Slashdot Mirror
ViewSonic VP2290b Super High-Res Monitor
Svenne writes "Ok, TrustedReviews have put up a review of the amazing ViewSonic VP2290b TFT display which has a massive 9.2Mpixel resolution. Check it out here. I'll take two ;-)" Pricewatch lists vendors selling this monitor starting at a bit more than $6,000 -- video card is extra.
ViewSonic's Product Info about the VP2290b.
Better hope you don't need to make a warranty claim on that - it'll take weeks to get your monitor back (they don't cross-ship big monitors), and they'll promise you'll get a new replacement *this* time but send another refurb that'll blow up within a few months, *again*. Not that I'm bitter or anything... :)
The reviewer noted that text was too small to read, and you would have to use another monitor for pallettes and the like. I would think that would be a little clumsy - I know I feel that way with my current dual monitor setup (one 23" Cinema Display, one NEC 17" LCD). I would think you could increase the size of the text - I know that's pretty easy with MacOS X since icons and so on are designed to size proportionately.
It needs the same two DVI channels as the new Apple Cinema Display 30" but it's much higher resolution. The higher refresh rate of the 30" should make that the sounder buy for people like me who are more interested in video than image editing. That makes this an awfully specialized tool even for those who have the bucks.
Still, being able to see an entire image at full resolution on a screen is quite the cool trick. I'd be envious of its owner but wouldn't buy it for myself - and I will buy the 30" Cinema Display once my finances are in better shape.
D
Not the same thing, at all.
It's not about size or real estate, it's about pixel density and picture clarity.
Graphic artists would kill for a monitor with pixel density closely matching that of a printer (2400dpi or so).. That's not here yet, but this is closer.
Think WYSIWYG.... to the X-treme!
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
These displays are not fast -- they are optimized for viewing satellite images and/or photo retouching. The dual DVI link is required because a single DVI doesn't carry enough bandwidth to display 9 megapixels so the paired card is required -- and the paired card is $2500 or so.
After watching these for the past year (and seeing one live at NAB) the Apple 30 with the NVIDIA is the one to watch.
Also, IBM shipped a version called the (T90 I think) and it's available in online discounter channels for about $6k. Essentially the same display in a little cooler package.
I gaurantee that they both use the same LCD component, from the same manufacturer, and probably from the same fab, but they didn't just rebrand eachother's product.
><));>
That certainly blows away Apple's new offerings.
Hardly. This is only a 22" screen, so all the extra resolution is going into detail, not screen real estate. It seems to me that you really wouldn't want to fit much more on this screen than you would, say, a 1920x1200 22" screen. You won't want to make the fonts any smaller than they already are! So instead, you'll probably just use larger fonts so the result is a smoother picture. But is that really necessary for most practical work?
So I would say that Apple's 30" monitor, which will truly provide more useful screen real estate, is a far better choice for most people than this one.
Maybe this monitor will be useful for folks working on 4K video editing.
The website was getting slow, so here's a mirror:
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
I'm pretty sure these panels are made by IBM and were first sold as the IBM T220/T221, introduced back in 2001. I had the pleasure of working with the prototypes well before that, and they're truly amazing displays. They're sized to be able to mimic two 8.5 x 11 sheets of paper side-by-side at a jaw-dropping 200+ pixel-per-inch resolution. Color, contrast, brightness, viewing angle, and especially black level were all better than anything I had seen at the time (but that was 2000, 2001). They do stretch the refresh capabilities of the cards and the DVI interface, though, so for those FPS games you might want to look elsewhere.
The IBM T221 has a resolution of 3840x2400 in 22.2".
Whilst its RRP from IBM is $8,399 USD you can find some resellers advertising them for $3,999 USD on froogle such as this.
The Iiyama AQU5611DTBK is also a 22" 9.2 Megapixel device.
You need two DVI cables to run these things at a decent screen update rate (no screen flicker, it just takes lots of digital bandwidth to pump that many pixels) when using all those pixels. The cards required are around $1,000 and I've seen Matrox and Nvidia configurations mentioned with the IBM display, though I'm sure ATI's FireGL cards could do the job, software willing.
So, are we going to get a news post about the IBM and Iiyama displays too?
Check this article which talks about the Matrox Parhelia 256HR for use with all three. It's from September 2003.
from the article, the 50ms is listed as full-cycle time.
> isn't twice as good in pixels...
Actually it is. The Viewsonic has more pixels than two Apple 30" displays.
You realize that means the probability is .5 right? Saying 'the odds' of something and 'the probability' of something are NOT equivalent, although theree is an easy formula for converting between the two.
XGA is 1024x768. It's pretty much standard on (lower-end) laptops these days (and probably desktops, too, for that matter).
Ultra XGA, or UXGA, is 1600x1200. That's about as good as consumer-level equipment gets at the moment.
Then there's Wide Ultra XGA, or UXGA-W (although I usually see it written as "WUXGA"). Essentially the same as UXGA, but with a wider aspect ratio (1920x1200).
The "Q" most likely stands for "quad."
So yeah, it does make a little sense. That being said, if I mention this to someone, I'll probably go with "3840x2400," myself.
This is exactly the display I want for coding work. I can't understand why people complain about text size! That's an OS defficiency, not a display problem. More resolution is never bad. The OS should let you scale all the fonts on the display.
I would love to have this display and work with all anti-aliased fonts, even in my editor windows, even if I had to give up emacs (perish the thought) to do it.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
From the article:
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
Sony has a 5" display at 800x600 in their U50/U70 micro-notebook. And their slightly older U101 packs 1024x768 into a 7.1" display. (The U series used to have a 6.something" display at 1024x768, which was 200+ ppi.)
I agree. I think 200ppi is the next logical step. Then you just need to tell the OS to double all standard UI elements, and everything becomes readable, and crystal clear. (Windows already has this ability, which would be of great use in the story's ViewSonic/IBM monitor. The ViewSonic appears to be an OEM version of IBM's T220 display. Even the casing looks the same.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Are there people who care whether their pixels have pointy edges or something?
Yes. Pixel size has a large effect on the final picture. The widely spaced, slightly more rectangular pixels on a TV serve to soften and darken the image when compared to a computer monitor. An LCD will display the image even more sharply. This is not as big an issue going forward as it is going backward. An image designed to look smooth on a TV might look like blocky crap on an LCD...hence why emulators often have interpolation modes to make your display more TV-like. Furthermore, pixel "squareness" changes the resolution as well. Consider the issue of a 4:3 aspect ratio. On a PC, you acheive that with 320 horizontal pixels and 240 vertical ones. On an NTSC TV, you achieve the SAME aspect with 352 horizontal pixels -- meaning that if you have an NTSC TV signal, you either have to crop or resample the video before it will display with proper aspect on a computer monitor. PAL signals use the same horizontal resolution and visual aspect ratio, but due to yet another difference in pixel size they squeeze 288 vertical pixels into their video (which means British television is slightly higher resolution than American TV, but we get 5 more frames per second than them). This is of course ignoring further differences due to interlacing and so on.
The whole point of this is that different viewing tasks and different available components call for different display formats. The computing industry needed to tell the display industry that it wanted square pixels in 4:3 or 16:9 formats. Hence, VGA/XGA/SXGA monitors etc, as opposed to NTSC/PAL/SCART/HDTV, etc.
Hey freaks: now you're ju