22" and 3840 x 2400 Monitors..... Holy Crap!

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/monitors/...tor-318115.php

Can you say WQUXGA? Toshiba can. According to a translated promo page, it built the 22" "super Kousei small LCD monitor" with a resolution of 3840x2400. That's 200 dots per inch! Toshiba admits, though, that the contrast ratio is 300:1, pretty bad even if you don't believe in contrast-ratio reporting. In Japan, MSRP for this sucker is 2,079,000 Yen (about $18,000). The XP-compatible PCI card required to run it will set you back another 312,900 Yen ($2,700)

For reference, my 30"ers are 2600 x 1600. These are 22" and 3840 x 2400. That's OVER NINE MEGAPIXELS. 6 of them would be 55,296,000 pixels. More than 55 megapixels. In LESS SPACE.

Thats.... like 55 DVDs at the same time. Or 179 WoWs at 640 x 480. AT THE SAME TIME.

..or every hair on Jenna Ja... er, I mean, yeah, high rez, woohoo!

More like every molecule.

Where did you get such a highrez vid of jenn...err, I mean this will be good for you now, stuff, like highrez 3D or something....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xzin

Thats.... like 55 DVDs at the same time. Or 179 WoWs at 640 x 480. AT THE SAME TIME.

---

That was pretty much the first question that came to my mind. :twisted:

You would have to use a raid disk array.

I cant see 179 copies of WoW trying to read/write to the same disk as being a massive issue. :P

You would need more than a raid array. I have a RAID 6 array and it peaks at 500 megs per second transfer.

You would need something more like a SAN or ideally DRAM only.... other solid state eases the access times but does nothing for actual transfer rates.

If I were to do that, just put it on 3 machines or so instead of 1 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xzin

You would need more than a raid array. I have a RAID 6 array and it peaks at 500 megs per second transfer.

---

why ADG? it has always seemed to me to be the worst of all worlds... high overheads on both resilience and performance.
Especially considering your choices in quality in the other areas of your system.

Can you really have any use for this high resolution? I think things tend to be small allready on 2560x1600@30" . With 3840x2400@22" you would get text,icons and stuff about half that size.

Bump up the resolution of text (or simply the size as fonts are vectors). Such that you can still read it. But images and video and games become vastly more lifelike and detailed.

Of course you need vastly more processing power as it does not scale linearly.

I run nearly 35 megapixels of data right now and sometimes I am pushed for even more space to monitor everything. Would be nice to have a bit more resolution in a given size (I can't get it much physically larger without having to TURN my body). Glancing to the side takes a bit of practice but is easy. Rotating is another story.

As an example. Take a 100k jpg file. Look at it at normal resolution. Then take a 10 meg jpg file and view it at the same size as the 100k. It becomes SO MUCH more detailed - no artifacts... its not required but it makes a difference.

http://pcgamingroom.com/shooter-disc...rysis-omg.html
http://pcgamingroom.com/downloads/vi...page.php?id=26

Here is a direct link if you want to a mirror:
http://duggmirror.com/pc_games/5120x...olat1080p3.jpg
The actual raw file is 5120 x 3200. Which is 16 megapixels. For reference, 800x600 is only half a megapixel. 1280 x 1600 is 2 megapixels. A 30" 2560 x 1600 is 4 megapixels. You would need 3.5x currently available 30" monitors to view that native.

Server is getting HAMMERED but somebody ran (ok well took screenshots of ) Crysis at some insane resolution. With Crysis, you can SEE more. With WoW (and I have tested this) it gives you the SAME viewport no matter what resolution you use. You CAN extend it out with some trickery but by and large what you see is what you get no matter if it is 800 x 600 or 2560 x 1600. Your icons and UI change size though :)

All things considered, I would rather have peripheral vision in a game than not. It makes a big difference. Why do you think we moved from 4:3 to 16:9?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._3_example.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._9_example.jpg

In the computer world, it gets even better as we are not confined to broadcast standards:

http://www.matrox.com/graphics/surro...ct/difference/

http://www.matrox.com/graphics/surro...ord_Single.jpg

vs

http://www.matrox.com/graphics/surro...ord_Triple.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cepheus

Can you really have any use for this high resolution? I think things tend to be small allready on 2560x1600@30" . With 3840x2400@22" you would get text,icons and stuff about half that size.

---

Why would anybody need more than 640k?

:)

after a quick google:

Quote:

---

Based on the above data for the resolution of the human eye, let's try a "small" example first. Consider a view in front of you that is 90 degrees by 90 degrees, like looking through an open window at a scene. The number of pixels would be
90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels (324 megapixels).
At any one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want. But the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see
120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.
The full angle of human vision would require even more megapixels. This kind of image detail requires A large format camera to record.

---

No idea if this is realible or not, but if this is correct, I guess we could use even more resolution :P

source
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...esolution.html