Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Time for higher res desktop monitors from NEC?  (Read 3641 times)
narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


« on: November 11, 2012, 11:26:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Now that almost every modern phone, tablet and laptop has screens over 200dpi, and often over 300dpi, surely its time for NEC and other high end critical pro monitors to up their resolution?

If I can get the equivalent res as the top line NEC 30" 2560x1600 on a 10" tablet for under $500 now, then surely NEC, Eizo etc has to step it up? IBM showed the way with their T220 & T221 (nee Viewsonic) monitors over a decade ago, with 3840x2400 resolution, exceeding 200dpi.

Modern graphics cards can take it (with software update) but the monitor makers seem to be asleep at the wheel.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2012, 05:29:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, it's one thing to jam 2560x1600 on a 10" tablet, but it's an entirely different thing to do so on a 30" display. Eizo showcased their 36" 4K display at NAB...only problem is it's gonna cost $35,000 for 4,096 x 2,160...so, exactly how much would you be willing to spend? And exactly what would you hope to gain? If you understood human visual acuity, you would understand why having a super high rez small display makes sense but not a really large display.
Logged
howardm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 651


« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2012, 07:49:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,

Can you dumb it down a bit?  I couldn't really get through that Wiki article on acuity.
Logged
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 513


« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2012, 09:01:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,

Can you dumb it down a bit?  I couldn't really get through that Wiki article on acuity.

I "second" that!  Is it that "that much resolution" "that big" is visual overload for human eyes?  That's kinda what I got from my reading. 
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1287


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2012, 09:52:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I really like taking a close look at my high res 20x30 prints and would love to see them at the same resolution at nearly the same size onscreen. Having used Lightroom's 4.3RC HiDPI support on a MacBookPro since last week I'm pretty darn blown away with it, but it makes looking at the current 27-20" displays difficult. Images just look that much better! And the visual representation of sharpness and noise gives the fine printmaker a far better idea how these things will look when printed. It's nuts.

We've been living in the dark ages with these low res displays and I, for one, can't wait till we have HiDPI 27-30" displays.
Logged

narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2012, 10:19:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I am a trained doctorate level Microscopist, so yes, I understand about Acuity.

And as everyone here probably knows, according to theory there's "no need" for XL prints to be anything above poster grade resolution as people will only ever view them from the officially sanctioned appropriate distance.  Despite this fact, every single art exhibition I have been to I've seen people with their noses up against the glass looking at the detail.  Me too.

We've had 2560x1600 for what 15 years now? its beyond time to step it up, despite what anyone says. Once people acclimatize to 300dpi images being the norm, they will not accept high end photo editing at ~100dpi. Acuity theory or not.


« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 10:21:58 AM by narikin » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2012, 10:26:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Can you dumb it down a bit?  I couldn't really get through that Wiki article on acuity.

Human visual acuity is measured as being about 1 minute of a degree arc. What that means is that the eye can see more resolution up close and less further away. You can read more in this article: The Right Resolution. The bottom line is that holding something closer to your eyes needs higher resolution that seeing something further away so an iPad or iPhone display held close needs to be higher resolution that something like a 30" display that should be an arm's length away (or more).
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2012, 10:28:30 AM »
ReplyReply

We've had 2560x1600 for what 15 years now? its beyond time to step it up, despite what anyone says.

Then buy the Eizo for a cool $35K....
Logged
Simon Garrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 289


« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2012, 10:52:40 AM »
ReplyReply

And as everyone here probably knows, according to theory there's "no need" for XL prints to be anything above poster grade resolution as people will only ever view them from the officially sanctioned appropriate distance.  Despite this fact, every single art exhibition I have been to I've seen people with their noses up against the glass looking at the detail.  Me too.
Too true!  When judges assess prints submitted to the Royal Photographic Society in the UK, the first thing they do is pick up the print and hold it close to their faces and judge the sharpness.  I've watched them do it.  Any visible blur and the print is rejected. 

The take-away from that: submit prints at A4/Letter size, and not A3/11x17!  That way the prints look sharper. 
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1287


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2012, 11:05:28 AM »
ReplyReply

When I place my retinaMacBookPro side-by-side between a 30" NEC and Apple's Thunderbolt display at normal computer viewing distance, the retinaMBP obviously shows far greater image detail. As for $35K displays something tells me Apple is going to use their economy of scale to release a retina Cinema Display when they can. Maybe when the new MacPro concept comes out next year. The video industry's movement towards 4K capture and delivery will also surely fuel 4K+ display technology...
Logged

AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1100



« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2012, 11:18:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, but....  I can already judge "sharpness" in the image by viewing the image at 100%, and I don't think I need Retina-level of resolution to be able to effectively adjust tonality.  I do like having a larger monitor size-wise since I get a better sense of the overall effect of the print than on a smaller display, but I already have that with current pixel pitch monitors.  I mean, I would love to be able to see stuff on a 30" Retina dpi display, but the expenditure would be at the bottom of my want list.
Logged

Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1287


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2012, 11:21:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, but....  I can already judge "sharpness" in the image by viewing the image at 100%, and I don't think I need Retina-level of resolution to be able to effectively adjust tonality. 

Am I right that you haven't worked with your images on a retina display then? Its incredible and you'll never want to judge sharpness as 100% again - that's a terrible hack we've had to live with for so long and doing this at high res is way better. Gotta see this to believe it.
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3021


« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2012, 11:39:57 AM »
ReplyReply

We've been living in the dark ages with these low res displays and I, for one, can't wait till we have HiDPI 27-30" displays.

Hi Scott,

But there is a reason for this low resolution compromise. A HiDPI screen requires some 9x as many display pixels to be processed (and refreshed some 60x per second to avoid flicker). That would take some serious hardware to perform, and fast software to render the image for display in the first place. The result is high cost (for the components and lower dead-pixel-free yield for the displays) and probably a considerable amount of electrical power.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1287


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2012, 12:18:04 PM »
ReplyReply

But there is a reason for this low resolution compromise.

I get that. Today's rMBP is a glimpse into the future for what we'll eventually have on the desktop.
Logged

narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2012, 02:07:35 PM »
ReplyReply

But there is a reason for this low resolution compromise. A HiDPI screen requires some 9x as many display pixels to be processed (and refreshed some 60x per second to avoid flicker). That would take some serious hardware to perform, and fast software to render the image for display in the first place. The result is high cost (for the components and lower dead-pixel-free yield for the displays) and probably a considerable amount of electrical power.

Most modern desktop graphics cards are so powerful these days that they could handle a 4k display at decent refresh rate. They don't even need to be an extreme or expensive one.

Remember how people had to upgrade their graphics card to pro models to handle 30" displays 12 years ago?  Now nearly everyone's desktop can do it.

No, if they build it, for under/around $5k, it will be come, no question.
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718



« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2012, 04:01:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Human visual acuity is measured as being about 1 minute of a degree arc. What that means is that the eye can see more resolution up close and less further away. You can read more in this article: The Right Resolution. The bottom line is that holding something closer to your eyes needs higher resolution that seeing something further away so an iPad or iPhone display held close needs to be higher resolution that something like a 30" display that should be an arm's length away (or more).

I extended Bruce's calculations as shown below. The screen specs for the Ipad4 are shown along with those of my current monitor. A viewing distance of about 12 inches for the Ipad would match the screen resolution to that of the eye (assuming that the angular resolution of the eye is 1 minute of arc). The corresponding viewing distance for my monitor would be about 3 feet. Actually, I view the screen at about 16-18 inches, so the monitor does not appear as sharp as an Ipad. At a viewing distance of 24 inches (approximately an arm's length), a monitor would have to have a resolution of 143 ppi to equal the resolution of the eye. For a screen 30 inches wide, this would be a pixel width of 4290 or approximately 4K pixels.

At 100 yards, one minute of arc equals about one inch, a figure that is familiar to target shooters adjusting their sights.

Regards,

Bill
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 04:11:46 PM by bjanes » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2012, 05:20:40 PM »
ReplyReply

At a viewing distance of 24 inches (approximately an arm's length), a monitor would have to have a resolution of 143 ppi to equal the resolution of the eye.

Boy, you must have short arms...my sleeve length is 34" and for my dual 30" displays, I find the optimal distance to be about 36" which works out to about 95 PPI which is under what my display resolves at 101.3 PPI. I couldn't stand to work 16-18 inches away from a 30" display. A laptop maybe, but not a 30" display.

I'm not arguing against higher rez displays, but at $35K, I won't be standing in line for one any time soon. The Eizo DuraVision FDH3601 is designed for for use in "geophysical services" industries and air traffic control and can be driven up to up to 700 cd/m2-which would pretty darn bright to use for soft proofing...they don't mention the gamut of the display.

Also, don't ignore what Bart said about processing power requirements...ACR and Lightroom are already kinda pokey on a 30" with 2560 x 1600 pixels...image how much slower the response time to sliders a 4K display would be? Ouch!
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718



« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2012, 06:30:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Boy, you must have short arms...my sleeve length is 34" and for my dual 30" displays, I find the optimal distance to be about 36" which works out to about 95 PPI which is under what my display resolves at 101.3 PPI. I couldn't stand to work 16-18 inches away from a 30" display. A laptop maybe, but not a 30" display.

My sleeve length for shirts is 32 inches. This measurement if from the middle of the back to the end of the sleeve. The distance from the shoulder of the shirt to the cuff is 24 inches. As I stated, I view my 24 inch monitor (diagonal measurement) from about 24 inches. YMMV, but you do view your dual 30" displays at about 36 inches, which sounds reasonable and is nearly proportional to my parameters for a 24 inch screen. I would imagine that one would sit somewhat further from a dual display setup than a single monitor setup.

I'm not arguing against higher rez displays, but at $35K, I won't be standing in line for one any time soon. The Eizo DuraVision FDH3601 is designed for for use in "geophysical services" industries and air traffic control and can be driven up to up to 700 cd/m2-which would pretty darn bright to use for soft proofing...they don't mention the gamut of the display.

Also, don't ignore what Bart said about processing power requirements...ACR and Lightroom are already kinda pokey on a 30" with 2560 x 1600 pixels...image how much slower the response time to sliders a 4K display would be? Ouch!

Points well taken.
Logged
SunnyUK
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


« Reply #18 on: November 15, 2012, 07:40:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Having taken delivery of an NEC Spectraview Reference 271W today, I hope it'll be several years before 4K monitors come down in price.  But that's just me being selfish, I know.  Grin
Logged
sunnycal
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 87


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 22, 2012, 02:10:01 PM »
ReplyReply

The world was quite happy with iPhone 3G/3GS screen until they saw iPhone 4 screen. Same thing is happening with MacBook Retina vs the older generation MacBooks (whose screen I did not like for lack of resolution).

I have 1920x1200 pixels on my 15" thinkpad. This was the highest resolution display before Macbook Retina came along, and I noticed the difference between my screen and other displays of the time.

The production cost has little to do with number of pixels, it has much more to do with economy of scale. Eizo is certainly not in a position to have that kind of economy, even NEC is not there. Only Apple, Sony, Samsung, and the likes have the muscle to pull this off. I am sure Apple retina laptops have set the wheels in motion for other makers to offer something similar (for one thing, the factories building displays for Apple already have the production processes in place). So, hopefully in a year or two we will see better densities on LCD monitors.

« Last Edit: November 22, 2012, 08:18:34 PM by sunnycal » Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad