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.
Now, if there were only something worth watching on TV... Oh, the TdF is coming up, but usually the resolution is on par with VHS, unless they do something vastly different this year.
I'm still happy with my 1.3 megapixel 500:1 contrast 17" LCD. Anything wider and I get some weird feeling my head needs to be stretched. Has anyone else noticed something like that? There was something about a big convex display that didn't cause that sort of sensation.
And that 3840x2400 resolution should give your graphics card a workout trying to render your FPS games at biggie frame rates. At what pixel density do you fail to notice a difference in image quality, anyway? I turned on one pixel on my monitor and can hardly even see it!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
ViewSonic's Product Info about the VP2290b.
Why should I shell out money for a monitor that costs more than my Harley?
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
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.
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
With 9Mpixels at their disposal, they could develop some very high quality 3D displays. Ofcourse, the total number of pixels is an arbitrary measure without mention of the display size. If they're spread over a large area, resolution will still remain low (and no, I couldn't RTFA though I wanted to).
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
At 9.2M pixels, what are the chances of dead pixels? How do I even spot one??
www.rexguo.com - Technologist + Designer
The 30" monitor Apple announced the other day measures 2560x1600 pixels, which comes to 4.1 megapixel resolution -- although it does require a graphics card with two ports, so connecting two such monitors gives you an ultra-widescreen 8.2 MP display.
ViewSonic's specs says theirs offers 3840x2400 pixels, quite a bit higher than Apple's -- but it's only 22.2" diagonal compared to Apple's 30". Whether higher resolution or larger workspace is more important depends on the individual, of course, but I personally would prefer fewer pixels in a larger screen -- that kind of ultra-high-density DPI isn't the sort of thing I can imagine needing if I were a graphics pro.
I checked out the screen shots, and they didn't look any better than my current display.
...when the number of dead pixels allowed by the new display's warranty approaches the total number of pixels in your current display.
"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
Specialized usage. It is not priced for consumers. This is probably going to be marketed to the medical field, where very high resolution monitors are very useful for view medical imaging. In fact, the low resolution of most LCDs is what is preventing hospitals from switching to an all digital solution for xRays. Your 10 17" LCD solution would not be useful in a hospital setting (or for view satallite images or any number of other special usage).
Sig removed because it was obnoxious
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
Their website must be made to only be viewed on their moniter, because I'm not seeing anything on mine.
Finally monitors have higher resolution than reality. As we all know, reality is only 8 megapixels. I think that's worth a measly 6 grand...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
We are quickly reaching the point where the resolution of the display is going to experience bottlenecks from other components.
1) LCD panels with high resolutions (>1600x1200) need 2 or more DVI connectors. Yuck!
Programmers need to be aware of these or their applications will not function in the near future.
2) Many software assumes a specific DPI
A program that is meant to run at 1024x768 at 96dpi will look like a postage stamp when you get a 300dpi display device (coming soon). A 16x16 icon will be the width of a human hair. Software needs to know that pixels aren't a valid measurement -- You need pixels and DPI.
Mac's got this right from the start. Applications don't display based on RESOLUTION, they use the monitor's SIZE. From there, you can increase or decrease the zoom level (by changing the resolution). PC users scoffed at this, but they will be the ones needing a magnifying glass to use their applications.
3) Much software assumes a specific aspect ratio (4:3 and square pixels)
Open up Microsoft Word or Photoshop or Paint and draw a circle. It assumes a circle is the same number of pixels wide as it is tall. Well, that's great if your display has square pixels. That wasn't true at the old 320x200 or 640x400 resolutions of the old days. It has been a safe assumption for about 10 years now, but it isn't always true anymore. For example, if you use an LCD with a 5:4 aspect ratio (like 1200x1024) but run it in a 4:3 resolution (like 1024x768) things will be squished.
(I find it amusing when someone tells me how great a DVD looks on their LCD display, when Windows Media Player is stretching the image to the wrong size because it places black-bars on a screen that doesn't need them).
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.
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.
A 10 inch monitor with this pixel density.
I don't care so much about have a big monitor. What I really want are lots of pixels. A 10" monitor with 200ppi would give me a 1600x1200 display! I would be very happy to have this in a nice, compact laptop! Or even as a desktop display!
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
they're called IBM T221's, and we've had them for about 2 years now.
These are probably re-badged, re-assembled models of exactly the same technology.
Incredibly though, I think the IBM T221's are cheaper...