Japanese Display Company Announces LCD with 651ppi

Status
Not open for further replies.

shin0bi272

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2007
1,103
0
19,310
12
As a proof of concept this is awesome. The next generation will of course be larger and in color but at this resolution we are approaching the granularity of control from the old crt displays where you could change resolutions without any loss of quality in the picture.
 
[citation][nom]serhat359[/nom]Still waiting for them to make desktop monitors with at least 120 ppi[/citation]

It has been done before:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/IBM-T221-9503-DG5-NOT-DGP-48-hz-Max-3840-x-2400-/200773326889
204 pixels per inch, came out around 2001.

BTW, for those curious about the Japanese text used, I think it says something about eagles and hawks dancing in the sky (might be part of a longer sentence, though)
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
2,019
0
19,780
0
a few more month and smart phones have higher resolutions than our desk top 'monitors' (i.e. TVs).

It is about time that a company steps up to the place and brings us a decent resolution that does not break the bank.
 

jn77

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2007
587
0
18,990
2
I second the fact that monitor manufacturers are slacking..... I do photography with high megapixel camera's and want to know when the 326 or 600+ ppi displays are coming to my 24 and 30 inch monitors.
 
[citation][nom]jacekring[/nom]But did you look at the contrast ratio and response times on that monitor??? 400:1 contrast is horrible, my monitor has 700:1 and I consider it just barely passing and I wish I had bought one with 1000:1. Although I bought my monitor like 6 years ago and it's 32". Oh and my monitor has 8ms response time not 50 like that monitor. Forget playing a fast paced shooter on that monitor, the blur will be unforgiving. Res on my monitor is 1920x1200 btw.[/citation]

I didn't say it was a good monitor, just that it qualified as a desktop monitor with >= 120 ppi. I like the idea of more pixels per inch on desktop monitors, but I think it's not so much "waiting for them to make" as "waiting for them to bring back" and provide better contrast and response time, though I'm also waiting for desktop-size OLED monitors to become affordable.
 

CaedenV

Splendid
[citation][nom]yadude[/nom]The high pixel density would be good for head-mounted displays.[/citation]
My thoughts exactly!

Sad thing is that my 10" netbook cannot run win8's metro apps naively because the res is too low (thank God for reg edits!)... then 3 years later comes this 2.3" display and it should be able to do it with no problem... granted a touch screen this size would be damn near impossible.
 

jasonpwns

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2010
415
0
18,790
1
[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]My thoughts exactly!Sad thing is that my 10" netbook cannot run win8's metro apps naively because the res is too low (thank God for reg edits!)... then 3 years later comes this 2.3" display and it should be able to do it with no problem... granted a touch screen this size would be damn near impossible.[/citation]

My phones screen is 2.6 inch with a touch screen.
 

mcd023

Distinguished
Nov 9, 2010
370
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]jacekring[/nom]But did you look at the contrast ratio and response times on that monitor??? 400:1 contrast is horrible, my monitor has 700:1 and I consider it just barely passing and I wish I had bought one with 1000:1. Although I bought my monitor like 6 years ago and it's 32". Oh and my monitor has 8ms response time not 50 like that monitor. Forget playing a fast paced shooter on that monitor, the blur will be unforgiving. Res on my monitor is 1920x1200 btw.[/citation]
Although I agree that the contrast ratio isn't good, but the response time is as expected, since as Toms pointed out in a 27" roundup that higher res monitors have a longer response time.

Oh, if only someone would give me the best of all monitor worlds! because even if it does come out, I'll only be able to dream about having it!
 

jryan388

Distinguished
Nov 1, 2009
1,342
0
19,460
57


Trouble is it wouldn't make 326ppi look bad. It would be very hard to notice a difference during regular use. You could only tell if you brought it uncomfortably close.
 

invlem

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2008
580
0
18,980
0
if you can't see the pixels on 326 ppi, how will going to a higher ppi be better?

From a technical standpoint its better, but if we can't see the difference is there a point? Its like buying monster branded cables for 200$ and thinking you hear the sound difference.
 

randomoneh

Honorable
Jun 8, 2012
17
0
10,510
0
[citation][nom]jryan388[/nom]Trouble is it wouldn't make 326ppi look bad. It would be very hard to notice a difference during regular use. You could only tell if you brought it uncomfortably close.[/citation]
That's a crazy claim. Read into angular resolution and minimum separable acuity.
 

sacre

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2006
379
0
18,780
0
Only good this is for is like what someone said already, HMD, other then that I think the 326 is just fine considering it is very difficult to tell the difference between that and 600+.

 

back_by_demand

Splendid
BANNED
Jul 16, 2009
4,821
0
22,780
0
[citation][nom]sacre[/nom]Only good this is for is like what someone said already, HMD, other then that I think the 326 is just fine considering it is very difficult to tell the difference between that and 600+.[/citation]
Have you seen the comparative pictures at the top? Of course not, if your eyesight is so bad that you can't tell the difference then you probably have cataracts, or you are really Stevie Wonder
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS