Toshiba's New 6.1" Display Packs 2560×1600 pixels

[watcha]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]You see many 40" TVs used as monitors?[/citation]

Did you completely miss the point? The original comment asking why there aren't more 40" displays with better than 1080p is talking about MONITORS. You then ranted on about there not being videos available at that resolution. The post who replied to you explained that graphic designers don't care about playing videos on their workstation, they care about high resolution graphic design. You then reply by talking about 40 inch tv's?

Come on, kid. Sort it out.

 

[watcha]

(and if you DID get it, then your logic is completely failed. The reason you don't see 40" TV's being used as monitors is BECAUSE they don't have high enough resolution)

 

[Guest]

@Device Unknown

@ 3 x 42 your going be sitting a fair distance away from your screens, tell me again that you'll notice all those extra pixels at that distance........

 

[Guest]

@watcha

you do realize the distance you'll need to sit at to comfortable utilize a 40" monitor almost certainly negates the extra pixels fidelity

 

[jwcalla]

[citation][nom]reallyyou[/nom]I'd still be holding off for TRIM support, even in the enterprise market...thanks.[/citation]

wtf

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]cmartin011[/nom]i was thinkin 1080 should be more than enough for handle held devices, anything higher in res should be a stationary monitor. wonder what the response and refresh is on that bad boy[/citation]

actually anything over 300dpi is over kill, regardless of resolution in mobile devices, as its around the limit of the human eyes ability to see detail at XX inches. the number escapes me.

[citation][nom]edvinasm[/nom]1080p is enough for viewing and understanding picture alright. but take a 4K2K 24" display and you will be amazed how much more every picture and movie (if any at that rez) would look like. it's not about giving enough detail anymore, it's how close to the real view it gets.[/citation]

4k at 24" is 186.34 PPI
1080p at 24" is 91.79 PPI

Viewing Distance (inches) - Resolution ppi
6 1145
10 687
24 286
36 191
60 115
120 57
600 11

i sit normaly about 24 inches from the computer screen comfortably recline to 48 inches when i am reading something, and closer to 90 inches when i lay in my bed and watch a movie.

for me a 24 inch 4k monitor wouldn't bennifit me at all, however, 1080p... so much more. the only reason that we use 4k and higher for movies is because they get blasted onto 100 foot screens, for me, 4k wouldn't even be beneficial until i get to an 80 inch screen.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]DistanceFromScreen[/nom]@watchayou do realize the distance you'll need to sit at to comfortable utilize a 40" monitor almost certainly negates the extra pixels fidelity[/citation]

You only need to sit further back because the resolution is poor.

I have 2 x 30 inch Dell monitors, if they were joined into one 60 inch monitor I wouldn't have to sit further back.

The only reason I don't use my HD television as a monitor is because it doesn't have the same quality. If it did, I would.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]You only need to sit further back because the resolution is poor.I have 2 x 30 inch Dell monitors, if they were joined into one 60 inch monitor I wouldn't have to sit further back. The only reason I don't use my HD television as a monitor is because it doesn't have the same quality. If it did, I would.[/citation]
Alright, back to being sensible as confrontation is just wrong and escalation only upsets everyone.
The reason why more displays aren't made with resolutions above standard 1080p is cost, although there is a market for it amongst graphic designers and a few high-end gamers the market penetration is so low that there is no volume production and costs astronomical.
When, and only when, the supply on higher than 1080p resolution panels enters into the standard consumer market for TVs will the volume of production increase and costs fall.
Law of supply & demand 101.

 

[d_kuhn]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]actually anything over 300dpi is over kill, regardless of resolution in mobile devices, as its around the limit of the human eyes ability to see detail at XX inches. the number escapes me.[/citation]

300dpi is about 80 microns per pixel... take a human hair and hold it out, it's about 80 microns in diameter and you'll find you can see it at an impressive distance depending on lighting. My hair is about 50microns (fine) and on a light background I can see it well beyond arms length. A year ago I would have been one of the people who said "it probably doesn't matter that much" but then I got a device with a retina display and I'm a believer now... the display has a HUGE impact on the visual appeal of the device, as well as the usability.

 

[BulkZerker]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Alright, back to being sensible as confrontation is just wrong and escalation only upsets everyone.The reason why more displays aren't made with resolutions above standard 1080p is cost, although there is a market for it amongst graphic designers and a few high-end gamers the market penetration is so low that there is no volume production and costs astronomical.When, and only when, the supply on higher than 1080p resolution panels enters into the standard consumer market for TVs will the volume of production increase and costs fall.Law of supply & demand 101.[/citation]


And lets not forget all the /b tards that think 1080p is the resolution 360 and PS3 plays games at.

Also wasn't it just 4 years ago that a 720p plasma monitor made you a "big dog" anyway? Considering that I think another jump up in monitor resolution for the "everyman" would just put people off even more. We've had 3 standard changes in the past decade, for TVs (and explaining to people that TVs and computer monitors is like trying to explain the difference between a chicken and duck egg to them) and you expect people to go out and buy an even higher resolution display right after they plunked down the half grand for a 3D display? Your out of your mind!

 

[dark_lord69]

Wouldn't you need a magnifying glass to see the detail though?

 

[Guest]

@watcha

actually no, you have to sit further back to be able to see the whole screen comfortably without having to excessively tilt your head up/down/left/right nothing to do with the resolution fidelity

and erm 2 x 30" does not make a 60" (same way 2 x 21" screens do not make a 42" screen), panning across multiple large screens is acceptable as long as you dont stretch a single app across multiple screens, ever tried to start reading on one screen and having to move your head so you can read the rest on another screen, do that a few times you realize keep it to one screen and use the scroll mouse is more useful

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]ResolutionIrrelevant[/nom]@watchaactually no, you have to sit further back to be able to see the whole screen comfortably without having to excessively tilt your head up/down/left/right nothing to do with the resolution fidelityand erm 2 x 30" does not make a 60" (same way 2 x 21" screens do not make a 42" screen), panning across multiple large screens is acceptable as long as you dont stretch a single app across multiple screens, ever tried to start reading on one screen and having to move your head so you can read the rest on another screen, do that a few times you realize keep it to one screen and use the scroll mouse is more useful[/citation]

@ResolutionIrrelevant actually no, I don't have to sit further back to see the whole screen comfortably without having to excessively tilt my head up/down/left/right.

2 x 30" could make exactly the same screen as a 60" screen if they decided to.

Yes you tend to split applications over the 2 halves of the screen - that's why it enhances productivity so much - exactly the same as you could do with one whole monitor.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Alright, back to being sensible as confrontation is just wrong and escalation only upsets everyone.The reason why more displays aren't made with resolutions above standard 1080p is cost, although there is a market for it amongst graphic designers and a few high-end gamers the market penetration is so low that there is no volume production and costs astronomical.When, and only when, the supply on higher than 1080p resolution panels enters into the standard consumer market for TVs will the volume of production increase and costs fall.Law of supply & demand 101.[/citation]

I never asked why displays aren't made with resolutions above 1080p, perhaps you intended to quote someone else?

 

[CyberAngel]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]2 x 30" could make exactly the same screen as a 60" screen if they decided to.[/citation]
4x30" would make it. Think again....back in the elementary school....

 

[Guest]

@watcha

and the reason you dont have to alter your distance is because you are only viewing 30" of the screen at any one time, if you were to try and view the whole of a 60" screen at any one time (or for that matter 42") it would require you to sit back a set distance, otherwise you will be panning your view, it's basic ergonomics

 

[fstrthnu]

inb4 "THE TEXT IS TOO SMALL!!"

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]CyberAngel[/nom]4x30" would make it. Think again....back in the elementary school....[/citation]
Don't bother, I gave up ages ago

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]I never asked why displays aren't made with resolutions above 1080p, perhaps you intended to quote someone else?[/citation]
I responded to someone elses question, then you stuck your nose in without providing an answer yourself, instead of perpetuating a personal grudge against me maybe you should use your vast self-superiority to answer the guys question instead.
Which was, why don't they make higher res panels in 40", the answer being that it costs too much, because there isn't a mass market, because it hasn't filtered to the non-IT consumer yet in the form of TVs, because there is no media content at that resolution yet either.
But you keep busting my balls, I won't take offence, after all this is the internet, mkay?

 

[WyomingKnott]

[citation][nom]Sticklerfish[/nom]Get a clue dude. Those specs are not "pixels per square inch" they are pixels per inch.[/citation]
Thanks for the correction; it's pretty important. Had you left the first sentence out, you might even have gotten a thumbs-up or two.