8 bits isn't "current", if you want "current" you get 10 bit panels. If you want "better than bargain basement" you get 10 bit panels. At least where I live one of the differences between the TVs that CostCo sells and the ones that others sell are 8 bit (CostCo) vs 10 bit (others) panels.
what kind of signal are you feeding a 10 bit panel? RGB is only 8 bit so any claimed 10 bit display is only post processing at best.
Gamma correcting and color calibrating an 8-bit signal requires at least 10 bits of output accuracy to avoid noticeable banding.
This race for more pixels is misguided. The change I most want to see is deeper pixels, at least 10bpp, preferably more. I'm getting really tired of all the banding I see on what should be smooth gradient images. If a landscape aspect image is P pixels wide then to display a gray scale gradient, black to white, you need ceil(log2(P)) bits per pixel. So a "2K" display needs 11 bits, "4K" needs 12, etc. Then each colum…
If we are talking about things in dire need of improvement, how about dynamic range? Something like the BrightSide (now Dolby) display tech: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/03/brightside_hdr_e... (thats from 2005(!))
Reading a few pages in, if you're not seeing it on the market, it's because the technology is patented (and it's the obvious approach of using an array of LED backlights with DSP correction for the optical scattering of the backlight filter).
Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use? It's a good question, but my answer is definitely, Yes. My ideal work station would be a room with a wall-sized 8K touch-screen monitor covering the wall in front of me. I would have an adjustable table with a comfy chair and treadmill looking over the table and across the room at the wall screen. Lower the table and sit in the chair. Raise the table…
Have you used multi-monitor setups before? Anything more than about two screens, and I personally find myself getting really annoyed because I have to turn my head instead of moving my eyes. I feel like a full-wall monitor would be even worse.
Yes, I've used multiscreen setups before and always wanted more. I always have multiple apps running, which means that I have to flip from one to the other if I can't just turn my head. If it's paperwork, I tend to spread it out on my desk rather than keeping it all in one tidy stack and bringing each page to the top as I need it. I'm sure there are large screen setups I wouldn't like, but in general I'd rather turn my head (or my gaze) than repeatedly swap things to the front of the stack.
I'm not too impressed honestly. 120 fps is the minimum for me when it comes to playing games. Then again I was used to 120hz monitors on CRTs in the early 2000s with 0 input lag. I would only ever consider 4k for normal desktop usage but there's no way I would pay anything for 60 fps and we all know 4k monitors will be stupidly expensive for at least 10 years.
I think topics are mixed up in this thread and more strangely nobody is mentioning it!
1. (120)fps you refer is about the graphic card not the monitor.
2. (120)hz is refresh rate of an LCD is completely different than CRT. BTW, I never heard of 120hz high-res monitor. Mitsubishi or NEC maybe. could you give the brand and model?
3. monitor input lag will _always_be there with LCDs. there is no 120hz or higher LCD panels. they do real-time interpolation with 60hz panels. and that's not natural if you look closely. maybe just maybe OLED will improve response time or input lag as you refer.
I'm not too impressed honestly. 120 fps is the minimum for me when it comes to playing games. Then again I was used to 120hz monitors on CRTs in the early 2000s with 0 input lag. I would only ever consider 4k for normal desktop usage but there's no way I would pay anything for 60 fps and we all know 4k monitors will be stupidly expensive for at least 10 years.
I think topics are mixed up in this thread and more strangely nobody is mentioning it! 1. (120)fps you refer is about the graphic card not the monitor. 2. (120)hz is refresh rate of an LCD is completely different than CRT. BTW, I never heard of 120hz high-res monitor. Mitsubishi or NEC maybe. could you give the brand and model? 3. monitor input lag will _always_be there with LCDs. there is no 120hz or higher LCD pane…
There are tons of 120hz LCDs. Some of the korean models that you can pickup for $350 can be manually set to run at 120hz but you have to be lucky. They run at 2560x1440.
Most 120hz LCDs run at 1080p though, and you can typically buy them at Newegg or wherever you usually get computer parts. You should be able to find dozens of models by Googling for "120hz LCD monitors".
> Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use ? For big monitors I think it does. Even if 4k doesn't make sense, the increased bandwidth is a win as the previous HDMI spec couldn't drive a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitor at 60hz, and those resolutions definitely make sense to me for computer monitors.
> as the previous HDMI spec couldn't drive a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitor at 60hz That has been supported by HDMI since 1.3, since around 2006. 2560×1600p75 @ 24bit is about the highest standard resolution you can pump through HDMI 1.3.
That's interesting, because most of the high resolution monitors I've seen explicitly say you need to use DL-DVI to drive them at full resolution (for example the 27" Dell Ultrasharps.)
> as the previous HDMI spec couldn't drive a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitor at 60hz That has been supported by HDMI since 1.3, since around 2006. 2560×1600p75 @ 24bit is about the highest standard resolution you can pump through HDMI 1.3.
That's interesting, because most of the high resolution monitors I've seen explicitly say you need to use DL-DVI to drive them at full resolution (for example the 27" Dell Ultrasharps.)
Many companies cheap out on the supporting electronics. In particular single-link DVI is electrically compatible with HDMI but is limited to ~1920 x 1200 @ 60Hz. Basically instead of properly implementing HDMI they route a single-link DVI transceiver through an HDMI connector and call it good.
It came out a little while ago, so it only supports 30fps at 4k, but this 39 inch 4k monitor is decently reviewed, and only $700: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00DOPGO2G
30 fps is even a bigger joke than 60. I think even the general public would get nauseous watching a game being played at a solid 30 fps, it's much different than watching a low fps movie. If I were to drop $700 on a new display I would rather buy 2x $350 2650x1440 monitors that can run at 120hz at that resolution. They've been on the market at that price for quite a while now. Back in 2001 or 2002 I bought a 21" 1600…
If I were to drop $700 on a new display I would rather buy 2x $350 2650x1440 monitors that can run at 120hz at that resolution. They've been on the market at that price for quite a while now.
May I ask, which monitor are you referring to? A $350 monitor that can do 2650x1440 and run at 120hz? I need a monitor like that for my graphics research.