One for Greg: Sharp's new 4K monitor.

Post #370,470 by Another Scott 1/28/13 8:55:11 AM Reply	One for Greg: Sharp's new 4K monitor. http://www.techpower...nitor-Priced.html Sharp PN-K321H 4K IGZO Monitor Priced Sharp's 32-inch Ultra HD (3840 x 2160 pixels) [8.3 M pixels] PC monitor, the PN-K321H, which made waves at this year's International CES, is yours for 4,500Â ($6,050). The monitor features an indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO) LCD panel, a technology Sharp helped innovate and is a big supporter of. IGZO helps achieve higher pixel densities, yet is far from being a mainstream technology, a fact reflected in the price of the new monitor. Here's hoping it's a success and cheaper panels quickly follow. Cheers, Scott.
Post #370,472 by crazy 1/28/13 9:42:52 AM Reply	No one cares past 1080p Or at least not enough people. The manus are holding off any volume predictions because they don't see anything driving the sales. Blueray pushed HD, and past 1080p most people simply can't tell the difference, and certainly aren't willing to pay a multiple of base cost for what they can tell. The football is being tracked close enough right now, and those pores on the actress that used to be pretty has redefined beauty, yet again, and not in any good way. We need a new tech to feed them before they take off, and that won't be for a few years. Until then, no point.
Post #370,475 by folkert 1/28/13 10:04:45 AM Reply	Razor burn... Is the single largest complaint in the Porn industry now. Right behind... pimples and others "blemishes" on the actress. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #370,479 by Another Scott 1/28/13 10:53:12 AM Reply	Dunno. They're making 110" screens now (maybe bigger). There are applications for huge screens, and huge screens need lots of pixels. Pushing the number of pixels up is a good thing, even if we can't think of an application right now. E.g. It would be nice to be able to see 4 PIP displays on our 42" set. But even if the cable box let you do that, the pixel resolution at 1080p is too small to read text that way. E.g. a screen for the weather, a screen for Google News, a fish tank screen and a screen for a news conference or speech or something. Bloomberg clients would love something like that... Yeah, we won't see 50" 4K screens for under $1k in the home any time soon. But I think it's coming. There's more to life than movies. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #370,480 by folkert 1/28/13 11:02:51 AM Reply	Now that is... A good reason. Have 4 times the pixels to have 4 things going at once... now it the TV can keep up (if its the processor to combine the sources) this would be a good thing. I can imagine: Weather, Video Games, a TV show from DVR and maybe a browser But its a long ways off... being affordable. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #370,540 by lincoln 1/28/13 9:47:53 PM Reply	that would look like the Windows 8 home page. Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous. - - - Mark Twain ÂPuddÂnhead WilsonÂs New Calendar,Â 1897
Post #370,546 by folkert 1/28/13 10:18:59 PM Reply	But with a purpose... Not some arbitrary conventions set forth by some asshole in Redmond... or India. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #370,473 by folkert 1/28/13 9:50:01 AM Reply	Yes... but. the "now make it 120Hz" crowd. These people don't even understand how we see. 24Hz is fast enough for us to see seamless motion. 29.97Hz is plenty good enough. 59/60Hz is overkill. 120Hz? WTF, you have super natural eyes? Including the content doesn't have 120 frames per second to display... we are lucky to get 30Hz most times. So, 1 out of every 4 frames is "new" the rest are extrapolated? Oh but this is exactly like the Super HiFi crowd. Meh. Yes. I'd LOVE to see density go up a lot. Heck, I'd like to see the resolution and density get back to what they were on laptops 5 years ago. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #370,482 by pwhysall 1/28/13 2:25:30 PM Reply	No shit re: density Work laptop: 1280x800 My fuckin' phone: 1280x768 Back when I did IT, ISTR having to tend to a few TI lappers that had 1024x768 screens. In 1996. It's ridiculous.
Post #370,483 by Another Scott 1/28/13 2:45:44 PM Reply	Yup. I've got a 14" T41 ThinkPad that's 1400x1050, IIRC. It's got a 1200 MHz Pentium M processor, to give you an idea of the vintage... It's pathetic that it took Apple's tablets (and phones) to move portable computing screens forward after so many years of stasis. The big laptop manufacturers deserve all the pain they're going through... Cheers, Scott.
Post #370,486 by folkert 1/28/13 3:26:02 PM Reply	My T61 has 1680x1050 from 6 years ago. 15.4" Nice clarity at that size. Everything else compared to it looks like crap. Though I use 23" 1920x1080 (93 ppi) on the external VGA port. I still like the 15.4" 1680x1050 (128 ppi) for the density, it is nice. I mean crap the PPI is dropping these days because everyone wants SIZE... not Size with Density. Plus who want to watch up-scaled video (1080p to 2160p or 4320p) It just looks likr crap compared to a 1080p display. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C

Welcome to IWETHEY!