I am a Systems Admin for an ad agency with about 50% Macs, I see many come and go. My Mac is a 17" Powerbook. I have recently spent a lot of time with the 17 & 20" iMacs. The 17 used in my Powerbook and the iMac needs help. The 20" blows it away...color...brightness...crispness...resolution .
Not without more links. Current DVI tops out somewhere a little lower than that.
In any case, if it's DVI, I'm pretty sure that 2048x1536 (4:3) or 2240x1400 (16:10) is the bandwidth limit for the current (2 link, 6 channel) connector). Plenty, at least for next few years.
ViewSonic somehow got around the resolution limit for their hi-res VP2290b widescreen 22.2" digital LCD. It uses a TMDS DVI-D connector (whatever that is) for its 3840x2400 resolution (204ppi screen!). The only Mac video card they list to use with it is the ATI Radeon 8500.
But first you have the pleasure of forking over $6200 or more before you get to squint at it.
That's interesting, I wonder if they've used more than one DVI plug? IBM had some protos using four DVI plugs to get the job done.
I would imagine that it might be possible to enhance the DVI connector with more links/channels yet leave it in such a way that older displays will work with the new plug. It's already happened once.
The first DVI-out video cards were only good for 1280x1024 via the DVI plug (they had a 1-link/3-channel connector) subsequent DVI gained a 2-link/6-channel connector. I think the connectors are interchangable. Mebbe it's time for a 4-link/12-channel connector?
ViewSonic somehow got around the resolution limit for their hi-res VP2290b widescreen 22.2" digital LCD. It uses a TMDS DVI-D connector (whatever that is) for its 3840x2400 resolution (204ppi screen!). The only Mac video card they list to use with it is the ATI Radeon 8500.
These and the IBM T22i use dual DVI connectors, which would be driven (on a PC) by something like a Quadro FX3000 (which strangely enough supports 3840x2400 through dual dvi outputs).
If you look at the sizing, it is made to fit an A3 sheet with a small area down the side, so ideal for CAD work and graphical work that has to fit on that size / shape paper.
It is a screen designed for specific purposes which are already basically resolution indepedant.
These and the IBM T22i use dual DVI connectors, which would be driven (on a PC) by something like a Quadro FX3000 (which strangely enough supports 3840x2400 through dual dvi outputs).
If you look at the sizing, it is made to fit an A3 sheet with a small area down the side, so ideal for CAD work and graphical work that has to fit on that size / shape paper.
It is a screen designed for specific purposes which are already basically resolution indepedant.
These screens are used for medical imaging alot. And the card that powers it is especially designed to sync the dual output. The card is also a PCI card. Leaving the AGP slot open for another card and more monitors.
... turns the electricity meter into a functional turbine when it's powered up...
Man, I spilled my water glass laughing at this.
Quote:
Publishers will doubtless love to have 300dpi displays, and better. But it's going to hurt to get there, because it will require breaking an assumption about display calculation that dates back to the earliest days of computing.
I am under the belief and assumption that since the days of display postscript (NeXT and OpenWindows on Sun) we have been there, and continue today with Quartz. Quartz is resolution independent at the back-end. Most developers fix buttons, etc. to pixel coordinates which sort-of breaks the resolution independence, but, I believe OS X is already capable of any resolution (whether or not the hardware can do it reasonably now).
Comments
The 17" widescreen needs an update.
Originally posted by Matsu
2500x1400 ???
Not without more links. Current DVI tops out somewhere a little lower than that.
In any case, if it's DVI, I'm pretty sure that 2048x1536 (4:3) or 2240x1400 (16:10) is the bandwidth limit for the current (2 link, 6 channel) connector). Plenty, at least for next few years.
ViewSonic somehow got around the resolution limit for their hi-res VP2290b widescreen 22.2" digital LCD. It uses a TMDS DVI-D connector (whatever that is) for its 3840x2400 resolution (204ppi screen!). The only Mac video card they list to use with it is the ATI Radeon 8500.
But first you have the pleasure of forking over $6200 or more before you get to squint at it.
Slow response is a good way to reduce video bandwidth in high definition systems.
An 8ms response time would be good match for 2160/30p,
I would imagine that it might be possible to enhance the DVI connector with more links/channels yet leave it in such a way that older displays will work with the new plug. It's already happened once.
The first DVI-out video cards were only good for 1280x1024 via the DVI plug (they had a 1-link/3-channel connector) subsequent DVI gained a 2-link/6-channel connector. I think the connectors are interchangable. Mebbe it's time for a 4-link/12-channel connector?
ViewSonic somehow got around the resolution limit for their hi-res VP2290b widescreen 22.2" digital LCD. It uses a TMDS DVI-D connector (whatever that is) for its 3840x2400 resolution (204ppi screen!). The only Mac video card they list to use with it is the ATI Radeon 8500.
These and the IBM T22i use dual DVI connectors, which would be driven (on a PC) by something like a Quadro FX3000 (which strangely enough supports 3840x2400 through dual dvi outputs).
If you look at the sizing, it is made to fit an A3 sheet with a small area down the side, so ideal for CAD work and graphical work that has to fit on that size / shape paper.
It is a screen designed for specific purposes which are already basically resolution indepedant.
Originally posted by Stecs
These and the IBM T22i use dual DVI connectors, which would be driven (on a PC) by something like a Quadro FX3000 (which strangely enough supports 3840x2400 through dual dvi outputs).
If you look at the sizing, it is made to fit an A3 sheet with a small area down the side, so ideal for CAD work and graphical work that has to fit on that size / shape paper.
It is a screen designed for specific purposes which are already basically resolution indepedant.
These screens are used for medical imaging alot. And the card that powers it is especially designed to sync the dual output. The card is also a PCI card. Leaving the AGP slot open for another card and more monitors.
Originally posted by Amorph
... turns the electricity meter into a functional turbine when it's powered up...
Man, I spilled my water glass laughing at this.
Publishers will doubtless love to have 300dpi displays, and better. But it's going to hurt to get there, because it will require breaking an assumption about display calculation that dates back to the earliest days of computing.
I am under the belief and assumption that since the days of display postscript (NeXT and OpenWindows on Sun) we have been there, and continue today with Quartz. Quartz is resolution independent at the back-end. Most developers fix buttons, etc. to pixel coordinates which sort-of breaks the resolution independence, but, I believe OS X is already capable of any resolution (whether or not the hardware can do it reasonably now).