video recording at weddings and such, the video mixer we had would take up to 9 SD video feeds and display them all on 1 SD screen(HD wasn't even out back then, at least not on the consumer level). It isn't about the screen resolution to do this, it is just about shrinking the feeds down to fit at the resolution of screen.

 

[Frick]

I hope not, I have a 21.5" 1920 x 1080 display right now, and everything is way to small, text is pretty much unreadable. I have to run it at 1600 x 900 to make anything readable at any reasonable distance...

This is what people are missing. I'm all for bigger resolutions, but you'd have to increase the DPI like crazy and I don't know if current software do that very well.

 

[newtekie1]

This is what people are missing. I'm all for bigger resolutions, but you'd have to increase the DPI like crazy and I don't know if current software do that very well.

The software definitely doesn't do it very well, increasing the DPI in Window's global setting for example works for ths most part, but some programs just look totally screwed up with higher DPI settings in Windows. Some pieces get expanded, while others seem to stay the same size, and everything gets all wacked.

 

[cheesy999]

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&

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

i can't be the only one here who still prefers disks

i have no idea why you complain about speed, so long as you can watch the movie/listen to the music isn't the speed high enough for you?

only application for USB drives would be things like computer programs where they exist for the sole purpose of transferring information (installing windows or a program)

 

[N-Gen]

If there were good viable setups for eyefinity it would be nice. Say for example a manufacturer offering a triple setup where the side displays are frameless on the inside and the center one being completely frameless...that would be nice. (It might exist already, I never bothered to check, but when checking for frameless it was quite hard to find any)

 

[Black Panther]

Thing is that when you buy good resolution there's no way you're going back. I currently use 17" 1920x1200 for laptop and 27" 2560x1440 for desktop. It spoilt me. I can never go 1080p. The husband wants to buy a large (like 47" or 50") 1080p... and now I see them all smudgy even from a distance, and even the costly ones.

 

[Frick]

Thing is that when you buy good resolution there's no way you're going back. I currently use 17" 1920x1200 for laptop and 27" 2560x1440 for desktop. It spoilt me. I can never go 1080p. The husband wants to buy a large (like 47" or 50") 1080p... and now I see them all smudgy even from a distance, and even the costly ones.

Heh, I've jumped back and forth several times and I'm always coming out happy (running two 19 inch 1280x1024).

 

[Super XP]

1920 x 1080p is the Format the industry is trying to standardize. Not everybody moved to HD. This has to happen before before any talk about supporting higher res displays via your HDTV. They still sell useless 720p displays for goodness sakes.

Once 1080p becomes the standard, it needs to be within the industry for at least 10 years, then the next format will move to either 4096 x 2304p OR 3840 x 2160p. Anything lower is a complete wait of time and money.

IMO, right now let's make full 1920 x 1080p much better, and let's keep making it better.

 

[Disparia]

Bah!

I mean, I know why it's happening. Just don't have to like it Seemed like we (resolution junkies) were so close to having multiple 2560x1600 monitor choices in the under $1K price bracket. That, along with 3840x2400 monitors coming down in price. Back in 2001, the IBM T221 come out at $18,000, but was $8,400 the next year. Models from vendors released in the following years started to drop the price down thousand by thousand as the resolution gap diminished.

Now, with displays intended for computers and television being for the most part indistinguishable, those trends have been killed. Using Newegg as an example, 1920x1080 accounts for 46% of all models available with only 7% having a higher resolution. As for ultra-high displays, they're back up in the five-digit price range.

 

[LordJummy]

Just because it was displaying 4 HD video feeds doesn't mean each was actually being displayed at HD resolution. The TV I have at home will display all 4 of the HDMI feeds on the screen at once and it is only a 1080p screen, it just displays each feed at 960 x 540, which isn't that much of a downgrade from 720p HD, and still an upgrade from SD.

And when I was working for a video recording company that did real time video recording at weddings and such, the video mixer we had would take up to 9 SD video feeds and display them all on 1 SD screen(HD wasn't even out back then, at least not on the consumer level). It isn't about the screen resolution to do this, it is just about shrinking the feeds down to fit at the resolution of screen.

Ah, well this one was a bit different I believe. It was enormous (something like near 100"), and it said something like "4X HD". It was extremely high resolution which was quite obvious up close. I don't think it was a standard 1080p set. It was the centerpiece of the entire restaurant/bar area and quite impressive.

I will have to go up there or call them and ask what model it was. From what I'm researching right now it appears they do make super large quad HD panels. I'll see if I can find out what it was for you.

 

[newtekie1]

Ah, well this one was a bit different I believe. It was enormous (something like near 100"), and it said something like "4X HD". It was extremely high resolution which was quite obvious up close. I don't think it was a standard 1080p set. It was the centerpiece of the entire restaurant/bar area and quite impressive.

I will have to go up there or call them and ask what model it was. From what I'm researching right now it appears they do make super large quad HD panels. I'll see if I can find out what it was for you.

They are out there for sure, so it is entirely possible. I know Samsung and Toshiba both have 3840x2160 displays, so it is possible they have one of those. I'm just saying a standard 1080p screen is more commonly used with little visual difference when sitting a reasonable distance from the screen.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I hope not, I have a 21.5" 1920 x 1080 display right now, and everything is way to small, text is pretty much unreadable. I have to run it at 1600 x 900 to make anything readable at any reasonable distance...

The software definitely doesn't do it very well, increasing the DPI in Window's global setting for example works for ths most part, but some programs just look totally screwed up with higher DPI settings in Windows. Some pieces get expanded, while others seem to stay the same size, and everything gets all wacked.

This is the key point to the entire discussion. We need a revolution in scaling quality and uniformity. Ultimately displays on tablets are trying to match e-ink on the "eyestrain" factor using ultra highres LCD displays with ridiculous DPI. That works out fine there. Those are much more closed systems compared to Windows and they've spent more effort on the problem. With my 21.5 1080p display I am at the absolute limit for comfortable reading. A DPI any higher is simply unacceptable without scaling and that scaling just isn't here yet. With any luck Windows 8 will start to tackle that seriously as it's designed with tablets in mind, until the issue is resolved higher res screens are not something to be desired.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Television implementation of LCD technology drives the LCD research. If you've noticed, only a select few monitor go over 1920x1080 resolution. Of course, the amount of screens at the 1920x1080 resolution are astounding.

No, it really doesn't. ATSC and other over the air standards support a maximum of 1920x1080 interlaced. Satellite maximum is 1920x1080 interlaced. Cable is mostly analog still but those that are digital also have 1920x1080 interlaced. As far as I know, the ability to increase those are quite limited due to single strength as it relates to bandwidth.

Bluray DVD is only specified to do do 1920x1080 interlaced although the format can hold double that for 3D. They are not going over 1080 persistent because very, very few people are going to buy a TV greater than that just for BluRay videos.

Only the computer industry is going to 1920x1200 and higher. The TV industry is very slow to adapt to new technology compared to computers because a) it is far more costly and b) there's not enough demand for it.

I do have to question the reasonability of 720p video on phones though.

iPhone 4S has a resolution of 960x640 and Windows Phone 7 has a resolution of 800x480 (those are hardware standards).

720p is 1280x720...smart phone displays are too small to show it without shrinking it down.

I think pixel densities will continue to rise in mobile devices because of all the competition but I don't think it is likely to rise much in desktop monitors because small screen size is rarely in demand. Most people would buy a 24 inch 1920x1200 before buying a 17 inch 1920x1200 monitor for their desktop.

 

[PopcornMachine]

I'm using a 1920x1200 that I bought four years ago. My thinking at the time was that I would get an even higher res display in the not too distant future. But instead of progressing, 90% of monitors for sale regressed to 1080p and stayed there.

The resolution had been going higher and the costs getting lower over time. But I guess the companies involved weren't making enough money that way. So they stamped a "FULL HD" tag on them, put shiny bezels around them, and people are eating them up. They only thing new is that they decided we all need 3D. I don't.

I have little confidence in the companies doing what is best for the customers or in the market selecting what is best for them. So we are stuck right we are for some time to come.

 

[n-ster]

No, it really doesn't. ATSC and other over the air standards support a maximum of 1920x1080 interlaced. Satellite maximum is 1920x1080 interlaced. Cable is mostly analog still but those that are digital also have 1920x1080 interlaced. As far as I know, the ability to increase those are quite limited due to single strength as it relates to bandwidth.

Bluray DVD is only specified to do do 1920x1080 interlaced although the format can hold double that for 3D. They are not going over 1080 persistent because very, very few people are going to buy a TV greater than that just for BluRay videos.

Only the computer industry is going to 1920x1200 and higher. The TV industry is very slow to adapt to new technology compared to computers because a) it is far more costly and b) there's not enough demand for it.




iPhone 4S has a resolution of 960x640 and Windows Phone 7 has a resolution of 800x480 (those are hardware standards).

720p is 1280x720...smart phone displays are too small to show it without shrinking it down.

I think pixel densities will continue to rise in mobile devices because of all the competition but I don't think it is likely to rise much in desktop monitors because small screen size is rarely in demand. Most people would buy a 24 inch 1920x1200 before buying a 17 inch 1920x1200 monitor for their desktop.

I would love to see 2560x1440 become more affordable though.

And the Google Nexus will be 1280x720 on a 4.65" screen It will be my next phone I LOVE DPI. But it is too expensive and not enough choices. My 2048x1152 23" has served me well, but I think I'll be moving to 1080p LED IPS for the viewing angles, energy efficiency, and brightness.

I would have thought that by now, 24~25" would have moved to 2560x1440 slowly, and at a reasonable price

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

No, it really doesn't. ATSC and other over the air standards support a maximum of 1920x1080 interlaced. Satellite maximum is 1920x1080 interlaced. Cable is mostly analog still but those that are digital also have 1920x1080 interlaced. As far as I know, the ability to increase those are quite limited due to single strength as it relates to bandwidth.

Bluray DVD is only specified to do do 1920x1080 interlaced although the format can hold double that for 3D. They are not going over 1080 persistent because very, very few people are going to buy a TV greater than that just for BluRay videos.

Only the computer industry is going to 1920x1200 and higher. The TV industry is very slow to adapt to new technology compared to computers because a) it is far more costly and b) there's not enough demand for it.

Help me here, either you read something I did not write or made an assumption based upon the language I used. Your response is not a direct answer to what I said. Television, not broadcast mediums, drive the display market. I play Blu-ray on my TV. It is the highest definition medium currently available to mass-consumption.

So Blu-ray maxes out at 1080p, which is 1920x1080. It stands to reason that the television based standard of 1080p has helped to define that as the "standard maximum" size for monitors, due in no small part to monitor being largely interchangeable with TV.

iPhone 4S has a resolution of 960x640 and Windows Phone 7 has a resolution of 800x480 (those are hardware standards).

720p is 1280x720...smart phone displays are too small to show it without shrinking it down.

I think pixel densities will continue to rise in mobile devices because of all the competition but I don't think it is likely to rise much in desktop monitors because small screen size is rarely in demand. Most people would buy a 24 inch 1920x1200 before buying a 17 inch 1920x1200 monitor for their desktop.

What?

I stated this:

While everyone wants to say their resolution is comically great, the likelihood of it happening is low. 1920x1080 penetrating into smaller monitors is most assuredly a reality. I do have to question the reasonability of 720p video on phones though. You've got a display that would require a magnifying glass to find individual pixels on, but want even more crammed in there. If that kind of logic was applied everywhere then printers would have 1000dpi rather than 300. There is a limit to your vision, whether you like it or not.

This statement says that the need for 720 resolutions on phones is questionable at best. Is that not the exact same point you just "corrected" me on, that you espouse yourself?



I'm failing to see where you're coming from. We seem to agree on the outcomes, but you are attacking my points with the exact same points???

If we were to disagree, then I could see having some issues. As it stands, you may want to read the post more carefully before attacking it.

 

[n-ster]

...

I think he is trying to have a discussion, and not trying to attack you/your posts

 

[Frick]

1920 x 1080p is the Format the industry is trying to standardize. Not everybody moved to HD. This has to happen before before any talk about supporting higher res displays via your HDTV. They still sell useless 720p displays for goodness sakes.

Once 1080p becomes the standard, it needs to be within the industry for at least 10 years, then the next format will move to either 4096 x 2304p OR 3840 x 2160p. Anything lower is a complete wait of time and money.

IMO, right now let's make full 1920 x 1080p much better, and let's keep making it better.

I think it is the standard already. And what do you mean by "making it better"?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Television, not broadcast mediums, drive the display market.

...and television resolutions are driven by broadcast mediums. Why buy something greater than 1080p if all that uses it is an occassional BD-DVD movie? Most people can't justify that expense unless the series they watch on a weekly basis supports it.

Come to think of it, gaming consoles might drive to higher resolution TVs than anything else.

So Blu-ray maxes out at 1080p, which is 1920x1080. It stands to reason that the television based standard of 1080p has helped to define that as the "standard maximum" size for monitors, due in no small part to monitor being largely interchangeable with TV.

Yes, due to the economics of part sharing. It is cheaper for them to build only 1920x1080 than build 1920x1200 for computer consumers and 1920x1080 for television consumers.