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

[wiyosaya]

[citation][nom]dark_lord69[/nom]Wouldn't you need a magnifying glass to see the detail though?[/citation]
Almost certainly, unless you had it mounted 6-inches from your face.

 

[nottheking]

[citation][nom]spookie[/nom]wow! I still wonder why they don't make 40'' + displays with beter than 1080p[/citation]
While everyone else is focusing on claims of what the human eye can see, (which are nearly as over-stated as ill-founded claims that "the human eye can't perceive beyond 60fps") there's another issue here: price.

As a basic rule of thumb, the higher the resolution per-inch you've got in a panel, the more it costs per square inch... And the bigger a single piece your display is, the higher the per-square-inch cost gets, too. Both of these trends simply reflect the increased difficulty of making larger and more complex LCD panels.

Even to this day, the Retina display remains by far the most expensive component of the iPhone 4 and 4S because of this; it is the most-dense LCD display in consumer use today. (though it looks like TMD's new panel may unseat it within the next year or two) At the original release of the iPhone 4, I recall estimates placing the panel's cost at the range of $250-300US, or nearly half the $649US original price of the 16GB model.

As you can imagine, if you scaled up this sort of display to be suitable for even a small HDTV, the price would become astronomical. The iPhone 4's retina display is only some 5.8 in², so it's already some $40US/in². Scale that up so that you can have a laptop with a 4k 16:9 display, and you're looking at an 88.8 in² display, or $3,552US for just the panel itself... On a laptop. (Officially this would be a 14.4" widescreen display) And of course, that's ignoring the fact that as a panel gets bigger, the per-inch cost goes up; panel prices curve (are exponential) here.

Even if you cut down the resolution so you could keep 4K and scale it up to true HDTV sizes, you're still going to contend with a much higher per-inch panel cost than with normal 1080p-scaled HDTVs. Sure, you'll have some people that will pay what would likely be 4-10 times the cost for a 4k TV over a 1080p TV... But the number, at least currently, is likely nowhere near sufficient to convince manufacturers that the investment in building/adjusting their production lines would be worthwhile.

 

[upgrade_1977]

Now take two of those, and build them into a VR helmet.

 

[serendipiti]

[citation][nom]aevm[/nom]A 498 dpi, 24" monitor would have about 16 times more pixels than the 498 dpi, 6" monitor described in the article, since it has the same density and 4 times the width and 4 times the height. That is, 10240*6400. What kind of graphics card would you need to play Crysis at that resolution, I wonder. And a 2-hour movie at that resolution would have to be shipped on 30 Blu-Ray disks... I'd love to see that monitor too, but I don't think we're quite ready for it yet....[/citation]
Well, interpolation algorithms when in 3D or movies would do the trick. Content can adapt to different dpi. Yes, getting to support that monster resolutions natively requires another jump ( remember when we measured HDD in MB ?) in units of measure of the involved hardware. I agree that refresh times or power usage that may be problematic. Perhaps it is a matter of powersaver smaller devices vs much more devices...

 

[coolgod]

it's ppi not dpi.
ppi is also calculated by finding the diagonal pixels in this case the square root of 2560^2 + 1600^2 divided by the diagonal length in inches

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]D_Kuhn[/nom]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.[/citation]

a retina display is barely over 300, if you had a retina at reasonable use distance, and something else with 2X the dpi at same distance, you would be hard pressed to see a difference.

 

[Wish I Was Wealthy]

Yeah! It's good to see technology coming from Toshiba instead of Apple's patent system of money making ideas.

 

[Wish I Was Wealthy]

Not very good bargains from "fashionpp", I went there & it was hopeless.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]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?[/citation]

You provided a failed response to someone elses question.

I informed you that you had failed.

If you were answering his question, you should have quoted his comment.

You didn't address the failure I alluded to in my comment so it was not at all relevant to what I said.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]ResolutionIrrelevant2[/nom]@watchaand 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[/citation]

So why can't you do the same with a 60" screen? You still don't get it, do you?

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]CyberAngel[/nom]4x30" would make it. Think again....back in the elementary school....[/citation]

Yes, you're right. But you miss the point, I was simplifying so that you wouldn't.

The point is, if you had a 2 x 30" screens side by side, the equivalent overall screen size would be much more - yet it would still be absolutely usable - therefore proving that having 2 x 30" screens side by side working is evidence that bigger screens can be used from the same position.

 

[stevo777]

I think the "Retina" display is called as such because that's near the limits of the human eye--from what I've read. I could be wrong, but wouldn't it be pointless to exceed that as the eyes wouldn't be able to tell the difference?

 

[mihaimm]

I'm guessing 498dpi is an overkill and done purely for technology purpose (and marketing). Also 6.1" is too big for a phone and too small for a tablet. I will never understand these prototypes that serve no purpose... my guess is that making it 4" would have been too small to display at FPD and 10" was too expensive to make...
Now... how about showing us the future iPad 3 display (9.7" with 2048x1536)? I'm very keen on seeing that despite it being a miserable 264dpi.

 

[lamorpa]

This display may have a higher pixel density than the iPhone, but the iPhone still has a cooler and hipper pixel density.

 

[eddieroolz]

If this means cheaper 2560 displays, then bravo!

 

[someoneelse]

IDK what everyone else says

I want a screen with higher definition than real life.

I'll worry about the feasability later.