Slashdot Mirror

In case you want to know where to get non-16:9 displays, Eizo sells 16:9, 16:10, 4:3, 5:4 and even a square 1:1.

I'd personally like a 3:2 monitor, but they don't seem to exist this decade. Some laptops used to have one.

If you don't bother with puny details like 'color' you can go a bit higher still...

Don't expect much change from $30k, though...

The DuraVision FDH3601 from EIZO is one example.

Expect to pay tens of thousands of dollars for it, though - these are targeted at oil companies and government.

Conveniently, the latest Intel chipsets can apparently handle such "4K" resolutions.

1920*1080 which is the highest consumer resolution available is around 2MP

Apple's Thunderbolt Display (and the 27" Cinema Display before it) is 2560x1440.
Dell's 27" U2711 has the same resolution (I think they may be using the same panel), and the 30" U3011 is 2560x1600.

2560*1600 which is the highest resolution available for individual displays in the market is around 4MP

The Eizo RadiForce LS560W is 3840x2160. The RX840 is 4096x2160. And although most people would not want a monochrome monitor, you can get them all the way to at least 4096x2560, like the GX1030. And that is just sticking to Eizo monitors, I didn't check other high end brands.

I get your point, but your numbers are quite off

1920*1080 which is the highest consumer resolution available is around 2MP

Apple's Thunderbolt Display (and the 27" Cinema Display before it) is 2560x1440.
Dell's 27" U2711 has the same resolution (I think they may be using the same panel), and the 30" U3011 is 2560x1600.

2560*1600 which is the highest resolution available for individual displays in the market is around 4MP

The Eizo RadiForce LS560W is 3840x2160. The RX840 is 4096x2160. And although most people would not want a monochrome monitor, you can get them all the way to at least 4096x2560, like the GX1030. And that is just sticking to Eizo monitors, I didn't check other high end brands.

I get your point, but your numbers are quite off

1920*1080 which is the highest consumer resolution available is around 2MP

Apple's Thunderbolt Display (and the 27" Cinema Display before it) is 2560x1440.
Dell's 27" U2711 has the same resolution (I think they may be using the same panel), and the 30" U3011 is 2560x1600.

2560*1600 which is the highest resolution available for individual displays in the market is around 4MP

The Eizo RadiForce LS560W is 3840x2160. The RX840 is 4096x2160. And although most people would not want a monochrome monitor, you can get them all the way to at least 4096x2560, like the GX1030. And that is just sticking to Eizo monitors, I didn't check other high end brands.

I get your point, but your numbers are quite off

Best way to get everything right is to order desingn from company that specializes for control room design. Yokogawa is pretty good.

Special suggenstions for computer hardware:

- Monitors from Eizo. They just make the best monitors for control rooms, medical imaging, etc. http://www.eizo.com/global/
- Matrox graphic cards are really good for control rooms. It's their specialty and they exel in it. You can get multi monitor worstations that are silent http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/

Nope, easy to get one of these: http://www.eizo.com/global/products/atc/sq2801/index.html i just would be amazed if they cost less than $10K plus $100K "procurement fee" but seriously, if someone dared to mass produce a spec even close to that, even for several grand, i'm pretty sure they'd sell fairly briskly.

first, 'upgrade' was referring to using drivers that reenable the disabled features of the pro card's drivers.

If a pro card is installed but features are disabled that's stupid, and I don't want to be a customer of said business. All this does is increase the cost.

secondly, unless your photography somehow involves high end opengl 3d acceleration needs, then i think you have been misled about what the 'pro' card gives you

Fact is is that while online graphics may not need much it's totally different for print. High res and deep colour depths are important for some things. If you're getting married and higher a photographer you want your photos to be as good as they can be. The same if you're an ad or commercial photographer or a fine art photographer. Pro photographers can go through tyme, hassle, and money to make sure what they see on their monitor matches what they print. An Eizo monitor, even a 24" can cost thousands of dollars. NEC and LaCie are just as expensive. Monitors with an S-IPS/H-IPS type panel can be quite expensive, but of you make your living in photography or other graphics arts you need such a monitor. Once you have a good monitor you then have to use a colorimeter like an Eye-one or Huey to calibrate the monitor. If you're also doing the printing yourself and not having a pro lab do it you also have to calibrate the printer. Going through all this you don't want a cheap graphics card driving your monitor.

Falcon

No serious colorimetric work is yet being done with LCDs

Well I'm a Very Serious Photographer With Color Managed Systems, and I can tell you you're full of hooey.

There are a number of Serious LCD monitors now, some with advanced features like wide gamuts, and good enough viewing angles so that you can move side to side within at least the range of the monitor and see no shift.

What you said might have been true about two years ago, but the industry has moved well beyond all Serious work being done on CRT's these days.

Thanks for the pointer. I'll definitely look them up.

I have yet, however, to see a scientific paper that uses LCDs to map the early visual system, where being precise about color uniformity is hugely important -- but that does not mean it hasn't been done. The visual neuroscientists who do color work whom I'm familiar with are all using CRTs or, now that I think of it, DLP based projectors. No LCDs. Maybe that will change.

LCDs have one tremendous advantage from the visual neuroscience perspective: stable light output when viewed at short time scales (except the newer displays that use pulsing backlights ... what a stupid idea). The light output from a CRT flickers no matter how fast the refresh rate; the visual system responds at up to about 135 Hz, even though you aren't strongly aware of it above about 80 Hz or so (it depends hugely on individual, viewing conditions, contrast of the image, etc.). With an LCD with a constant backlight, the light output from any given pixel is more-or-less step shaped, changing at update, rather than impulse shaped like from a CRT. This is why a 60 Hz refresh rate on an LCD looks stable as a rock, but 60 Hz on a CRT drives most people crazy. I'd love to be able to use a 75 Hz refresh rate LCD in my experiments rather than a 180 Hz refresh CRT. Will definitely look up the EIZO monitors!

No serious colorimetric work is yet being done with LCDs

Well I'm a Very Serious Photographer With Color Managed Systems, and I can tell you you're full of hooey.

There are a number of Serious LCD monitors now, some with advanced features like wide gamuts, and good enough viewing angles so that you can move side to side within at least the range of the monitor and see no shift.

What you said might have been true about two years ago, but the industry has moved well beyond all Serious work being done on CRT's these days.

If you prefers 4:3 monitors then that's just fine. I do too, actually. Between a 1680x1050 and a 1600x1200 monitor, I'd choose the 4:3 one if for no other reason than having more pixels, but only if cost wasn't a concern. Considering how much more affordable reasonably good 22" monitors are, I'm more than willing to sacrifice the 150 pixels.

I addressed several points in my post, but I think quite clearly stated in the first sentence you quoted what a proper replacement (as opposed to an upgrade) for a 4:3 20" was. These 1600x1200 20" monitors are still available from Acer, Asus, Dell, HP, Samsung and a whole bunch of other OEMs/manufacturers. Seriously, just use google or something.

Pretending no more 20" monitors exist, I can understand how the 24" could be the only acceptable alternative. But again, the whole point of the numbers exercise was to show how unreasonable it is to claim that the prices have not gone down or that there is price gouging going on. Car analogy time: OH NOES, BMW might discontinue the 5-series at some point in the future so obviously I can't get one now... and yet the 7-series is more expensive. Those assholes!

Yep, and one of the 21" Eizo monitors is $1 850. I know that. I also filtered the results to only show 4:3 monitors, because this is what you were looking for. Both Eizo and LaCie also make widescreen models, not to mention NEC, in which they make up almost half of their model range.

And nowhere in your recent past were you a color engineer at either the input or output ends of the process. You and others like you are running on a broad and deep set of misconceptions bordering on mythology regarding imaging technology. It is marketing's fault, but that's another story.

That what pray tell is Eizo selling if not a 12-bit 96% AdobeRGB gamut monitor? I know this from the angle of someone used to working with larger gamuts than will display through the output device I am working on, and also printing - all things you seem to be unaware of.

This statement is a perfect example of the mythology imaging enthusiasts rely on. More importantly, you stubbornly hang on to the mythology when there's no basis in fact for such an absurd statement. Here's a tip for you: more bits does not equate to a wider gamut.

Of course more bits do not provide a wider gamut. But a wider gamut does, normal monitors do not display 96% of the AdobeRGB space. I don't know what call I have to believe such odd things - except for actual shipping products that is!!!

Seems to me like you are living proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I don't know if you had someone tell you all this stuff about it being impossible to reproduce a wider gamut with digital displays or what, but obviously you are quite wrong from the standpoint of what is actually being done today and is planned for the near future. If you want to argue about if the expansion of the gamut is observable for a given device or standard, that is quite another matter (though obviously said monitors would not be selling if that were not the case) - but it's not at all impossible to create wider gamut displays and they have been selling quite well within certain spaces. There is no reason to think the dedicated home theater space would not accept them just as readily.

If you are in any way involved in designing/choosing color schemes, you may want to have a look at the Eizo L797-U, S2411W or similar screens that can simulate color blindness.

If you are in any way involved in designing/choosing color schemes, you may want to have a look at the Eizo L797-U, S2411W or similar screens that can simulate color blindness.

ah. found a few.

He he, I don't see what's with the tiny resolution... Eizo has a 50" Plasma that can do 1600x1200. Why this 60" monitor doesnt' seem to do better than what looks like 800x600 or so completely baffles me...
________________________________________________

He he, I don't see what's with the tiny resolution... Eizo has a 50" Plasma that can do 1600x1200. Why this 60" monitor doesnt' seem to do better than what looks like 800x600 or so completely baffles me...
________________________________________________

He he, I don't see what's with the tiny resolution... Eizo has a 50" Plasma that can do 1600x1200. Why this 60" monitor doesnt' seem to do better than what looks like 800x600 or so completely baffles me...
________________________________________________

I was in the same boat until I bought my EIZO FlexScan L360 LCD panel. I love this thing. I used to turn off my monitor any time I wanted to record a guitar track - and this got very annoying as I'd go through a cycle of

• Turn off monitor
• Record take
• Turn on monitor
• Play back take, decide to record another one...

Disclaimer: I have no relation to EIZO, just a satisfied customer.

I was deeply saddened when Nokia (now Eizo) dropped their 6600 model: a gorgeous 21-inch greyscale monitor -- with more persistent phosphors than usual, even! Now that'd be easy on the eyeballs. I was just about to buy one, too, really...

I was deeply saddened when Nokia (now Eizo) dropped their 6600 model: a gorgeous 21-inch greyscale monitor -- with more persistent phosphors than usual, even! Now that'd be easy on the eyeballs. I was just about to buy one, too, really...