Slashdot Mirror
Sources Say ITU Has Approved Ultra-High Definition TV Standard
Qedward writes with this excerpt from Techworld: "A new television format that has 16 times the resolution of current High Definition TV has been approved by an international standards body, Japanese sources said earlier today. UHDTV, or Ultra High Definition Television, allows for programming and broadcasts at resolutions of up to 7680 by 4320, along with frame refresh rates of up to 120Hz, double that of most current HDTV broadcasts. The format also calls for a broader palette of colours that can be displayed on screen. The video format was approved earlier this month by member nations of the International Telecommunication Union, a standards and regulatory body agency of the United Nations, according to an official at NHK, Japan's public broadcasting station, and another at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Both spoke on condition of anonymity."
Same old shit in high resolution! =D
That's why it's a TV (Television) standard...
To be completely fair, there is no mention of computer monitors anywhere in that article. You sure you read it?
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
Not for windows 9 they will have plenty of resolution to waste on their over simplified stupid UI
I am going to wait for CSUHDTV
Crazy Super Ultra High Definition TV.
We can barely get 720p on most of our "HD" channels, and then the feed is compressed. Having a standard is nice for the future, but I think it is still too early. We need better video compressing standards before we make the switch. Besides blu-ray has not yet fully penetrated the market anyway.
huh, wot? Academy radio monitors are about out for good...
I mean, seriously, anything bigger than 1080p is not really visible for my usual viewing habits anyway (24'' monitor in ~ 1 meter distance, or projection with 3m diagonally in about 4m distance)
And with the lousy encoding that people CBS use on their prime-time shows, we can now have super sharp square artifacting on the screen. How about they give us decent HD first?
We have Bluray that can pump out 40 Mbps and a new High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard coming that support 4K/60Hz video at around 40 Mbps
We also have a few 4K displays just starting to appear.
And now a UHDTV 4K video standard (as well as 8K).
So looking good for the new gen with broadcast, storage, encoding and display standards all sorted out .. bring it on !!!
Expect to hear a lot of "but I just bought an HDTV" hand wringing but if you think about it, 1080P was barely if at all pushing the envelope when it went mainstream. I have CRTs that I bought second hand 10 years ago with 1600x1200 pixels and that is nothing special. This actually pushes display tech and pixel density forward and gets us close to the Hollywood OS ideal of photorealistic no-discernable pixel displays many of us have lusted after since seeing the main viewscreen on ST:TOS.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
The crabs on porn stars will look like invading sci-fi monsters.
This is actually much more than 2x standard broadcasts in terms of resolution as far as the US market is concerned. In the US almost everything "HD" is 720 @ 60fps (or sometimes even 30!). This is 8k, which is 16x the resolution of 1080, and twice the frame rate.
For 1080p screens, if you're sitting further than 2x the diagonal screen width, your eye can't resolve more detail on the screen even with more pixels. This is called the Lechner Distance. Does anyone actually sit that close? It's certainly not how far the average person sits from the screen.
A new international television standard. How long until we in the US invent our own entirely incompatible system just so it can depend on patents owned by American companies?
ATSC versus DVB-T, CDMA2000/EvDO vs. GSM/UMTS, etc.
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
What makes a 4:3 ratio so much better than a 16:9 ratio for your monitor?
I would love to see this into implementation so many years from now, but the problem is the cable companies. They don't want to upgrade their infrastructure so they compress their signal and current HDTV looks like crap on some channels. Until cable companies won't compress their signal then i'm not interested. I guess it's also fair to say that channels have to start delivering in HDTV as well too!
What's next UbHD (uber higher definition)?
It's about image format; since people move away from dedicated TVs at a rapid rate, forcing people to watch their movies on a narrow strip of a screen means they'll either end up with a display unsuitable for anything else, or will complain about black strips.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
TV standards and computer standards have common physical interfaces, but different sets of timings. Even on-the-wire, the timings of TV-land 1920x1080 and computer-land 1920x1080 are quite different, although the vast majority of computer monitors accept both standards.
The standard also includes a smaller layout, which is 3840 by 2160 pixels.
So maybe I'll finally get a T221 replacement with higher refresh rates and modern video connections (i.e. not needing a stack of conversion hardware). Losing 240px of height is an acceptable tradeoff...
I don't agree. As long as you have sufficient vertical resolution (1080 isn't enough, 1200 is ok, 1440 is great for me at the moment), then horizontal resolution is fine at either 16:9 or 16:10. In fact, at (say) 1200 vertical, 16:9 would give you a more useful monitor (won't ever exist, of course).
1920x1080 is, of course, an abomination for work and I think this is where the hatred of 16:9 comes from. Whereas 2560x1440 looks great from where I'm sitting.
Maybe cable companies might finally get FULL HD content to display on our Ultra HD TV's.
Another reason why cable companies need to be destroyed, because they don't even know how to provide state of the art, but feel inclined to comment on what the new standards should be.
About the only thing UltraHD is going to introduce is a new optical disk format because broadband and content providers are incapable of creating and delivering UltraHD content without massive compression and inferior audio.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
We have a couple of 720p (not 1080p, 720p) TVs in our house, a 32" LCD, and a 50" plasma (hey, 720p plasma's cheap.)
How decent is 720p? Well, both TVs appear to be about the same quality as, or often a little higher than, watching a friggin' movie at the cinema, if the source is decent and relatively free of artifacts.
I think, for the most part, we're talking diminishing returns at this point adding pixels. So I'm a little baffled by this announcement. Is it real? Is there a serious market for TV for people with super exceptional eyesight? Is video compression technology really going to improve so much over the next ten years that this'll be worth using - especially over the Internet, which, let's be honest, is where everything's going at the moment.
I'm glad to see innovation, but I'm just finding it hard to believe that this improvement is significantly useful: arguably, like Blu-ray, it might actually hold back HD, rather than help it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
(again)
The fact that real work is done with lots of text, and text goes from top to bottom far more frequently then scales off endlessly to the right?
We have these stupidly huge 16:9 monitors today that can't even display one page of a PDF without scrolling and yet 2/3 of the screen is sitting empty. It's a terrible aspect ratio for computers.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
I'm sure it's very nice, but these types of things are simply diverting time and resources away from what the true goal should be: sexbots. Anime themed sexbots, porn star themed sexbots, weird fetish sexbots -- sexbots.
Japan, why have you gone astray?
due to market conditions and lack of infrastructure.
This will never see the light of day in the average home for 10+ years if not longer. People and broadcasters are still upgrading to 740p and 1080p(i) what makes anyone think this will come of anything?
Will John Q drop obscene money on televisions that will need to be the size of a wall to reveal all this new resolution and color palette? Sadly more than likely no one will care save for a few videophiles.
Beware the Lollipop of Mediocrity, Lick it once and you suck forever.
What makes a 4:3 ratio so much better than a 16:9 ratio for your monitor?
I think that 16:10 is nice, through something in between 4:3 and 16:10 would be ideal. Much of the work I do involves source documents and a working document. Since most of those are formatted for the 8.5" x 11" written page, a 16:10.3 monitor is the right size to hold two. Given some additional space for menus, a taskbar, etc., I think that the idea ratio is about 16:10.5.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Cable and Satellite can barely handle HD as it is right now due to bandwidth constraints. Unless this also comes with some miracle new encoding that can give us all this extra picture quality without increasing bitrates at all, it's not going to fly. Internet transfer caps make it totally unsuitable for streaming. Optical media isn't exactly the way of the future.
We're a *long* way off from this being available to home users in any kind of practical way.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
you may have a point.
most people, myself included, complain because 1080 vertical lines of resolution is a regression from where we were headed in the mid-2000s. all of a sudden, circa 2009 or 2010, 1080 vertical lines of resolution was the maximum you could get, no matter what monitor size you purchased, unless you were willing to spend over $1000 on a monitor. It's like every panel manufactuer in existance decided to just quit. all of them were constantly increasing pixel density every few years and then they all quit. just... gave up. either that or moved to smartphones.
This new standard, while laughably high, at least gives me hope that pretty soon pixel densities on standard computer monitors might start going up again. 16x9 ratio monitors might indeed be "ok" if we had double the vertical resolution we have now.
Not useless for everyone, just you.
Even so - there are monitors that pivot from portrait to landscape. 16x9 is great for office work if you rotate it 90 degrees.
Why not rotate your monitor to be portrait rather than landscape?
Get ready to swap your TV's again! Remember it's all good for the economy. That way you can watch re-runs of Friends and Home Improvement in ultra ultra high resolution.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Oh, it was my internet connection screaming in fear of the next video streaming bandwith requirements!
They still make 4:3 (actually 5:4) monitors. It just costs more at the same display size.
Almost anything I deal with would be better viewed in a portrait orientation. Code generally shouldn't exceed 80 columns while having more lines on the screen is a nice thing to have. For ordinary text, centuries of typographic practice established the optimal width of a column of text at around 60 characters, on a narrow strip of a monitor this means either a small font size (and thus eyestrain) or having to scroll every a few lines. There's a reason it's hard to find a paper publication in landscape.
Too bad, while a 4:3 screen can be easily rotated into 3:4 (and is good enough even without rotation), 9:16 would be way over the other edge. That's why you can't buy a 16:9 pivot -- it'd be even more useless than 16:9 landscape is.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
So, why don't they make 1:1 monitors?
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
I'd love to have all these lines just so the CRT video shaders in the future will start to look more convincing simulating vintage computing better preserving a history of analog signals for the rest of us retrofetishists.
Ok, so we have a Full HD standard at the moment which is pretty much the same quality as a better computer monitor from a generic brand. Why are the computer manufacturers lagging so far behind? Ok, Apple has launched their retina displays which do have a really good resolution but where's the rest of the industry? I myself have two laptops and they've both got pretty much the same resolution even though it's been six years between the times I bought them. IT-industry, get your heads out of your asses and start pushing out those really HD monitors already, this includes for both desktops and laptops!
Sorry, 7680x4320 means a 16x9 aspect ratio, and a monitor by that proportion is useless for any actual work.
I don't know about you, but I don't use my TV as a monitor, and I have a separate set of monitors for my computer work.
The problem is only the lack of vertical resolution. The horizontal resolution is almost certainly adequate on a wide-screen monitor. The complaint about aspect ratio is more a complaint about unused screen space. Something that is easily fixed on a wide-screen by displaying two pages side-by-side. Like in an opened book.
Who ordered that?
I want a monitor that has a retinal-locked density at an average viewing distance. ("retina display")
Something with this resolution at such a high DPI would be fantastic for this.
Of course, the price to create such a monitor with such a resolution, and more to the point on new hardware such as OLED, is going to be extremely expensive.
So I guess that won't happen, just big ass wall-screens for the living room / media center.
Games would be fantastic on a display like that.
I think the GP is referring to the fact that once we had a high resolution TV spec, pretty much all panel manufactuers decided that "what's good for TVs is good for computers" and no longer make any higher resolution than 1920x1080 unless you're willing to spend close to $1000 or more.
I see no reason to expect they'll do otherwise in the future, so any future TV resolution spec has immediate implications on future computer monitor resolutions.
This is just what we need!
Instead of developing ultra-hd tv, they should be developing content that is actually worth watching.
Resolution is measured in pixels per inch (or mm), not per square inch
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
You use no windows? On a 7680x4320 screen?
Well, OP didn't actually say which aspect ratio would be preferred, although I'd guess that more vertical real estate is extremely likely as I also find 16:9 to be somewhat awkward for working on. Despite widescreen monitors being commonplace, GUIs and applications still tend to be designed with a 4:3 ratio in mind, with menus and toolbars across the top, which on widescreen displays leaves a letterbox proportioned working area that just looks "wrong" to me. When word processing, even with two pages side by side, that means there's usually far too much space wasted horizontally, and if you prefer to have your documents one above the other then it's even worse. Full screen spreadsheets are more of a mixed bag depending on which direction the data primarily extends to; if you have a large vertically orientated spreadsheet the extra scrolling can soon add up. After that, it gets a little more application specific, depending on the layout of toolbars and so on, but generally I'd go with more vertical space than 16:9 for work every time.
Now for leisure apps, on the otherhand - viewing movies and playing first person perspective games - then the narrower aspect ratios make more sense to me as they provide a more cinematic experience and help cut down on distractions in your peripheral vision respectively. Since this standard is being driven by the cinema and broadcast industries, it's pretty obvious where their priorities are going to lie.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
I do plenty of real work that consists of lines of code/text/numbers and the plots that are generated at the same time. I've got one 16x9 and two 4x3 monitors on the same workstation and the 16x9 gets the most action.
Tv standard
Tv stands
At that resolution, you probably can stream video long enough to get through the credits before reaching capacity on some data plans. (I'm looking at you, AT&T)
Having been a gamer for almost a decade, we often try to push maximum FPS. From what I have read heard and witnessed over time is that the maximum frame rate the human eye can comprehend ranges from 60 to 80 fps (depends on the media and how fast that person’s optic nerve and brain can process the video stream.) I believe this is just a marketing gimmick to lure the less knowledgeable into wasting money.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but if you really care about screen real estate most video cards allow you to rotate your monitor 90 degrees. In fact, you can even buy stands that swivel to make this easier. It may not be a common configuration, but if you want it, you can do it.
The 16:9 aspect ratio is better for multitasking since you can view two windows side by side.
It's usefulness is diminished when using a multi-monitor set up, but the majority of the market uses a single monitor.
The BBC and NHK collaborated to demonstrate this system during the olympics , broadcasting to 3 sites in UK , 2 in US and 2 in Japan.
Further detail See http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2012/08/the-olympics-in-super-hi-visio.shtml
The opening/closing ceremony were broadcast live whereas during the rest of the week a daily hour long highlights package covering the opening ceremony and specific events package was compiled and broadcast on a daily basis.
I was fortunate enough to experience the system at Bradford Museum of the Moving Image on a 15 metre square screen and a couple of megawatts of sound..
With reputedly only 3 cameras in the world camera angles were somewhat limited, the opening ceremony coverage placed you in the heart of the stadium as if you were an audience member showing off the wide field of vision offered. I found the 22 channels of sound to be somewhat overwhelming in volume which I judged to be a bit of a cheap trick to impress. As with initial experience of Hidef the enhanced resolution can lead one to examine detail towards the edge of the field of vision. I was slightly disappointed that there was some blockiness at the edge. This may be due to focussing issues, focus is performed away from the camera.
All in all I found it quite comparable to the Imax experience excepting lack of 3d.
16:9 is great for having windows side by side. And as someone else pointed out, if you prefer to see lots of text at once, why not get a HD display and rotate it 90 degrees? Then you basically have two and a half 1024x768 displays piled on top of each other. Basically a desktop publishing type setup.
which is totally what she said
The fact that real work is done with lots of text
That's funny. My Solidworks models have no text at all on them and the drawings fit perfectly on a widescreen monitor.
WOOOSH
Woot, and excuse to buy a new TV.
If you only had one eye, a 1:1 monitor would make a bit more sense.
But most people have two. An aspect ratio where the horizontal dimension is larger than the vertical dimension makes sense.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
I do real work with text, and a lot of it. I've written an unwholy amount of home assignments, translated about 15 books, maybe more, and I find 16:10 to be a very nice ratio for having two documents (source and output) side by side at all times. I've tried working with 4:3 and it's not really comfortable, so I've had to delegate the 22 inch CRT to secondary screen status.
They still make 4:3 (actually 5:4) monitors. It just costs more at the same display size.
Worse than that it costs more for less pixels of width and the same/less pixels of height to get the traditional aspect ratio monitor.
looking at a computer parts supplier I use frequently
1024x768: not for sale except on very expensive touchscreens.
1366x768: £61.39
1280x1024: £78.76
1920x1080: £64.28
1600x1200: £541.80
1920x1200: £203.28
This is why so many of us end up with 1920x1080 screens, it's not the nicest aspect ratio but it's FAR lower on a price per pixel scale than anything else.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
It seemed like all the manufactures of relatively cheap monitors were standardizing on the less dense HDTV to the detriment of programmers and all others who like lots of screen real estate. Now, hopefully, they will slowly standardize on the new "ultra" density and all will be right with the world.
I do. Why would I not want to be able to use my nice big HDTV to look at webpages from the couch?
PROTIP: This also means you don't need hulu plus, nor the content owner to OK the item for viewing on a TV.
Useless, eh? My 2560x1440 (16:9) and 1920x1200 (16:10) monitors covered in 80x48 character vim and log windows beg leave to differ. Your "actual work" differs from mine, so let's keep the generalisations down, okay?
Incidentally, a 364x106 character terminal window has also occasionally been useful for long-lined log analysis.
Seriously, what is the point, when every "provider" compresses the signal to the point that you already have pixellated TV, with blocky regions of color in "HD".
Consider any scene on TV in a smoke-filled room, where the actors are sitting around a table, and the light shines down from above, a blue spotlight.
Now, back in the days of NTSC, there would be a smooth graduation from the light to dark, a million shades of blue, making the whole thing appear to be smooth and natural.
Under HDTV and signal compression, I can actually count the number of digital graduations between the light and the dark, and each step in graduation has a hard edge, so you can pause the image and see the artifacts.It looks WORSE than Plain Old TV.
So, what is the point? TV isn't going to look better as we increase definition, it's going to look worse. And this is because cable/satellite providers are trying to squeeze in 1000 channels of HD, so we can watch the baking channel in HD, Or see Snooki's nose hair. Really. It's freaking pointless when TV itself is a wasteland.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Agreed, people feel that 1080 pixels of vertical isn't really enough but find it hard to justify spending 3 times as much to go up to 1200 pixels (admittedly they do probablly get a higher quality monitor for that) or 3 times as much again to go up to 1440 pixels.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Now throw out those old TVs in crappy old 3D HD and buy NEW TVs in UltraHD!! And now that cable companies have started giving out HD programming for free, rather than charge extra they get the option to charge for UltraHD content instead. Great for everyone!
Oh, and if you sit at home and look at your TV screen with a microscope, I guess you can see a little more detail now.
Try rotating the screen of your laptop and still use the keyboard.
Didn't you get the memo that said that more laptps were sold last year then desktops?
disclaimer.
I have two dell 1920x1200 monitors both rotated 90deg in a custom housing on my desktop. 2400x1920 is very useful indeed.(5:4 ratio)
anthing long and thin is next to useless for proper IT work especially those apologies for displays that are used in many laptops these days (1466x768)
That's still much more superior than having to stack a 2x3 monitors or even larger clusters to get the screen res/space.
I like to have two or three terminal windows displayed side-by-side. Wider monitors help with that.
And most pdf readers have a zoom function, change the zoom until you see the whole page at once. I'm not sure how the unused space makes the monitor USELESS.
All my real work (like this post) is done sitting on the John.
Once upon a time (ca. 1989-1990), they did. NCD (Network Computing Devices) made a series of X Terminals based on both the 68000 and some of the early MIPS CPUs. One model (the NCD16) featured a 16" square monochrome CRT, at 1024x1024 resolution, and a 1:1 aspect ratio. The Computer History Museum also has an NCD16 in its collection.
Depends what you do, sheesh. Not everyone uses a computer the same way you do. I spend a big chunk of my time with spreadsheets and page layout in Adobe InDesign, and a wide monitor is exactly what suits me.
You use no windows? On a 7680x4320 screen?
Must be running Windows 8 / GNOME 3.
Just like Gillette keeps adding blades. Mach 12 microwave-beam powered razor with gene-therapy enabled goo strips anyone?
Thankfully there are alternatives. I ordered a Yamakasi Catleap off of eBay for $320, shipped from Korea. Arrived within a week with no dead or stuck pixels.
Earlier slashdot coverage.
The fact that real work is done with lots of text, and text goes from top to bottom far more frequently then scales off endlessly to the right?
When you get to a vaguely reasonable size of screen, text *doesn't* generally just go from top to bottom - it is usually arranged into many blocks, such as overlapping windows. Reading lines of text that stretch all the way from one side of a 21" monitor to the other is *hard*, even on a 4:3 screen, and this is exactly why broadsheet newspapers arrange text into columns.
Personally, for most of my work I find large wide screen monitors are nicer to work with than large 4:3 monitors.
With a widescreen monitor, you can also get 2 A4 pages side by side, but if you need to deal with strict top-to-bottom text then you can always rotate it to portrait orientation, in which case high aspect ratio screens are certainly much better than the old square ones.
We have these stupidly huge 16:9 monitors today that can't even display one page of a PDF without scrolling and yet 2/3 of the screen is sitting empty. It's a terrible aspect ratio for computers.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
On the plus side
* DVD resolution movies are clear.
* DVD hardware should become cheaper.
* DVD media should become cheaper.
* Higher resolution will force larger bandwidth for video, disk and networking. That is a win for everyone.
* Computer monitors will finally start increasing vertical resolution again. I miss the 1900x1440 and x1600 monitors from 2005.
Broadcast HD is a little nicer, but it isn't worth $50 more. I'm torn about ATSC OTA. There are many more OTA channels, but they are becoming like early cableTV - more crap. Locally, 50% are religious, so I think the bar is much too low to get a TV license.
In this house, we don't want to spend money on DRM in hardware. We simply will not support DRM from companies. When breaking Bluray DRM is as easy and free as DVD DRM, that's when we'll consider buying a device. Not before.
I remember when local news went HD, boy did the make up crews suddenly change tactics. A lot of TV personalities, if not people in general, look great at lower resolutions, but HD hides nothing.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
That's why you can't buy a 16:9 pivot -- it'd be even more useless than 16:9 landscape is.
Really, I am typing this on a really nice Dell 16:9 pivoted to 9x16. In fact I have two of them side by side works great for my 50+ year old eyes. No need for reading glasses when I am working on the computer. An I can pivot them back when designing networks in Visio.
Nobody remembers seeing CSPAN with all those small government Republicans arguing for the HD transition and how it would boost the economy by making everybody buy new TVs. Then the Dems complaining poor people wouldn't be able to ruin their lives watching TV anymore.
HD standard was stupid too. They could have waited and timed it with mpeg 4 instead of the larger mpeg 2. At least then we'd be using H.263 for broadcast and they could send better error correction because digital error losses are MUCH WORSE than the tiny bit of static analog had. Actually, I've watched things where half the signal was probably lost to static and it still worked well enough - in analog. The format lacks proper audio track support. Don't get me started on the idiotic ratings system - in digital you should be able to bleep and blur out things frame by frame with additional data tracks. A whole industry could be created to provide such services to people privately.
We had to rush in HD because the big media were fearful internet TV would take over and the only thing they had going for them was resolution and their bandwidth advantage. NO! Don't use MP4 we are developing cable boxes to do that! NO! Don't send out a useful TV program guide then we can't sell them program listings. NO! Don't specify a fully universal standard so we can have cable-ready TVs (as usual, it'll be decades before the FCC makes cable signals standard.) The only BIG fight was about the silly broadcast copyright flag because: NO! don't allow modern replacements for VCRs (which the industry tried to kill as well. they delayed TVRs in the USA for years.) Netflix rose to power on demand not because of HD -- if the HD standard was delayed internet TV would be bigger now... and TVs now are getting "smart" we might have had a huge leap forward if we had waited instead of adopting it early. Broadcast TV might be dead (I wish) and instead we may have had that bandwidth used for true broadcast internet protocols - so then you can stream more than just crap local TV over that bandwidth... there are so many game changing things that could be done with that huge amount of premium bandwidth and it could have been retained by the FCC with companies paying for temporary data packet transmission instead of near-permanent frequency monopolies. In MOST areas of the USA the TV bandwidth goes unused - it could be giving us true cell phone broadband.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Compression and bandwidth usage aren't addressed yet, TFA says, but you can bet the latter will be significant. About what was freed up converting from analog to digital in the first place, prolly. Broadcasters are going to be scrambling to beg, borrow, or steal spectrum to do UHDTV, and competing with the Cable Guy, the MAFIAA, and Deathstar redux to see who can lock up the most public domain. Gee, who'da thunk it. I smell a 30-year plan or two in there somewhere, anyway.
Maybe this has something to with the sudden interest in giving DHS an override on your WiFi router? They're going to shuffle Public Safety and/or utilities over to the unlicensed GSM bands?
May be time for public-spirited wireless hackers to start liasing with local law enforcement, if you catch my drift. When they're not building out mesh networks, inter-city links, and peering backhaul.
I bought a similar model (Matrix Neo 2560x1440 IPS 27")
When the vendor says "not compatible with laptops", they're not kidding. I couldn't get it to work with my laptop with an nvidia Quattro 1000M card, even though the card supports the required resolution, even though I was using an ACTIVE DisplayPort to DUAL link DVI adapter. The computer just wouldn't detect the display. It worked fine with my personal laptop which has a real dual link DVI port, though.
In the end I just hooked the thing up to my secondary computer (a desktop with a real DVI port). It's a bloody good screen, but I wish I could use it with my preferred computer.
It's the only monitor I've used where I haven't wanted a second panel to accompany it. Maybe there is, eventually, such a thing as enough desktop space? I'm sure this is only a temporary state. :)
TV?
...
Isn't that what old people used to watch CBS on before hulu/netflix/amazon/youtube/bittorrent/hbo to go/showtime anytime/Oprah24
By the time this standard is implemented, we'll all be streaming video directly into our eyeballs from our iPhone Vs while riding around in our self-driving google cars. Who cares what format the data is in when you're just going to slap it in one of a dozen windows and project it on the back of the seat in front of you?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Ever since TV and computer displays became essentially the same thing, the consumer market has dominated.
Recall, if you will, all the build-up to the "Grand Alliance" that gave us today's ATSC (HDTV) standard. There was politicing on Analog vs. Digital (kind of a no-brainer), on RF modulation (we lost out on that one, here, 8VSB was selected due to Qualcomm lobbying and the fact it interfered less with existing NTSC broadcasts... now that those broadcasts are gone, we still have the problem that the signal isn't worth a damn indoors). And on display resolution.
Hollywood, Inc. wanted a 2:1 aspect ration. The computer industry, savvy enough to understand the impact of millions of consumer displays at higher-than-existing PC resolutions, wanted something more boxy. 16:9 was the compromise widescreen aspect ratio.
The PC industry, naturally, went full steam ahead... at 16:10. Silly PC industry. This lasted for awhile, but ultimately, with all those consumer LCD panels out there, most cried "Uncle" and went 16:9. I have dual 1920x1200 16:10 monitors at home, though I see an upgrade to 2560x1440 in the very near future. At work, they've been 16:9 (dual) for my current and previous job. Hardly useless for real work (and that's more Electronics CAD than video these days, though I did EE-CAD, embedded software, web servers, photography, and video at my last job), and the difference is, if anything, more significant for video work (16:9 monitors don't leave any room for controls on the full-screen video panel, 'cept as an overlay) than "real" work like designing circuitry.
-Dave Haynie
This is also ignoring just how cheap those 16:9 screens are, compared with what you paid for a 4:3 CRT 15 years ago. They are able to be so cheap partly due to cheaper components, but also due to volume. If a monitor can work as both a TV and a computer display, that greatly expands its possible market, which means the manufacturer can sell more and defray more startup costs per unit. That translates into a lower price at the point of sale.
This is also why resolutions of more than 1080 lines cost more: there is simply a smaller market for them, and the fixed startup costs have to be paid over fewer units sold, otherwise no one could afford to make them.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
I have no problem working on 16:9 displays. If anything, it makes me work better since I can have more stuff visible at once.
HP ZR2740w, 27" 2560*1440 with integrated 90 degree swivel, ~$700, it's an LED backlit IPS panel.
That's way less than the 2,304 x 1,440 Sony GDM-FW900 we bought back in 2002 for one of our graphics people and I can guarantee you it's lighter! (that beast was 108 lbs)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I have a monitor that does that (NEC MultiSync E222W). Got it specifically because I wanted to try pivoting it as you suggested. The problem I have when I rotate it is the viewing angle and non-uniform brightness. Without boosting its height even more than it already is (7" or so off my desk) and making it much more uneven from my laptop screen, I don't see how I can fix it. And my laptop is already elevated the same amount, so not much chance of getting even higher there.
Ignoring the non-uniform brightness and viewing angle issues, it's substantially more mouse movement with a screen pivoted. Yes, I suppose I can install some 3rd party software, but most of my work is spent remoting into servers and I can't set them up so they only work well in my environment.
tl;dr: Pivoted monitors sounds like a great idea, but not suitable for my usage pattern.
Nothing. A 1920x1200 monitor is better than a 1600x1200 monitor. Period. If you can't see a full page, your monitor is too low-resolution. Or your eyes are.
-Dave Haynie
I have this monitor http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/e222w-bk , which is 16:10, and pivoted it's not a good experience for me. I commented elsewhere, so not to repeat myself let's just say a 4:3 pivot would be superior for me.
You have discovered that laptops are useless for real work, not 16:9 displays. But as Windows 8 demonstrates, at least Microsoft believes that no one's doing real work, anyway.
If you absolutely must edit a document full-page and full-screen, a tilting monitor has always been the correct solution, going way back to the 4:3 days. For most real work, any given text document is going to be just one of any number of documents open at once (at this moment, I have OpenOffice Writer open on a document I'm reading, two web browsers with about five separate windows, a CAD program (Altium), Microsoft Access, a couple datasheets in Acrobat, a calculator, and a notes windows, open at the same time. I'd be happy with more height and more width, or more resolution, sure... room for even more stuff. But I have never found 16:9 to be inferior in this to 4:3.
-Dave Haynie
Can we beat Apple to the punch and call this the pupil display or something equally retarded?
The 1920x1080 is using a television panel... the mass market makes that cheap. It's naturally the user's choice -- the unification with digital TV only added the options, it didn't eliminate any. And it drove down the prices on all monitors, even the higher end specialty type have dropped.
-Dave Haynie
> Sorry, 7680x4320 means a 16x9 aspect ratio, and a monitor by that proportion is useless for any actual work.
1950 called. They want their curmudgeon back.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Windows 8's "new style" apps don't. So it's easy to imagine Microsoft deciding for us desktop users that programs on a 7680x4320 panel should also be full screen, just to make sure we don't get confused about the difference between that view and that of a 3.5", 800x600 smartphone screen. That'll be Windows 9 that phases out the "classic" windowed Windows. And Windows 10 that's sold, fire-sale style, to Oracle or IBM or someone looking to get into the OS business, as Microsoft goes down in flames. Or not... but it sure would feel good.
-Dave Haynie
That mentality is basically assuming that you're treating your PC in 2012 as if it were an IBM 5150 in 1982.
There's this thing called windowing now.
Ironically they used to have these things called "full page monitors". If you were to put one of those on it's side, it would look suspiciously like a modern TV.
A 4:3 screen doesn't make any more sense for "just text" either.
It's just what you are used to and you are old and unable to adapt and are making up lame excuses for you own failings.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Doing real work, when I switched over to LCD five years ago, I could save the cost of both monitors in about two years of power saving, versus my fairly huge 19" CRTs... that's 8+ hours a day use, and yeah, it was my home office, so I was actually paying that bill. You might check the relative power consumption (and note, LCD-backlit monitors of today use less power than the CFL-sidelit LCDs of a few year ago) versus that big 22incher.
-Dave Haynie
1080 lines is actually ideal for consumers. 1080p video displays perfectly without borders, including games consoles and YouTube videos. High volume pushed price down and most people don't need more than 1080 vertical pixels on anything up to a 24" monitor. Okay, it isn't a "retina" display, but subpixel rendering makes fonts look good and highly readable. Plus until Windows 7 came along DPI scaling wasn't that good in the most common OS.
There just wasn't much reason to go high, and apart from what is mostly marketing hype there still isn't. Even pro photographers don't care much because it is the content of the image and things like the exposure and colour balance they are mostly interested in, not individual pixels. Even for medical applications a doctor is more likely to just zoom in on the area of interest rather than press his face against the monitor or hold a magnifying glass up to it. Personally I would love more, but I realize I'm asking for something very specialist.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
That's why you can't buy a 16:9 pivot -- it'd be even more useless than 16:9 landscape is.
Apparently, I don't have the same restrictions you suggest. Took me five seconds to find one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260054
The tall tower needed is probably one reason these aren't more popular, but it wouldn't be difficult to built a more robust swing mechanism that lifted and swung at the same time.
-Dave Haynie
If you only had one eye, a 1:1 monitor would make a bit more sense.
They should make those. Surely there's a marrrrket for monitors specially made for pirates.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
> Sorry, 7680x4320 means a 16x9 aspect ratio, and a monitor by that proportion is useless for any actual work.
1950 called. They want their curmudgeon back.
If I was 1950 I think I'd rather have the monitor. And a computer and cables to go with it. You can keep the curmudgeon.
The fact that everyone makes 1920x1080 now brings down the price for everyone. There are some alternatives if you want higher resolution -- however they are more expensive because of lack of demand. I'd prefer a higher resolution monitor, but I'm happy enough with 1920x1080 that I don't want to spend the extra money for higher resolution.
Yes, different timings... 1920x1080/60p for video, 1920x1080/60p for computers, if you're talking about typical rates sent to LCD monitors. That's precisely why computer and television displays are unified. Sure, you can buy a "television" with a video processor to accept legacy video formats, and I have a set of computer monitors at home that also accept those. But being a digital display, there is one correct single resolution and rate for each monitor. And using a modern interface, DVI, HDMI, or DisplayPort, the monitor tells the video card what it wants, and that's what it gets. In some cases, there's a negotiation... I can still plug a 2560x1440 digital monitor into a Blu-ray player, but they'll agree on 1920x1080, and the monitor will convert. But usually, these days, the PCs and TVs are sending the same signal, identical timings.
-Dave Haynie
I have read about these off and on for a few years, but a few years ago they said this standard wasn't really taking root because at these resolutions people were experiencing motion sickness when viewing the images. I wonder if they have been able to do anything to alleviate that in the newer televisions or if that is still going to be an issue.
Not useless for everyone, just you.
Useless for work. Widescreen format is good for games and movies and not much else.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You can easily get 16:10 1920x1200 monitors for a fraction of that price, e.g. this Samsung one. That site alone lists 14 models with that resolution.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
1920x1200 has always been available. Still is. And while maybe a bit more pricey than 1920 x 1080, not outrageous. Here's the result of a 7sec search:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176346
Now, keep in mind where HD monitors came from. About 5-6 years ago, the first 1920x1200 monitors hit, and they ran in the $600 range. I bought my two 24" monitors around five years ago, thanks to a fairly unprecedented sale at NewEgg, so I could nab two Westinghouse 24" 1920x1200 MVA panel monitors for about $400 each.
The price floor dropped out because of the influx of cheap TV-type 1920x1080 panels. And yes, this may have driven the 1920x1200 panels back up a bit, but they've always been available, and far short of a grand.
-Dave Haynie
This is also ignoring just how cheap those 16:9 screens are, compared with what you paid for a 4:3 CRT 15 years ago.
How cheap that 16:9 monitor is is irrelevant when that 15 year old 4:3 CRT is a sunk cost and still provides more horizontal resolution than the widescreen. You can go down to Goodwill today and buy a CRT with better resolution than "HD" for less than $5. That's fucking ridiculous.
This is also why resolutions of more than 1080 lines cost more: there is simply a smaller market for them
If we standardized on HDTV resolutions with 1600 lines, there would be just as much demand for them as there are 1080 lines. Then everyone would benefit from the economies of scale.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I wish this myth would die already.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
We have these stupidly huge 16:9 monitors today that can't even display one page of a PDF without scrolling and yet 2/3 of the screen is sitting empty. It's a terrible aspect ratio for computers.
Get a rotating screen.
I often have a browser and a few xterms open on a landscape screen, and email/code/PDF open on my portrait screen. Best of both worlds for particular tasks.
Oh, please. Do you really need to run every app full screen? Are you not using an OS that has resizable windows? While you're complaining about that PDF I have other windows sitting next to it that mean less time lost to hunting around for where files need to end up. I've had a *much* easier time with this since 4:3 went away. Your metric for 'usefulness' is absurd with modern desktop interfaces.
And yes, I do real work.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
This is from Japan you guys. I was betting on a tentacle-related comment within the first three top-level comments. Thanks for losing me twenty bucks.
Just sharing the love, as I have been looking for a decent high-resolution monitor, without paying out the nose -
After spending many hours on the web researching this —apparently importing gray-market Korean IPS monitors are the rage for those in-the-know (check out: http://www.overclock.net/t/1215866/reviewed-400-2560x1440-ips-no-ag-90hz-achieva-shimian-qh270-and-catleap-q270)
Commenters from that thread also recommended this monitor: http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0384780
I just ordered and received mine from Microcenter ($400+ a bit of shipping). It's great —27", 2560x1440, great color. Barebones, but works great when attached with a DisplayPort cable (ordered from Monoprice of course).
Hope it helps someone else.
Best regards,
J
I do quite a bit of real work in IDEs that cram lots of stuff on the left and right side of the text editor. High resolution wide screen monitors are great for real work. What real work are you talking about? Looking at webpages from the 90s?
And I just bought my first new TV in 15 years...55" 1080p.
I knew I should have waited longer!
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Who the heck is ITU and what makes them think they have the authority to approve something?
I already approved Super High Definition.
1920x1200 has always been available. Still is.
Try finding that resolution on a laptop display. I've got a laptop with 1200 lines on it now, and I am spoiled. The 1080 is only 120 lines less, but it is noticable for what I do (embedded programming). Hopefully they start pushing out 17" 1440 or 1800 line laptop displays. I think at that point, any more resolution would be pointless.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
.... stupidly huge 16:9 monitors today that can't even display one page of a PDF without scrolling....
The aspect ratio is actually a symptom of the problem. These monitors are garbage because they have about 900 effective vertical pixels (after your stupid windowing system uses up the top and bottom) which isn't enough. Basically you need about 1000px vertical to have a readable A4 document. Anything more than that you just put into smoother / more beautiful representation. These new resolutions will be great because you will be able to put multiple whole A4 vertical pages beside each other.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
It's not even good for games. Game dev houses would prefer a squarer format.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
As a software developer, I have to disagree.
I love the wide screens. I assume by 'real work' you mean you edit 1 pdf at a time, otherwise you complaint is just whiny GOMLism.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's not the prevailing trend for most people, at least in the US. It is one that younger kids do...those likely starting out and no real job with disposible income.
But for those of us with established jobs, purchased homes...and even families, there is no move away from dedicated TV.
I don't know anyone that has any kind of real income, that sits in front of a computer desk watching their content on a crappy monitor.
Most people over the age of 30...are buying real tvs....I don't see that changing for awhile. Sure, they may stream a lot of stuff to them....but the central item in most living rooms in the US is a dedicated TV.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I've got a Dell U2711 at home...and it is GREAT. I'd highly recommend it...and if you shop around, you can get it for sub $900. I think I got mine at amazon.
I hear Samsung has recently come out with a good one too, but I've not researched it much.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I've written an unwholy amount of home assignments
Maybe if your screen was a different ratio you would have finished them?
Free Martian Whores!
I don't give a fuck about this. Good movie experience originates mostly from good sound quality. DVD and Bluray have already achieved this. Only reason they are pushing this crap to the consumer is because it will require newer hardware, so every stupid retard american will upgrade his equipment. Studios can make money by selling movies you already have on DVD, on those new, expensive Rontgen-ray disks (let's pretend there will be "decent" anti-piracy laws by then which censor the entire fucking shitload of interwebz). Existing Bluray players become e-waste. But everybody is happy cause they got the latest shit. GOD BLESS THE ECONOMY.
What would you want a dedicated TV for? Neither me nor any of my friends (excluding older generation -- I'm 34) even owns a TV. It's also been years since I last watched a movie that didn't make me want the time back, so I simply stopped. Some of my friends still download and watch some series, but that's what, an hour or two per week.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Actually, I find my widescreen monitor to be quite useful for actual work. You never wanted to examine code side by side?
Perhaps a more useful format like HTML so it can reflow as needed?
You can look at code side by side, or see the code on one side and the output on the other. If you do network monitoring, you can fit extra gauges on a widescreen. The list goes on. If you don't have a use for widescreen, turn it 90 degrees and enjoy a nice tall portrait monitor, perfect for documents.
That's just great that neither you nor any of your two friends have a TV. You represent a very, very small subset of the population. An extremely large portion of the population still want/need TV's, and it's going to be that way for a long time. Quit trying to act like TV's are somehow stupid and outdated. kthxl8r
Pivot monitors area privilege for office environments and home consumers do not get them "standard" with their purchases. Let's illustrate: When normal determined buyers go into a cellphone store and see 19 "Android" phones and 1 "Windows 7" phone, the store has 3 outcomes:
1) Customer Buys the Windows phone. Normally from an informed decision.
2) Customer Buys Android and Misses the Windows phone altogether due to lower statistical chance (5% in a perfect world). Note that the Customer may have preferred Windows and bought it if he had noticed it, putting him in outcome #1.
3) Customer Buys the Android phone because it feels like the "normal" thing to do -- 19 other phones can't be wrong, and the odd one out is probably a lemon because it's not an iPhone.
You'll notice this analogy leaves little reason for the small and mid-size store owners to even stock that 5% chance phone that is a rare choice when they can store another phone with a higher acclaimed phone.
Well said. I have the same setup - dual 1920x1200 16:10 monitors and can't imagine doing my job on 16:9 screens. My corporate laptop is also 16:10 1680x1050. I can't stand my wife's 16:9 laptop.
Bottom line is you just have to pay more to get the "proper" resolution.
"No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
Wait a year or three for the Macbook retina display copy cats. One year to work out research, contracts, marketing and push out a few lemons (think of the whole non-existent $500 tablet market as soon as the iPad came out). Then another year for real options to pop up (Samsung Galaxy tabs in my analogy). Finally, one more year for price points to become reasonable.
Not "Cable Only" but "Cables only". The current over the air HDTV broadcast has a compressed bandwidth (both Reed-Soloman and Trellis Encoding), of 32 Megabits per second (with forward error correction). Broadcasting over the air is really not any different than pushing it over a cable. The 32 Mb/s consumes a bandwidth of 6 MegaHertz. Assuming no higher lossless compression rates available (and really, why bother using lossy compression if you are trying for higher definition - there is not point in bothering), then you will need 16 times the bandwidth (either RF bandwidth or bandwidth over a cable line). So 16*6=96 MegaHertz of bandwidth to handle 512 Megabits per second. My DSL router won't do that. I don't think a cable modem will do that. My biggest TV is 24 inch. HDTV still looks good on a 42 inch tv. How big would the TV have to be to get the big picture: 168 inches? A "TV" that big isn't a TV, it's a theatre screen. Also, 'more colors', does that mean subdividing the colors we currently have, or does it mean actually increasing the color gamut?
There was much bitching on twitter about the broadcast of the Olympics a) not in real time, and b) not streaming. The VAST majority of consumers didn't care. This was the most watched Olympics ever. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2012/olympic-viewing-figs.html) and (http://informitv.com/news/2012/08/20/olympicsproducerecord/). These viewers watch TV.
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you are shorter of breath and one day closer to death
Recall, if you will, all the build-up to the "Grand Alliance" that gave us today's ATSC (HDTV) standard. There was politicing on ...
Not to mention that the consumer electronic people insisted on interlaced resolutions (1080i), that were practically obsolete by the time HDTV actually rolled out to the mass market.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Really? At small sizes perhaps, but I've been quite happy with my 40" monitor for a while now - it allows multiple simultaneously open windows side by side (or one over the other, or...) like having a seamless multi-monitor setup. And a higher resolution would be much appreciated. I'd still prefer a 16x10 aspect ratio though, if only because I think the ancients were right about the aesthetic appeal of the golden ratio - it occurs everywhere in nature and we've had a few (hundred) million years to learn to appreciate it.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I once heard we moved to 16:9 because it is closer to the golden ratio (1.618..). This ratio pops up everywhere where beauty and aesthetics are concerned.
If it is true then it makes sense that the movie industry opted for 16:10, which is even closer to the ratio.
Please login to access my lawn
I use a 27" widescreen computer LCD as my TV. I find that 480p is more than enough, I'm watching movies and TV shows here, I'm not trying to read fonts in 8px size.
As a bonus, my ethernet needs are low, my storage needs are also low (about 550 MB average for a movie in H.264).
Don't enter the upgrade race. Once your needs are satisfied, let the others waste money to keep themselves in the rat race.
>Japan's public broadcasting station, and another at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Both spoke on condition of anonymity.
It's not a standard if you keep it a secret.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Maybe it's due to space restraints but the concept of a dedicated TV room is over here quite rare.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Make sure you order a properly conditioned cable or you won't get the right warmth or depth from the monitor.
If vertical space is important, why not just get a 2560x1600 30" screen?
At 40'' and with multiple windows, you effectively have a multi-monitor setup (in one piece of hardware), where the aspect ratio of individual screens doesn't matter.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I hate them. Most of the time I would like to see more lines of code, and all the whitespace off to the side is useless. Okay, maybe a bit better for side-by-side comparisons, but in that situation they aren't quite wide enough. You can rotate them, but once again you end up with something that's not wide enough, and the cheap TN look terrible rotated anyway (and I can't control what I get issued at work - the screens are the cheapest crap they could find and they don't rotate anyway so the point is moot). Maybe if when they went widescreen they really went wide so you could get replace dual 4:3 screens with one screen and not lose resolution then I would have been okay with it. But instead we ended up with this awkward, useless screen ratio that's not quite wide enough on its own, completely ridiculous in a dual monitor configuration, and the vertical resolution still sucks.
Buy one of these:
http://www.amazon.com/SIIG-swivel-rotate-Monitor-CE-MT0M11-S1/dp/B004UBU3P2/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1345780015&sr=8-6&keywords=monitor+rotate
It'll solve so many problems you won't have words for it.
That was the thing that struck me too. I don't watch TV at all, period, so I don't personally care what they do in that regard. But like you I've watched the resolution of monitors and laptops regress over the past few years. When I bought my last Thinkpad it was hard enough finding a machine without a glossy screen-- to find one with decent resolution (and not pay a thousand-dollar premium) was impossible. If this leads to better monitors then I'm all for it.
That was exactly my point - do you really think anyone would be using a 7680x4320 resolution at 15" or 20" sizes? Even at 40" you'd be approaching the limits of the human visual system at arms length, and probably be beyond the point of distinguishing individual pixels.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Computer monitors, at least the cheap ones, are build from television pieces. So any news related to new TV formats directly impacts the kind of computer monitors that are going to be built. All of them. After all, you're not likely to be able to sell many 2560x1400 monitors for $1500 when TV panels deliver 3840x2160 for $250.
-Dave Haynie
Well, the original specs permitted both 1080/60i and 1080/24p... but maintaining the logical ability to do interlaced video was really about about bandwidth. Kind of a shame... if they had based it all on AVC rather than MPEG-2, a higher 1080p format would have been possible. On the other hand, the broadcasters had enough trouble dealing with two format options... they really didn't need more to consumer them :-)
It's also telling that it was only the very first generation of HDTV, those CRT/CRT-projector based models, that actually did 1080i. Digital displays came into their own right pretty much in the second generation of HDTV (once you could swap a YPrPb input for HDMI or other digital interfaces), and the various digital displays can't actually display an interlaced video stream -- it's all upscaled to 1080p anyway.
-Dave Haynie
Oh, please. Do you really need to run every app full screen? Are you not using an OS that has resizable windows?
Hey, that's not such a silly question. It seems that the folks in charge of Microsoft, Apple, and even Canonical these days are trying in various ways to do just that: release operating systems that don't support Windows. In "Windows" 8, Microsoft is calling the existing stuff "Legacy" or "Classic", and their new "Don't-Call-It-Metro" APIs and UI is now "Windows 8 Style Application". And they don't Window -- run it on that 8K screen, it's still a full screen application. Stupid, amazingly stupid. But not really a moot question, with this de-evolution in the works, and not just one place, but with multiple outbreaks throughout the industry.
Otherwise, I completely agree with your assertion... my PDFs or other "traditional" documents can go top to bottom, with plenty of room to reading, and plenty of space for other windows at the same time. Given that I have over 30 open at the moment, this is very much an increase in productivity over the single-window display.
-Dave Haynie
Because a 59" plasma screen doesn't fit that well on my desk back in the office....and I tend to have friends over to watch things like college football...parties...you know? Sometimes the wives want to watch that while the guys are over playing my pinball and arcade machine...etc...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
LOl...well, that was the top of my budget for a computer monitor at the time....saving to get a 2nd one....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
A laptop is my last choice for a real work PC anyway (CAD, embedded software, video, photography, etc). Guess they're not terrible for web browsing, but I can't imagine anyone getting real work done on a single 17" screen. That's far more limiting than a difference in 120 lines. I do have a single 24" monitor in my home lab, due to size constraints, but it's not far from my main desktop and 2-3 screens (the third is mostly just for video work).
But I do think the "retina on a PC" meme is coming. After all, my cellphone's 4.6" screen is 1280x720... why limit a 17" screen to only 1920x1080? It is also correct, though, that operating systems need better scaling/sizing options to deal with more of a disjoint between screen resolution and viewing size than we currently have, before this really works well. Even Apple's "retina" MacBook is kind of a kludge, software-wise.
-Dave Haynie
Given that the same folks who built the display for Apple (Samsung, LG) are perfectly willing to sell similar displays to anyone else, I don't imagine it'll take a year. Falling prices, sure, the main reason companies will jump on this is the promise of higher margins. But at least there's a chance of falling prices -- the Mac version is going to always be way overpriced.
And ironically, just as laptops are getting a long-needed boost in resolution, Windows 8 is coming along and expecting everyone to run everything fullscreen, pretty much erasing any advantage. Well, hopefully, no vendors of "real" applications jump on that bandwagon to hell, and things get fixed in Windows 9.
-Dave Haynie
It's all relative... the 2560x1440 IPS monitor I just bought cost $100 less than either of my 1920x1200 MVA monitors from ~6 years ago. That's the positive effect of the TV-PC merger... you may not want a base level, TN-LCD at 1920x1080, but the fact of those monitors being so cheap (well under $200 if you shop around) drags the whole industry down in price.
-Dave Haynie
I felt the same way until I realized how much time I spend looking at my computer screen and realized $1,000 isn't all that much.
I don't really need to see TV in any higher resolution. Really it's just an incremental spec bump so Sony can release a new TV that everyone is supposed to buy, then they can release a new media standard which everyone is supposed to buy, then Sony makes a gobfuck of money and I die a little bit more inside.