Comments on: Roll up for the TFT fire sale

By: James Morrow

James Morrow — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:51:11 +0000

Hi David,

Now that two 16:9 aspect ratio high definition [HD] spatial resolution standards exist – “half” HD with 1280 by 720 pixels and “full” HD (potentially cinema quality at high enough data rates) with 1920 by 1080 pixels it is not surprising that high quality PCs are migrating to 16:10 aspect ratio 1920 by 1200 pixel monitors at sizes above 20.” Apart from providing the best quality for full HD playback, such monitors also offer a good amount of screen desktop space.

However, it is already beginning to be recognised that, even at just 24″ full HD pixels are slightly too big (i.e. the screen resolution is slightly too small). In order to maximise utility of the computer desktop, ease of HD manipulation and quality of HD playback I believe that a super high definition [SHD] monitor (3840 by 2160 pixels – well by 2400 at 16:10) makes a lot of sense for monitors of 26″ diagonal and above – although I also realise that this is probably a year or so away in terms of viable commercial technology.

As well as providing up to four times the desktop space, the spatial resolution of SHD is an integer multiple of both half and full HD (1280*3 by 720*3 and 1920*2 by 1080*2, respectively), maximising the quality of full screen (well, apart from small black bars top and bottom) playback of half and full HD material using relatively simple and artefact-free (as opposed to free artefact) spatiotemporal super-resolution techniques to upscale the material to SHD.

I won’t mention UHD at 7680 by 4320 pixels or, for that matter, 2K, 4K and 8K, except to say that 4K (strictly speaking 4096 by 2160 pixel but also, confusingly, 3840 by 2160 SHD) material will be coming to a digital cinema near you soon*…

Yours

James

* NHK (the Japanese BBC) have been demonstrating UHD recording and cinema projection (7680 by 4320 pixels at 60 frames per second – basically 8K resolution) for six years now, and have gone through several iterations of camera and projector…

By: Steve Cassidy

Steve Cassidy — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:59:14 +0000

I’m schizo. I have a 30 inch HP which is 2420 by (something: I’m not at home) and I love it to bits – but I also very much like the 32-inch NEC – only 1360 by 768 – which has just arrived for my dungeon computer-room. The low resolution is discernable at such a large size – lines can show jaggies even when the hi-res picture that contains them is aliased – but it’s more relaxing for old-fogey eyes than the massive res of the HP.

One thing is for sure: widescreen monitors below 24 inches really suck for business use. I’d expect business types to start paying more for 4:3 format, hi-res screens: provided,that is, that the makers remember to keep sellig them…!

By: David Wright

David Wright — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:51:32 +0000

I never understood the 22″ and 26″ models. They just provide a less sharp image (bigger pixels, not out of focus) than the smaller ones. I like the 24″ LG I currently have. I looked at a couple of 26″ models when I bought it and I just couldn’t get on with them. If they had a higher resolution, I’d probably look at getting one, but at the same resolution, I don’t see any advantage.

What I wanted to say is, here only Dell seems to bundle monitors with some of their range, but most of their range, and just about every other manufacturer’s ranges, come without a display. This means that you can keep the old displays or buy the display you want. The same for speakers etc.

The PC comes with just a keyboard and mouse, usually.

Is the UK market still based around the “complete packet”?