5 ms·
Now we just need monitors, rather than projectors, that can actually display 4K content at its native resolution. Every LCD panel I've seen tops out at 2560x160
by sbierwagen 16y ago
Now we just need monitors, rather than projectors, that can actually display 4K content at its native resolution. Every LCD panel I've seen tops out at 2560x1600.
- sp332 16y agoThey don't make them anymore :-( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors native resolution of 3840×2400 pixels (WQUXGA) on a screen with a diagonal of 22.2 inch (564 mm). This works out as over 9.2 million pixels, with pixel density of 204 pixels per inch (80 dpcm, 0.1245 mm pixel pitch)
- anigbrowl 16y agoYeah they do: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/562026-REG/Astro_Design_Inc_DM_3400_DM_3400_56_Professional_4K.html http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/562026-REG/Astro_Desig... They cost a fortune though, like $50k+. Such hi-res monitors are only used for radiography and film at present.
- pmjordan 16y agoThey do exist, they're just crazy expensive. They tend to be used for medical imaging and similarly specialised applications.
- wmf 16y agoQuad HD 3840x2160 prototypes have been shown, so we're getting close. Once 3D becomes a standard feature, TV makers may have to adopt quad HD to keep margins up.
- chaosmachine 16y agoAnd gigabit internet access.
- zweben 16y agoI've got a 2560x1600 monitor, and honestly, the 4k video looked worse to me than 1080p. Blocky all over the place. If they can't raise the bitrate on the 4k videos, there's really no point to it.