Crazy display resolution concept: why hasn't it happened?

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by Techhie, Jun 9, 2009.

  1. Techhie macrumors 65816

    Techhie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Location:
    The hub of stupidity
    #1
    For a while I have been putting off the decision of buying either two 24" monitors, or one big 30" for my desktop. While browsing through the local Apple store I noticed how breathtaking those 24" iMac screens can be. What I also noticed is that the resolution seems awefully stretched out comared to the higher-end 17" laptop displays which also run at 1920x1200. This realization prompted me to start looking for a compromise between my choices, so I could have the best of both worlds. I took the liberty of calculating some pixel densities (in Pixels Per Inch) of current and concept monitors to see if my perfect monitor was feasable:

    MacBook Pro 17" @ 1920x1200= 133.18

    Apple 24" iMac @ 1920x1200= 94.33

    Concept 24" @ 2650x1600= 128.98

    Apple 30" Cinema Display @ 2650x1600= 103.18

    Concept 30" @ 3840x2400= 150.94

    Current iPhone screen (3.5") @ 480x320= 164.82

    42" Plasma TV @ 1920x1080= 52.45

    I know that resolution isn't everything, and that several other factors are at play when it comes to a display's quality (color gamut, contrast, ect.). I just don't understand why a 24" display running at 2650x1600 isn't being made, even if it would require a dual-link DVI connection. As you can see with the numbers above, it is definitely possible to produce displays with this amount of pixels, as shown by Toshiba with their 22" WQUXGA (3840×2400) with 200 PPI.

    http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/monitors/toshiba-rolls-out-22+inch-3840x2400-monitor-318115.php

    As for the 30" displays, this resolution (3840x2400) would be nice (and ridiculously expensive at first), but couldn't work on current dual-link DVI connections. If anyone from Apple or any other display manufacturer reads this, I wouldn't mind seeing that 2650x1600 24"er around, for any price. I think having a lot more screen real-estate around here might be nice, and I'm willing to bet some people think the same. Thoughts?
     
  2. Objectivist-C macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    #2
    Economics.

    (EDIT: My insightful post for the year)
     
  3. jhsfosho macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #3
    I agree that this would be cool but think it would only be feasible for professionals. Even then, considering a 30'' and 24'' of the same resolution, I think most people would pick the 30''. Also the price would be a major factor and you would probably end up with the 24'' costing the same as a 30'' and the 30'' costing way more $$.
     
  4. xraydoc macrumors 604

    xraydoc

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    192.168.1.1
    #4
    There are several medical-grade monitors that are of those resolutions, but they are very expensive.
     
  5. Saladinos macrumors 68000

    Saladinos

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    #5
    If you are asking for a continuous 24" slab of panel with those densities, you're talking about serious cash.

    But they probably do exist.
     
  6. NicP macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    #6
    One of the reasons is that resolutions above 1920*1200 require dual link DVI (or displayport). I'm pretty sure the (white) macbooks still don't have this feature!

    edit: seams you already mentioned this :)
     
  7. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #8
    I want to see resolution independence and a 13" 1920x1200 display.

    Then you're talking SERIOUSLY crisp.
     

Share This Page