Large 4K Tablets

[LunarMist]

The Panasonic 20' Tablets was announced in January, but I cannot find any indication it is for sale. Does anybody know anything more or if there are other similar products in the wings?

The tablet could replace prints for much of my needs, since it has a 9.8MP ~11x16.5" display.

 

[ddrueding]

Man, I would love to have one of those.

 

[LunarMist]

I think it would reduce my printing costs by over 50%.

 

[jtr1962]

I've love to get just the display. Seriously, why aren't 4K displays commonly available yet? In a 20" size, the pixels would be half the size of the ones on the 1600x1200 display I'm using. I probably wouldn't even notice them.

 

[Abbysam007]

I think they're right, giving you something to hold the weighty device with is almost as useful as the built-in stand(s).

____________________
***aLiZzz***

 

[LunarMist]

That tablet seems to have gone nowhere. I suspect that the coming plethora of 4K displays has something to do with it.

 

[Mercutio]

I've love to get just the display. Seriously, why aren't 4K displays commonly available yet? In a 20" size, the pixels would be half the size of the ones on the 1600x1200 display I'm using. I probably wouldn't even notice them.

They're not COMMON but they are available. You just have to put up with an oversized display and some compromises with regard to connectivity, color accuracy and refresh rate. And god help you if you wanted to game on one. I'd be happy to get 2560x1600 at 20 - 24" from a recognizable brand name manufacturer, but if we're looking on the bright side at least it's now possible to get 21" monitors in 1920x1080 instead of some misbegotten configuration like 1440x900 or 1600x768.

Consumer interest doesn't support a large scale move to high resolution displays. Operating systems are bad about supporting them as far as font scaling and the like (or at least communicating that they can do that stuff), and their interest is toward getting progressively larger and more ridiculous monitors that they can continue to just use in 800x600 since that's the "biggest" resolution the slider will let them pick. Not many people are buying desktop hardware any more regardless and laptop designs are largely going to be stuck in the squalor of the technically-HD-enough-to-put-"HD"-on-the-box-capable 1366x768 until people get sick of their tablet having more than twice as many pixels as their theoretically more capable computer.

 

[ddrueding]

Down to $3300.

 

[sdbardwick]

I'm being tempted by the $1400 Dell 3840x2160 24" Ultrasharp, but according to their press release, there is a 28" coming soon at <$1000, so I'm in a holding pattern.

 

[ddrueding]

24" is a bit too small for 4k for me, and I don't want to go smaller than my current 30".

And just because Tannin will love it, I noticed they offer an "ultrawide" 29" (2560x1080) monitor...

 

[Mercutio]

But think of how sweet those ultrawides will be if you buy three of them and arrange vertically!

 

[ddrueding]

But think of how sweet those ultrawides will be if you buy three of them and arrange vertically!

Thought about it. If it was a real 3840 wide I'd consider it. At 2560 it is just a weak U3014.

 

[Chewy509]

I myself am waiting for 4K monitors in the 20"-24" size... My 7yr old 20" LCDs (1680x1050) are still doing well, and looking at replacements means about the only thing to look forward to would be an IPS panel (as my current ones are TNs). The resolution hasn't changed, or gone backwards as far as I'm concerned in this size range, unless you want to spend $$$.... The other thing I'm waiting for a true 10bit panels to come down in the price. (HP DreamColor monitors are expensive). While my monitors are only 6bit panels, from what I've read most on the market are still 6bit panels, unless you go high-end IPS, then you may actually get 8bit panels.

(In case you didn't undestand, I'm talking the actual displayed bits per colour channel, not the setting you set in your OS. Most TN panels are only capable of displaying 6bit colour channels (so the 24bit colour / 3 channels = 8bits per channel), is then dithered to 6bits per channel by the circuitry in the monitor). DVI/HDMI natively support 8bit per channel, and DisplayPort supports 10bit per channel. nVidia propriety drivers on Linux/BSD/Solaris have working 10bit colour channel support (and have for the last 4-5 years), but since most monitors don't support it most people don't realise it... IIRC, I believe Windows 7 has basic 10bit per channel support, but only a few applications support it correctly...

Operating systems are bad about supporting them as far as font scaling and the like (or at least communicating that they can do that stuff).

Actually, any GTK/QT based application is DPI aware and can scale correctly to any set DPI. (Gnome2/KDE exposed this to the user, Gnome3 hides some of the details). Xorg 7, also correctly gets the monitor EDID information which does include DPI for the monitor... It's because the GTK/QT toolkits don't work with pixels (unlike the Win32 GDI API, which is pixel based), and instead uses forms and packing guidelines for layout. Since the Win32 GDI API is pixel based, the application developers didn't/couldn't program DPI aware (and this is where a lot of previous Windows developers struggle with getting into Android development, as the Android UI API is DPI aware), so Windows users are stuck with a shitty UI that doesn't scale correctly (in all applications)... Also note: KDE and Gnome (and most other UNIX DEs) can use SVG based icons, and don't rely on fixed sized icons like Windows, so when they scale based on DPI, they actually look correct...