New even shallower screens!

[ddrueding]

21:9 ratio, 2560x1080 resolution, 29"

 

[MaxBurn]

The best argument against one would have been a screen capture of anandtechs site being shown on that display, full screen. They are one of those fixed width sites.

 

[ddrueding]

Indeed. At least mine is 1600 tall.

 

[LunarMist]

That truly sucks.

 

[Mercutio]

For what it's worth, Samsung 210Ts (21") can be had for $99 from ebay or places that sell refurbished kit. Those guys are a huge upgrade over typical $150 22" displays.

 

[mubs]

Who are the idiots making these decisions and forcing them down our throats?

 

[Tea]

2560 by 1080. Yueerck! What a pointless piece of junk.

 

[P5-133XL]

I'm sorry, but I do not see a problem. It is a very specialized display for a specific task (Cinimascope). No one is forcing anyone to buy it or even trying to force a new screen format on the world. If someone has that need then let them buy it and everyone else buy something that fits their needs better. There are much bigger issues in the world to complain about.

 

[Tannin]

Buy what? From who? You can't buy decent screens anymore, you can only get wide-screen toy rubbish that is a major pain to do actual useful work on. It really, really bugs me that someone spent all that time and money making this expensive, useless toy when they could have made a real screen with a practical, useful aspect ratio so that those of us who use computers to do real work on and don't waste time watching rubbish movies on them could have just one damn screen that's worth buying and owning. We DO NOT WANT these shallow toys, we want the real thing.

No-one makes it.

Sob

 

[P5-133XL]

I actually like wide screen format. I can edit and display two pages side by side in Word.

I am also sad to see the standard format disappear. It had its uses too. I understand objecting to that and venting that frustration but that is not what this thread is about.

That being said, a one-off Cinamascope monitor is not going to take over the world. My reaction to this thread is: Get a life. You folks are railing against nothing important.

 

[Mercutio]

4x3 screens do still exist. It's not like they've been plucked from the surface of the Earth.

 

[timwhit]

4x3 screens do still exist. It's not like they've been plucked from the surface of the Earth.

Do any exist that are greater than 1600x1200?

 

[Chewy509]

As someone who runs dual 20" monitors now (3360x1050 effective) I like the idea of this monitor, however would have liked to have seen it be 3840x1080 instead...

My biggest complaint is the lack of affordable high-res displays in the sub 24" range... Come-on my 5 yr old 20" displays have a higher resolution that most 20" displays on sale today! (On newegg, the 48 listed 20" displays, only 2 match my current models in resolution, the other 46 are lower resolution, I need to step up to 21"+ to get higher, but do agree 1" isn't that much bigger...).

Ohhh. just noticed this one, 21" display with 2560 x 2048 resolution... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824002660

 

[ddrueding]

Wow that is some money. I'll just stick with 2560x1600 tiled horizontally (2x 1280x1600 is very useful)

 

[mubs]

4x3 screens do still exist. It's not like they've been plucked from the surface of the Earth.

Probably. But are they high quality monitors or cheap business clerk level ones using TN panels??

 

[jtr1962]

I'm still waiting on ultra-high resolution monitors, maybe something like 3840x2160 and 200+ pixels per inch. I'm tired of the "screen door" effect of standard displays. OLED and ultra-high resolution would be a really sweet combination. Until then I really have no compelling reason to stop using my present 1280x1024 monitor. I hate widescreen with a passion but I would make the switch if I could get something with twice as many vertical lines.

 

[ddrueding]

JTR, you really are missing something sticking with 1024 compared to 1600...the difference is pretty huge.

 

[jtr1962]

All of the 1600 line screens I've seen are fairly large (i.e. 27" to 30"), and still have around 100 pixels per inch. I'm looking for something where I can't see the individual pixels at my typical viewing distance of around 15 inches. From my research, that would probably mean at least 200 pixels per inch. That $10K NEC monitor might barely cut it, but it's well out of my price range. Hopefully when 2180p TV sets come out we'll start to see monitors with the same resolution, preferably in sizes of maybe 23" or less.

 

[timwhit]

What's ridiculous is the Nexus 10 has a 2560x1600 (300ppi) display and costs $400, yet I can't buy a standalone monitor with that resolution for less than ~$1200.

 

[MaxBurn]

typical viewing distance of around 15 inches.

Damn. How about backing off until you can't see the pixels? I don't know of any device short of a cell phone that is designed for 15" viewing.

 

[jtr1962]

Damn. How about backing off until you can't see the pixels? I don't know of any device short of a cell phone that is designed for 15" viewing.

The problem with viewing from a further distance is twofold. One, the screen won't fill my field of view (it's a 19" screen). Two, I'm nearsighted enough so that things start getting blurry at much beyond maybe 2 feet (wearing glasses to view a monitor from further distances results in worse problems like distortion, fatigue, and glare). The problem here isn't viewing distance. It's the fact that no screens at present have enough pixels when viewed at a distance where they mostly fill up the field of view. The retina displays on handheld devices only work because they're typically viewed at distances where they don't fill up most of the field of vision. Incidentally, I can still focus clearly at about half my normal viewing distance of 15". Or put another way, I might be able to pick out the pixels on a "retina" display.

Given the same viewing distance, I can comfortably read text on paper which is 1/3 the size of the smallest text I can read on my monitor. I would love to have a monitor with same readability as paper, and in a large enough size to fill my field of vision. That probably implies something like 4000x3000 if we're talking standard 4:3 monitors. At this point, since we're into the widescreen fad, I'd even be happy with 3840x2180, especially if it's OLED. This might be close enough so that individual pixels more or less disappear.

 

[jtr1962]

Well, in a weird set of circumstances, I ended up with an old monitor from the next door neighbor 2 days ago. It's a 20" LG monitor, 4:3, and 1600x1200 (I didn't know that until just now). Or put another way, it has about 10% more ppi than what I'm using. This thread inspired me to hook it up. I can still see individual pixels clearly, but the larger screen means I can view it from about 17" away instead of 15". That and the smaller pixel pitch means a decrease in apparent pixel size of ~20%. It's a step in the right direction. It should hold me until those 3840x2180 OLED displays become a reality.

 

[MaxBurn]

I don't know about OLED in a computer monitor, they have significant burn in problems now on devices that are off most of the time in addition to a wacky white balance. Maybe the degrading issue will get better like plasma but I think even plasma is still unsuitable for a computer monitor.

 

[ddrueding]

Even LED isn't there yet for LCD backlights; the U3011s I have still use tubes to get better color rendition. IIRC, tri-color LEDs in the backlight can work but are more expensive and more power hungry than the tubes. The Nexus 10 is undoubtedly the best tablet screen ever, but still has a long way to go before I'd want to use one for color-sensitive work. That these other techs can produce light is nice, but I want something a little better for my monitor.