Size matters – how else could Dell squeeze 15 million pixels into this 27" 5K monitor?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09...tor_and_stuff/

... and how do you feed the brute?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09...tor_and_stuff/

... and how do you feed the brute?

That is a *really* interesting development!

It has two DisplayPort 1.2 inputs, and is almost
certainly actually constructed with two 2560x2880
separate display panels mounted side by side, each
driven as a separate monitor via a separate DisplayPort.

Hence it can probably be used by any desktop hardware
that currently runs dual monitors using DisplayPorts if
the video card(s) use at least 512Gb of RAM per port.

The size isn't really the significant aspect though,
it's the 218 pixels per inch resolution! An image that
will be printed at 16x20 on a 360 PPI Epson printer can
be viewed as a 100% crop that will show nearly half of
the actual image. An 8x10 in Landscape mode could be
displayed as a 100% crop with the entire image
displayed.

The ability to judge sharpening, as one example, using
that monitor should be significantly better than the
typical 100 PPI monitors now being used.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

... and how do you feed the brute?

That is a *really* interesting development!

not really. hi-dpi displays have been around for years.

It has two DisplayPort 1.2 inputs, and is almost
certainly actually constructed with two 2560x2880
separate display panels mounted side by side, each
driven as a separate monitor via a separate DisplayPort.

Hence it can probably be used by any desktop hardware
that currently runs dual monitors using DisplayPorts if
the video card(s) use at least 512Gb of RAM per port.

not just desktop hardware and 512gb is low end stuff these days.

a better design would have been to use displayport 1.3, which supports
8k displays and would be just one connector.

it looks like a rushed product to be first to claim that many pixels.
it's not a practical or particularly usable solution.

The size isn't really the significant aspect though,
it's the 218 pixels per inch resolution! An image that
will be printed at 16x20 on a 360 PPI Epson printer can
be viewed as a 100% crop that will show nearly half of
the actual image. An 8x10 in Landscape mode could be
displayed as a 100% crop with the entire image
displayed.

the size is the most significant aspect, not the resolution.

hi-dpi displays have been in phones & tablets for years and are now
standard fare in laptops. soon they will be standard fare on the
desktop.

the problem is scaling it up for desktop use, both due to yield issues
and that the gpu and display bandwidth can't move that many pixels.
that's why the above display uses two displayports (although it could
have been one if they designed it right).

The ability to judge sharpening, as one example, using
that monitor should be significantly better than the
typical 100 PPI monitors now being used.

everything is significantly better on a hi-dpi display, particularly
text. there's no going back after having used one.

the only problem is that a lot of stuff still assumes standard
resolution and looks like **** because it ends up being pixel doubled.

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

... and how do you feed the brute?

That is a *really* interesting development!

not really. hi-dpi displays have been around for years.

So just pony up with a 27" inch display at 218 PPI.

Since everything you had to say amounted to this same
sort of nonsense, there's no point in trying to
explain any of it to you.

The only comment that is reasonable is just to point out
to others that you are trolling, not discussing.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

... and how do you feed the brute?

That is a *really* interesting development!

not really. hi-dpi displays have been around for years.

So just pony up with a 27" inch display at 218 PPI.

22" display @ 204 ppi, almost 15 years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

laptops have had hidpi displays as standard fare for a few years now,
from multiple manufacturers.

that will soon be desktop size displays but the computers aren't up to
it yet so there's no point in making the displays yet.

Since everything you had to say amounted to this same
sort of nonsense, there's no point in trying to
explain any of it to you.

you have that backwards. there's no point in explaining it to *you*.

The only comment that is reasonable is just to point out
to others that you are trolling, not discussing.

everything i said was factual.

since you're resorting to insults, it's *you* who is trolling.

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

... and how do you feed the brute?

That is a *really* interesting development!

not really. hi-dpi displays have been around for years.

So just pony up with a 27" inch display at 218 PPI.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

Not a 27" monitor, though the 204 PPI is close enough.

Of course it was introduced for something like $18,000 too.
Later that came down to about half the original price, but
the point still is that we are not talking about the same
thing at all.

None of your other comments were even close, just your
typical nonsensical troll.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

... and how do you feed the brute?

That is a *really* interesting development!

not really. hi-dpi displays have been around for years.

So just pony up with a 27" inch display at 218 PPI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

Not a 27" monitor, though the 204 PPI is close enough.

22" was big for 2001.

30" displays appeared a couple of years later, although not hidpi.

Of course it was introduced for something like $18,000 too.
Later that came down to about half the original price, but
the point still is that we are not talking about the same
thing at all.

it was a hidpi display and like the dell display, it had multiple video
connections.

they're actually very similar.

they're both basically technology demos. neither are all that practical.

hidpi of that size is *not* ready for prime time yet.

None of your other comments were even close, just your
typical nonsensical troll.

everything i said was 100% accurate.

as usual, you're resorting to ad hominem because you can't refute a
single thing i said.

i doubt you've even used a hidpi display. you're talking out your ass,
as usual.

On 9/6/2014 5:13 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09...tor_and_stuff/

... and how do you feed the brute?


When the price drops, I will get one.

--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09...tor_and_stuff/

I would hesitate to buy a Dell unit at any price.
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09...tor_and_stuff/

I would hesitate to buy a Dell unit at any price.

Update:

Maybe I should give you this to ponder:

http://tinyurl.com/pkxnqyb

The article clears up why tinted panels goes through the Dell QC and I
can confirm this since I've observed it myself on a U2412M.
The current models have the look to produced by the same subcontractor.
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography