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.
who needs 9.2Mpixel resolution for porn?
Me!
For that price you can get several decent quality LCD TFT monitors and a Dual-view Nvidia card going, which is pretty nice. Movies on one screen and work on the other ;). Linux support is sketchy for dual-view in my experience, but it'd probably work if you follow the instructions! either way, this is likely only cool if you're doing some sort of digital photo/movie editing.
I guess it will be 2 years till I see one of these on my desktop.
time is a great friend for the not so rich.
One monitor that does less than the 10 monitors I could buy for the same price? Why? I can get 10 17" LCD monitors for the same price. I could arrange them in any sort of grid pattern I want, even factoring in the extra cost of video cards to drive them all, I still end up with WAY more screen realestate. So why would anyone need a single monitor that does this resolution, and not use multiple smaller, cheaper ones to acheive the same, if not better, resolution?
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
It's good to see that manufacturers are finally shipping higher resolution stand-alone LCD displays - until now, most high res displays were limited to laptops. For example, my roommate's Dell laptop had a 16:9 screen (something else you won't see in desktop monitors) and a ridiculously sharp screen, something on the order of 1400 horizontal pixels on a 17" screen.
What I'm really wondering, though, is what the refresh rate on these monitors is. I've seen some massive LCD screens before, but they all seemed to suffer from a low refresh rate, which made playing any kind of video or other motion graphics on the screen hard or impossible to do due to ghosting.
With resolutions that high, I think this monitor will primarily be geared toward medical imaging applications rather than for video display or gaming. I can't even imagine a modern video card that could drive that kind of resolution (NVidia's new dual DVI card?), much less a game that would support resolutions that high. Oh well, I can dream...
Software piracy is victimless theft.
At 9.2M pixels, what are the chances of dead pixels? How do I even spot one??
www.rexguo.com - Technologist + Designer
http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/P roductDisplay?catalogId=-840&langId=-1&partNumber= 9503DG5&storeId=1
Does anyone know at what point the resolution becomes finer than the human eye can perceive? Is this monitor there yet?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Interesting you say this. I have an HP L2335 23" LCD, and I find it big to the point where I had to rearrange some of my home office furniture so as to create more space between the keyboard the the LCD. I can only imagine what Apple's 30" and this monster Viewsonic must be like.
FPS's? TV? dude: this display isn't made for you.
Read the Viewsonic product page: ideal for satellite imaging and digital content creation. Says nothing about a playable framerate (with a friggin Matrox Parhelia!) or watching bootleg anime DiVX movies.
This is a problem common to Slashdot readers -- "if it doesn't work for me, it's obviously not good for anybody."
P.S. after a year on a 23" CRT I can't imagine downgrading to anything less; a friend of mine uses two of them!
// I will show you fear in a handful of jellybeans.
"QUXGA-W"? Who comes up with these names? I mean, is there really anyone for whom that makes more sense than just "3840x2400"? --Bruce Fields
Because im sure this LCD would have PLENTY of them.
I sure hope Viewsonic have a decent dead-pixel policy, otherwise i know i wouldnt consider buying one.
A single dead pixel is enough to drive me back to a good old CRT.
(me hugs his perfect Samsung 172T LCD)
So if you can't spot a dead pixel it's a problem because...?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That never stops anyone from using any technology or the latest and greatest for other than its intended use.
Read the Viewsonic product page: ideal for satellite imaging and digital content creation. Says nothing about a playable framerate (with a friggin Matrox Parhelia!) or watching bootleg anime DiVX movies.
And a few of them will find their way into those jobs. The rest will be bought by or for people who don't absolutely need them but absolutely can't resist.
This is a problem common to Slashdot readers -- "if it doesn't work for me, it's obviously not good for anybody."
No, it's an insight into the behaviour of people in general. Who actually buys "good enough"? If you do, you find in about 3 years time that it isn't. It was only good enough for then, but eveything else moved on.
P.S. after a year on a 23" CRT I can't imagine downgrading to anything less; a friend of mine uses two of them!
As if to underscore my point... who really needs a 23". Once they've been to to big city it's so hard to keep them down on the farm.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
That's news to me. I'm not a Viewsonic owner, but I was under the impression that Viewsonic bought out Nokia's computer display segment. Nokia's monitors were always awesome (I own a 446XS, best CRT I ever used) so I would expect Viewsonic's monitors to be among the best, as well.
Do you have any actual evidence, even subjective (links?) to back up your statement that Viewsonic monitors are bad?
Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
No, it's an insight into the behaviour of people in general. Who actually buys "good enough"? If you do, you find in about 3 years time that it isn't. It was only good enough for then, but eveything else moved on.
Maybe you've just been lucky or are choosing to ignore it, but what he mentioned does happen quite often, actually.
One good example would be the constant disbelief by many Linux zealots here that there's any reason to use Windows, forgetting the whole gaming aspect.
Or maybe when a new version of KDE or something comes out, and the whining begins about how there's too much eye candy, everyone should just stick to bare-bones or the command line, etc.
Heck, just read the comments on the recent story about standardized plugins - more than a few "I don't want any animation or rich content, therefore this project is a waste of time" comments from more people that can't understand why anyone would want more than a simple and/or bare-bones experience.
YOU don't need to buy this monitor. But for instance computer tomographic pictures come in a resolution of 3840x2400 pixel. So if you wonder why this display has exactly this specification: Now you know. IBM's T220/T221 with the same resolution and the same panel was marketed to exactly this target group: medical picture analysis.
Perhaps they don't want to have to pay the bandwidth charges associated with putting high-res pictures up
Perhaps they don't need high-res for the pictures of the family reunion where Aunt Rose baked her apple pie for everyone
Perhaps they only have 1024x768 equipment that having higher res pictures doesn't make a difference
Perhaps they don't want cheapskates like you ripping off their work in high quality.
What I think is appalling is the assumption that because a person does not personally need a thing, that it is unneccessary and worthy of contempt. Come on, you guys -- you don't REALLY think that the whole of the economy is built around your personal needs, do you?
I mean, as a man, I personally have no use for tampons, but I can understand where some people might find them rather helpful.
Incidentally, an 8 megapixel display would be very useful for those of us who like digital photography. Right now, I have a choice of seeing my shots at actual resolution, or being able to see the whole shot. A monitor like this would make it much easier, and much faster, to detect things like distracting moire effects, JPEG noise and spot blemishes.
Hey freaks: now you're ju