Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ViewSonic VP2290b Super High-Res Monitor

Posted by timothy on from the creative-rationalization dept.

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.

7 of 408 comments (clear)

  1. Product link by Karamchand · · Score: 5, Informative

    ViewSonic's Product Info about the VP2290b.

  2. Viewsonic support sucks by cloudmaster · · Score: 3, Informative

    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... :)

  3. Definitely cool ... but not too practical by daviddennis · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Definitely cool ... but not too practical by notsoclever · · Score: 4, Informative
      I know that's pretty easy with MacOS X since icons and so on are designed to size proportionately.
      Unfortunately, that's a myth. OSX does not use vector graphics for the UI itself, and the various UI elements are definitely pixel-based, even icons they're provided in a number of resolutions all the way up to 128x128, giving them the illusion of being scalable, which can be used for some cute tricks like having an icon which actually changes to different images based on how large it is. But icons are basically just MIPmapped polygons, and that's as close as anything in the OSX UI gets to DPI-independence.

      Also, there's no built-in way to change the system font sizes, and using things like TinkerTool to do it can mess things up (since pretty much all of the UI elements are fixed pixel-size still).

      To make matters worse, for the few things which are DPI-aware (such as viewing PDFs in Preview.app, and for display-oriented font sizing and so on), there's no way to actually specify your display's DPI OSX insists that all monitors are 72dpi (the old Mac standard) even though pretty much every Apple display sold today is around 100dpi (the only exception being the 14" iBook which is still around 72dpi), so when it tries to display things at "actual size" they're actually shrunk down quite a bit.

      With the way that Cocoa works, they could conceivably make the UI truly DPI-independent in the future, but AFAICT Carbon is a lost cause.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people: ones who understand ternary, ones who don't, and ones who think this joke is about binary
  4. Not new, not the only 9MP one either... by csirac · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:VGA, SVGA, XGA, ... by devnull17 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:Toys for the rich by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 3, Informative

    From the article:
    ...in the VP2290b?s case this comes in at 50ms (25ms rise, 25ms fall).
    --
    Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)