24000 x 24000 Resolution / 1kHz refresh rate

Speedy Pete · 11 Aug 2011 at 23:26

Anybody know how many years roughly we will have to wait for monitors to be capable of this kind of spec?

nate922 · 11 Aug 2011 at 23:29

I would like to see that.

I've been running two 2560x1600 monitors for the last 2-3 years. Really would like to upgrade to something higher but there isn't anything out.

Rumor has it retina resolution is coming to Macs with Lion.

Speedy Pete · 11 Aug 2011 at 23:34

Thanks for that bit of info.

awinchurch · 11 Aug 2011 at 23:37

I dont want one.

Its SQUARE!!!!!

Speedy Pete · 11 Aug 2011 at 23:39

Maybe they will come out with an ellipse one, how the .. would you work out the "..." x "..." then?

nate922 · 11 Aug 2011 at 23:41

I vote for super wide screen that curve. with a ratio of around 3:1.

james.miller · 11 Aug 2011 at 23:43

nate922 said:
Rumor has it retina resolution is coming to Macs with Lion.

you'd be looking at something like 7680x4320 on a 27" screen. Doubt that some how, not any time soon.

Defiant306 · 11 Aug 2011 at 23:45

God knows, but I do know that they are currently experimenting with 4,096 x 2,160 res TV in the likes of Japan. I've heard there is some TV displays in development with this native resolution. Currently though I've only seen demos of this on the web with multiple screens stitched together to give this resolution.

Speedy Pete · 12 Aug 2011 at 00:08

With Ultra-HD TV's coming in form of 7680 x 4320 pixels in up to 25years to the public, i cant see me gaming on a 24000 x 24000 screen in my lifetime

Klo · 12 Aug 2011 at 01:54

Tbh, nobody would probably nice 24k by 24k. Also, imagine how small icons would be!

Rroff · 12 Aug 2011 at 01:57

There is no benefit AFAIK to going over approx 7680 x 4320 @ 120Hz (or interpolated upto 300Hz for TVs to smooth fast movement in low fps sources) - its about as high res as is optimal for filling the human field of view (unless you want a huge screen to pan around).

Speedy Pete · 12 Aug 2011 at 02:13

Rroff u sound like the "cant see the difference over 30fps" peeps

Defiant306 · 12 Aug 2011 at 07:58

Rroff thats a limited way to look at it. You havent considered what that resolution would be over in space terms. Also I can notice over 30fps in feeds and the difference between 50 and 100 hz TVs. Its the same with watching 720p and 1080p feeds as well for me.
Human field of view concepts are so generic and limited a term in my view.

PCM2 · 12 Aug 2011 at 08:28

And what kind of computer would be needed for 1000fps at that resolution? I agree with Rroff in as much as a lot of that would be wasted (unless the screen ks absolutely gigantic and needs such a resolution) but the overgeneralisation of something as complex as human vision is indeed too simplistic. I can certainly see benefits in raising the bar above 120Hz and the resolution above what's currently available but I think the more immediate benefits brought about by improvements (and changes) in panel technology and type are more worthwhile.