Let's not exagerate here...200ppi takes 2 times the video memory and two times the bandwidth compared to 100ppi.
edit: same with 300ppi...3 times...not 9. Basic math here.
The basic math you used is utterly wrong, unless your display is a single line. Did you fail geometry somewhere? ppi is a linear dimension, but that scales by the square for area. That's where the four and nine come in.
A 100ppi display has 10000 pixels per square inch. A 200ppi display has 40000 pixels per square inch. A 300ppi display would have 90000 pixels per square inch. That also means that the video memory and DVI bandwidth quadruples for 200ppi, 300ppi would probably require a new display standard or a major scaling of DVI so that its bandwidth is 9x or more than the current standard. Which is why the IBM T221 needed a quad-link DVI to get an adequate refresh rate.
Let's not exagerate here...200ppi takes 2 times the video memory and two times the bandwidth compared to 100ppi.
edit: same with 300ppi...3 times...not 9. Basic math here. Also, the fact that the pixels are smaller may mean that a higher number of dead pixel may be tolerable. At 300ppi, it's starting to get difficult to really notice dead pixels.
Actually it is 4 times. 200 ppi vs 100 ppi is 4 times the number of pixels. Take a 1"x1" image for example. At 100 ppi that's 100 x 100 = 10,000 pixels. At 200 ppi that's 200 x 200 = 40,000 pixels. At 300 ppi that's 300 x 300 = 90,000 pixels. Basic math .
People sitting a normal 24 inches from the screen are not going to resolve a 200ppi display. If you have to get to 12 inches or less to do so, it isn't useful.
Displays are not prints. You can resolve greater detail in prints than you can in a display.
There is a profound difference dealing with reflective media and emissive media. What is not noticeable in a reflective print is still noticeable in an emissive display. Basic retinal physics, the minimal resolvable dot is not only a function of focus but also a function of activation potential in the cones. More light equals a smaller dot being visually viable.
To this point displays have sucked resolution-wise compared to print media. Doing subjective image comparisons with sucky displays will make print media look stellar. Duh! Carefully controlled testing on minimum resolvability has used distance and high res (for the day) LCD displays to present physically smaller dots to the eye, and they are resolvable. You can argue with that all you want, but you aren't going to change physics and several decades of human factors research.
There is a profound difference dealing with reflective media and emissive media. What is not noticeable in a reflective print is still noticeable in an emissive display. Basic retinal physics, the minimal resolvable dot is not only a function of focus but also a function of activation potential in the cones. More light equals a smaller dot being visually viable.
Frankly, I think that display brightnesses should be toned down anyway, so this point is moot. Except in daylight, I prefer to turn down the brightness all the way because they are too bright. Good paper returns 90% or more of the light that falls on it, and I don't want a display that's a lot brighter than the ambient light, and I don't want a screen that looks brighter than a normal piece of paper would in normal lighting.
Quote:
To this point displays have sucked resolution-wise compared to print media. Doing subjective image comparisons with sucky displays will make print media look stellar. Duh! Carefully controlled testing on minimum resolvability has used distance and high res (for the day) LCD displays to present physically smaller dots to the eye, and they are resolvable.
I don't know, in my experience, images that looked sharp on a screen look like crap when printed. Then there is the relative difference in how far away people hold a print vs. how far away most people set their monitor, which is about 2:1, making the resolution difference needed about 2:1 different.
Quote:
You can argue with that all you want, but you aren't going to change physics and several decades of human factors research.
Sharp on screen but crap when printed makes sense because today's displays are lower res than printed material. Granted, there are certainly difference between reflected and emitted images. But we're still a long way from surpassing the resolutive power of the human eye/brain.
I've had the opportunity to look at experimental, high resolution LCDs. They are mind blowing to say the least. With some of these displays and normal viewing distances, it was hard to know if I was looking at printed material or not.
(Then the demo ended and convention goers were treated to a microscopic representation of WinXP. The start button looked like a speck of sand. I laughed my ass off at the IBM booth people trying to operate the machine at that point. )
So you've seen them too! The seeing is believing and those were 300ppi displays, same ones that Los Alamos contracted out for scientific data visualization.
I don't know, in my experience, images that looked sharp on a screen look like crap when printed. Then there is the relative difference in how far away people hold a print vs. how far away most people set their monitor, which is about 2:1, making the resolution difference needed about 2:1 different.
A lot depends on the resolution of the image. A low res image on a low res monitor can look fine, just like regular NTSC TV looks fine -- until you print the image out at several times the density or put the NTSC image on a HDTV.
Quote:
Do you have specific names and such?
I did some work in simulation visuals requirements that dealt with the physiology and cost tradeoffs 5-6 years ago. I'm not currently doing visuals research and my old junk is packed for a building move. Sorry, but I'm not going to spend time chasing my old references down.
"Do you have the $10 to $15 thousand to spare when one does come out?"
Have you ever been doused in petrol?
I can't see how monitors are any different to cameras, mobile phones, hard drives of a certain size, cpus...blue ray drives...they all command a premium at the outset. And in a few years cost peanuts. Monitors seem to have progressed by a glacial pace by comparison.
I guess when the hi-def 'revolution' pans out over the next 5-10 years...we might be pushing 200-300 dpi mainstream in computer monitors by then. I wish I could see an example to compare in all honesty.
I'd like to be able to see a 300 dpi picture at actual A4 size on a computer screen. I can only guess it means more pixels for a given area...does it mean more or less eye strain and does R.I help with that? A bit?
As is? Standard monitors. For art...pencil...drawing type stuff...it's hard going. Hurts my eyes for detail stuff. You have to 'zoom' in for details. With paper you just stick your face closer for detail stuff.
Shrugs. Can't beat a pencil and paper at the moment.
Lemon Bon Bon
That's right. You can't see.
When you know enough about why these monitors cost what they do, then come back and comment.
Right now, LCD monitors aren't even good enough for serious color work as it is.
The only monitor that is today, is the Samsung, which uses an LED backlight system. This unit is about 21" and 1600 x 1200 rez. It costs about $8,000.
Sure, it, and others will come down in price. But it isn't only those very expensive panels that will keep very high rez monitors from being affordable. It is also the associated electronics which is also better, as well as these new backlighting systems.
Will there be cheaper ones? Sure. There always are.
But, do you want to buy a cheap unit? Do you want a $200 21" (crt) monitor today for critical work? No. You buy a $900 dollar model.
For true critical color work today, what has a company bought?
A Barco. The cheap, personal version about $4,000. The good ones were up to $10,000.
Notice I said "were" Barco is now out of the prepress industry. No longer worthwile. Now, you have to look to the other companies still making them.
Hmmm, and anyone that doesn't have a $10000 display is doing "fake" color work? 99.99% of designers were probably mildly insulted by the last post.
Your point would probably be better made without the expensive hardware name-dropping.
Still, I didn't think that Lemon Bon Bon's post deserved the dignity of a reply.
When one wants advanced technology, one should at least be mindful of how long it would take to get down to affordable pricing. In this case, I think it would be several years at best. Not only does there have to be a good market demand to get the volume up, there has to be an ability to handle the graphics. The display models I mentioned only had like three possible video cards that can drive it adequately and was limited to about 42 Hz anyway, even with a quad-link DVI connection. The market is barely moving to put in dual link in a consumer system. Apple's Pro line and a few high-end gamer cards offer it right now. Quad link is hardly elegant as it is, it basically uses two DVI dual link or four single link DVI connectors.
Hmmm, and anyone that doesn't have a $10000 display is doing "fake" color work? 99.99% of designers were probably mildly insulted by the last post.
Your point would probably be better made without the expensive hardware name-dropping.
If you go to the places where critical color work is produced, you will see those expensive monitors, from about $4,000 to $10,000. they are not high rez by the standards that we are talking about here. Usually 1600 x 1200.
Of course, not everyone can afford such displays, and my post was not an insult, unless you are inclined to be easily insulted.
Don't forget that Apple's first 22" LCD display was $4,000 when it first came out and was very popular at that price. And was considered to be cheap for what it offered. That was years ago. In today's dollar, it would be closer to $5,000.
Many photographers bought one. But, it was not acceptable for critical color.
For example, it couldn't be used for soft proofing. I'm assuming you know what that is.
The point I was making, was that with extremely expensive displays, there will be a very small market of users in fields that can afford such displays. those fields don't extend down to many computer users.
It will take a few years for those displays to reach a wider audience.
The purpose therefore, of my point, was to say that we shouldn't expect these displays to solve any possible problems of rez independence soon.
Lurking. I was going to say Masturbating. But hey, I would have had to have been doing that for a loooong time.
I had to create a new account because I lost the password to my old account. (Yahoo shut down my old email account that had the pass word on it. If you want the full explanation.) I had 2k plus posts on my old LBB account. Most of them whining about the absence of a low end Mac. Or cheaper Macs. Bigger screened iMacs. Or better GL. Or the idea of a move to Intel. Most of which was torched by posters. But hey, it's all come to pass. DD I wonder if a mod can get it back to me. I just need the password...
Lurking. I was going to say Masturbating. But hey, I would have had to have been doing that for a loooong time.
I had to create a new account because I lost the password to my old account. (Yahoo shut down my old email account that had the pass word on it. If you want the full explanation.) I had 2k plus posts on my old LBB account. Most of them whining about the absence of a low end Mac. Or cheaper Macs. Bigger screened iMacs. Or better GL. Or the idea of a move to Intel. Most of which was torched by posters. But hey, it's all come to pass. DD I wonder if a mod can get it back to me. I just need the password...
200 ppi takes 4 times the video memory of 100 ppi and four times pretty much everything else like bandwidth and rendering overhead.
Let's not exagerate here...200ppi takes 2 times the video memory and two times the bandwidth compared to 100ppi.
edit: same with 300ppi...3 times...not 9. Basic math here. Also, the fact that the pixels are smaller may mean that a higher number of dead pixel may be tolerable. At 300ppi, it's starting to get difficult to really notice dead pixels."
I'm beginning to see how things are stacking up, now. It looks like a bit of leap when you put things that way.
Still, with the advances in GPU power, I can't see things being such an issue in terms of GPU power to drive such DPI displays beasts. GPU power is still forging ahead with SLI, faster express lanes pending and maybe multi GPU stuff. Who knows. RI is at least coming with Leopard.
In plain English. Better explanation of what we're up against then the Melgross stuff. (Clearly blinded by his own enlightenment.)
"When you know enough about why these monitors cost what they do, then come back and comment."
Rubs Melgross on the head, 'It's alright, sonny, I'll stay here incite a little debate." And I may even learn something in the process.
I'm a consumer. And I'd like better, crisper, more detailed displays that don't burn my eyes. That's their (monitor companies...) problem to navigate. Not mine. I still want my 300 dpi displays that looks at good as a printed image. And I want 16 core cpu Monster Mac beast to go with it. And a octo-gpu monster to power it all. With 32 gigs of ram. And a 10 terrabyte hard drive.
"I was wondering if we would be seeing a new you."
Cryptic..? Ey? *Pauses...
(I still want to where Amorph disappeared to. I'm convinced Melgross is fronting as him...'it'.)
Well....I did consider...for a moment.
I do have 'Strawberry Avenger' as a back up. I'm not afraid to use it either. But still a squirt of lemon in the eye is as good as orange juice in the eye. Consider this proverb as we muse Leopard's new dawn of Resolution Independence. (Hey, it must be good because Apple are including it in Leopard...we just have to wait for everybody else to catch up...)
200 ppi takes 4 times the video memory of 100 ppi and four times pretty much everything else like bandwidth and rendering overhead.
Let's not exagerate here...200ppi takes 2 times the video memory and two times the bandwidth compared to 100ppi.
edit: same with 300ppi...3 times...not 9. Basic math here. Also, the fact that the pixels are smaller may mean that a higher number of dead pixel may be tolerable. At 300ppi, it's starting to get difficult to really notice dead pixels."
I'm beginning to see how things are stacking up, now. It looks like a bit of leap when you put things that way.
Still, with the advances in GPU power, I can't see things being such an issue in terms of GPU power to drive such DPI displays beasts. GPU power is still forging ahead with SLI, faster express lanes pending and maybe multi GPU stuff. Who knows. RI is at least coming with Leopard.
In plain English. Better explanation of what we're up against then the Melgross stuff. (Clearly blinded by his own enlightenment.)
"When you know enough about why these monitors cost what they do, then come back and comment."
Rubs Melgross on the head, 'It's alright, sonny, I'll stay here incite a little debate." And I may even learn something in the process.
I'm a consumer. And I'd like better, crisper, more detailed displays that don't burn my eyes. That's their (monitor companies...) problem to navigate. Not mine. I still want my 300 dpi displays that looks at good as a printed image. And I want 16 core cpu Monster Mac beast to go with it. And a octo-gpu monster to power it all. With 32 gigs of ram. And a 10 terrabyte hard drive.
Dee-da-dee-dee.
Lemon Bon Bon
It's always the ones who know the least who are the most adept at making fun of others.
Your post proves that.
The math is wrong, as are the assumptions.
No one is arguing that you can't wish for something.
"Frankly, I think that display brightnesses should be toned down anyway, so this point is moot. Except in daylight, I prefer to turn down the brightness all the way because they are too bright. Good paper returns 90% or more of the light that falls on it, and I don't want a display that's a lot brighter than the ambient light, and I don't want a screen that looks brighter than a normal piece of paper would in normal lighting."
Interesting comment. I'd like to see a display that is as easy to look at as a piece of paper. Rather than retina scorch. I suppose there is the contrast and brightness buttons...but... Monitors like print. The holy grail?
"It's always the ones who know the least who are the most adept at making fun of others."
And the ones who 'know the most' so poor in extracting their wisdom to the 'least'.
Even the stone tablets turned to dust in time. After no doubt dazzling the folks (who knew the least...) with their blinding light in the first instance.
Hmm. Er. Time to leave R.Indepence for one evening I think...
The basic math you used is utterly wrong, unless your display is a single line. Did you fail geometry somewhere? ppi is a linear dimension, but that scales by the square for area. That's where the four and nine come in.
A 100ppi display has 10000 pixels per square inch. A 200ppi display has 40000 pixels per square inch. A 300ppi display would have 90000 pixels per square inch. That also means that the video memory and DVI bandwidth quadruples for 200ppi, 300ppi would probably require a new display standard or a major scaling of DVI so that its bandwidth is 9x or more than the current standard. Which is why the IBM T221 needed a quad-link DVI to get an adequate refresh rate.
Oh, yeah, sure...in a perfect world where pixels are perfectly square. :P
At 100 dpi, a square inch is 100 x 100 = 10,000 pixels.
At 200 dpi, a square inch is 200 x 200 = 40,000 pixels.
It's 4 times the bandwidth and memory.
300, likewise, is 9x.
Re: display that looks like paper... eventually electronic ink may get us there (I doubt it), but the problem has to do with the blacks. Currently, they're more of a gray... to get any kind of dynamic range, we need the brighter monitors (which in turn, of course, makes the grays a little bit brighter, too).
Comments
Let's not exagerate here...200ppi takes 2 times the video memory and two times the bandwidth compared to 100ppi.
edit: same with 300ppi...3 times...not 9. Basic math here.
The basic math you used is utterly wrong, unless your display is a single line. Did you fail geometry somewhere? ppi is a linear dimension, but that scales by the square for area. That's where the four and nine come in.
A 100ppi display has 10000 pixels per square inch. A 200ppi display has 40000 pixels per square inch. A 300ppi display would have 90000 pixels per square inch. That also means that the video memory and DVI bandwidth quadruples for 200ppi, 300ppi would probably require a new display standard or a major scaling of DVI so that its bandwidth is 9x or more than the current standard. Which is why the IBM T221 needed a quad-link DVI to get an adequate refresh rate.
Let's not exagerate here...200ppi takes 2 times the video memory and two times the bandwidth compared to 100ppi.
edit: same with 300ppi...3 times...not 9. Basic math here.
Actually it is 4 times. 200 ppi vs 100 ppi is 4 times the number of pixels. Take a 1"x1" image for example. At 100 ppi that's 100 x 100 = 10,000 pixels. At 200 ppi that's 200 x 200 = 40,000 pixels. At 300 ppi that's 300 x 300 = 90,000 pixels. Basic math
I simply don't agree with what you are saying.
People sitting a normal 24 inches from the screen are not going to resolve a 200ppi display. If you have to get to 12 inches or less to do so, it isn't useful.
Displays are not prints. You can resolve greater detail in prints than you can in a display.
There is a profound difference dealing with reflective media and emissive media. What is not noticeable in a reflective print is still noticeable in an emissive display. Basic retinal physics, the minimal resolvable dot is not only a function of focus but also a function of activation potential in the cones. More light equals a smaller dot being visually viable.
To this point displays have sucked resolution-wise compared to print media. Doing subjective image comparisons with sucky displays will make print media look stellar. Duh! Carefully controlled testing on minimum resolvability has used distance and high res (for the day) LCD displays to present physically smaller dots to the eye, and they are resolvable. You can argue with that all you want, but you aren't going to change physics and several decades of human factors research.
There is a profound difference dealing with reflective media and emissive media. What is not noticeable in a reflective print is still noticeable in an emissive display. Basic retinal physics, the minimal resolvable dot is not only a function of focus but also a function of activation potential in the cones. More light equals a smaller dot being visually viable.
Frankly, I think that display brightnesses should be toned down anyway, so this point is moot. Except in daylight, I prefer to turn down the brightness all the way because they are too bright. Good paper returns 90% or more of the light that falls on it, and I don't want a display that's a lot brighter than the ambient light, and I don't want a screen that looks brighter than a normal piece of paper would in normal lighting.
To this point displays have sucked resolution-wise compared to print media. Doing subjective image comparisons with sucky displays will make print media look stellar. Duh! Carefully controlled testing on minimum resolvability has used distance and high res (for the day) LCD displays to present physically smaller dots to the eye, and they are resolvable.
I don't know, in my experience, images that looked sharp on a screen look like crap when printed. Then there is the relative difference in how far away people hold a print vs. how far away most people set their monitor, which is about 2:1, making the resolution difference needed about 2:1 different.
You can argue with that all you want, but you aren't going to change physics and several decades of human factors research.
Do you have specific names and such?
I've had the opportunity to look at experimental, high resolution LCDs. They are mind blowing to say the least. With some of these displays and normal viewing distances, it was hard to know if I was looking at printed material or not.
(Then the demo ended and convention goers were treated to a microscopic representation of WinXP. The start button looked like a speck of sand. I laughed my ass off at the IBM booth people trying to operate the machine at that point.
I don't know, in my experience, images that looked sharp on a screen look like crap when printed. Then there is the relative difference in how far away people hold a print vs. how far away most people set their monitor, which is about 2:1, making the resolution difference needed about 2:1 different.
A lot depends on the resolution of the image. A low res image on a low res monitor can look fine, just like regular NTSC TV looks fine -- until you print the image out at several times the density or put the NTSC image on a HDTV.
Do you have specific names and such?
I did some work in simulation visuals requirements that dealt with the physiology and cost tradeoffs 5-6 years ago. I'm not currently doing visuals research and my old junk is packed for a building move. Sorry, but I'm not going to spend time chasing my old references down.
"Do you have the $10 to $15 thousand to spare when one does come out?"
Have you ever been doused in petrol?
I can't see how monitors are any different to cameras, mobile phones, hard drives of a certain size, cpus...blue ray drives...they all command a premium at the outset. And in a few years cost peanuts. Monitors seem to have progressed by a glacial pace by comparison.
I guess when the hi-def 'revolution' pans out over the next 5-10 years...we might be pushing 200-300 dpi mainstream in computer monitors by then. I wish I could see an example to compare in all honesty.
I'd like to be able to see a 300 dpi picture at actual A4 size on a computer screen. I can only guess it means more pixels for a given area...does it mean more or less eye strain and does R.I help with that? A bit?
As is? Standard monitors. For art...pencil...drawing type stuff...it's hard going. Hurts my eyes for detail stuff. You have to 'zoom' in for details. With paper you just stick your face closer for detail stuff.
Shrugs. Can't beat a pencil and paper at the moment.
Lemon Bon Bon
That's right. You can't see.
When you know enough about why these monitors cost what they do, then come back and comment.
Right now, LCD monitors aren't even good enough for serious color work as it is.
The only monitor that is today, is the Samsung, which uses an LED backlight system. This unit is about 21" and 1600 x 1200 rez. It costs about $8,000.
Sure, it, and others will come down in price. But it isn't only those very expensive panels that will keep very high rez monitors from being affordable. It is also the associated electronics which is also better, as well as these new backlighting systems.
Will there be cheaper ones? Sure. There always are.
But, do you want to buy a cheap unit? Do you want a $200 21" (crt) monitor today for critical work? No. You buy a $900 dollar model.
For true critical color work today, what has a company bought?
A Barco. The cheap, personal version about $4,000. The good ones were up to $10,000.
Notice I said "were" Barco is now out of the prepress industry. No longer worthwile. Now, you have to look to the other companies still making them.
http://www.barco.com/
Your point would probably be better made without the expensive hardware name-dropping.
Hmmm, and anyone that doesn't have a $10000 display is doing "fake" color work? 99.99% of designers were probably mildly insulted by the last post.
Your point would probably be better made without the expensive hardware name-dropping.
Still, I didn't think that Lemon Bon Bon's post deserved the dignity of a reply.
When one wants advanced technology, one should at least be mindful of how long it would take to get down to affordable pricing. In this case, I think it would be several years at best. Not only does there have to be a good market demand to get the volume up, there has to be an ability to handle the graphics. The display models I mentioned only had like three possible video cards that can drive it adequately and was limited to about 42 Hz anyway, even with a quad-link DVI connection. The market is barely moving to put in dual link in a consumer system. Apple's Pro line and a few high-end gamer cards offer it right now. Quad link is hardly elegant as it is, it basically uses two DVI dual link or four single link DVI connectors.
Hmmm, and anyone that doesn't have a $10000 display is doing "fake" color work? 99.99% of designers were probably mildly insulted by the last post.
Your point would probably be better made without the expensive hardware name-dropping.
If you go to the places where critical color work is produced, you will see those expensive monitors, from about $4,000 to $10,000. they are not high rez by the standards that we are talking about here. Usually 1600 x 1200.
Of course, not everyone can afford such displays, and my post was not an insult, unless you are inclined to be easily insulted.
Don't forget that Apple's first 22" LCD display was $4,000 when it first came out and was very popular at that price. And was considered to be cheap for what it offered. That was years ago. In today's dollar, it would be closer to $5,000.
Many photographers bought one. But, it was not acceptable for critical color.
For example, it couldn't be used for soft proofing. I'm assuming you know what that is.
The point I was making, was that with extremely expensive displays, there will be a very small market of users in fields that can afford such displays. those fields don't extend down to many computer users.
It will take a few years for those displays to reach a wider audience.
The purpose therefore, of my point, was to say that we shouldn't expect these displays to solve any possible problems of rez independence soon.
Ok?
Lurking. I was going to say Masturbating. But hey, I would have had to have been doing that for a loooong time.
I had to create a new account because I lost the password to my old account. (Yahoo shut down my old email account that had the pass word on it. If you want the full explanation.) I had 2k plus posts on my old LBB account. Most of them whining about the absence of a low end Mac. Or cheaper Macs. Bigger screened iMacs. Or better GL. Or the idea of a move to Intel. Most of which was torched by posters. But hey, it's all come to pass.
Lemon Bon Bon
"Holy crap, LBB, where have you been??"
Lurking. I was going to say Masturbating. But hey, I would have had to have been doing that for a loooong time.
I had to create a new account because I lost the password to my old account. (Yahoo shut down my old email account that had the pass word on it. If you want the full explanation.) I had 2k plus posts on my old LBB account. Most of them whining about the absence of a low end Mac. Or cheaper Macs. Bigger screened iMacs. Or better GL. Or the idea of a move to Intel. Most of which was torched by posters. But hey, it's all come to pass.
Lemon Bon Bon
I was wondering if we would be seeing a new you.
200 ppi takes 4 times the video memory of 100 ppi and four times pretty much everything else like bandwidth and rendering overhead.
Let's not exagerate here...200ppi takes 2 times the video memory and two times the bandwidth compared to 100ppi.
edit: same with 300ppi...3 times...not 9. Basic math here. Also, the fact that the pixels are smaller may mean that a higher number of dead pixel may be tolerable. At 300ppi, it's starting to get difficult to really notice dead pixels."
I'm beginning to see how things are stacking up, now. It looks like a bit of leap when you put things that way.
Still, with the advances in GPU power, I can't see things being such an issue in terms of GPU power to drive such DPI displays beasts. GPU power is still forging ahead with SLI, faster express lanes pending and maybe multi GPU stuff. Who knows. RI is at least coming with Leopard.
In plain English. Better explanation of what we're up against then the Melgross stuff. (Clearly blinded by his own enlightenment.)
"When you know enough about why these monitors cost what they do, then come back and comment."
Rubs Melgross on the head, 'It's alright, sonny, I'll stay here incite a little debate." And I may even learn something in the process.
I'm a consumer. And I'd like better, crisper, more detailed displays that don't burn my eyes. That's their (monitor companies...) problem to navigate. Not mine. I still want my 300 dpi displays that looks at good as a printed image. And I want 16 core cpu Monster Mac beast to go with it. And a octo-gpu monster to power it all. With 32 gigs of ram. And a 10 terrabyte hard drive.
Dee-da-dee-dee.
Lemon Bon Bon
Cryptic..? Ey? *Pauses...
(I still want to where Amorph disappeared to. I'm convinced Melgross is fronting as him...'it'.)
Well....I did consider...for a moment.
I do have 'Strawberry Avenger' as a back up. I'm not afraid to use it either. But still a squirt of lemon in the eye is as good as orange juice in the eye. Consider this proverb as we muse Leopard's new dawn of Resolution Independence. (Hey, it must be good because Apple are including it in Leopard...we just have to wait for everybody else to catch up...)
Lemon Bon Bon
"Originally Posted by shetline
200 ppi takes 4 times the video memory of 100 ppi and four times pretty much everything else like bandwidth and rendering overhead.
Let's not exagerate here...200ppi takes 2 times the video memory and two times the bandwidth compared to 100ppi.
edit: same with 300ppi...3 times...not 9. Basic math here. Also, the fact that the pixels are smaller may mean that a higher number of dead pixel may be tolerable. At 300ppi, it's starting to get difficult to really notice dead pixels."
I'm beginning to see how things are stacking up, now. It looks like a bit of leap when you put things that way.
Still, with the advances in GPU power, I can't see things being such an issue in terms of GPU power to drive such DPI displays beasts. GPU power is still forging ahead with SLI, faster express lanes pending and maybe multi GPU stuff. Who knows. RI is at least coming with Leopard.
In plain English. Better explanation of what we're up against then the Melgross stuff. (Clearly blinded by his own enlightenment.)
"When you know enough about why these monitors cost what they do, then come back and comment."
Rubs Melgross on the head, 'It's alright, sonny, I'll stay here incite a little debate." And I may even learn something in the process.
I'm a consumer. And I'd like better, crisper, more detailed displays that don't burn my eyes. That's their (monitor companies...) problem to navigate. Not mine. I still want my 300 dpi displays that looks at good as a printed image. And I want 16 core cpu Monster Mac beast to go with it. And a octo-gpu monster to power it all. With 32 gigs of ram. And a 10 terrabyte hard drive.
Dee-da-dee-dee.
Lemon Bon Bon
It's always the ones who know the least who are the most adept at making fun of others.
Your post proves that.
The math is wrong, as are the assumptions.
No one is arguing that you can't wish for something.
Interesting comment. I'd like to see a display that is as easy to look at as a piece of paper. Rather than retina scorch. I suppose there is the contrast and brightness buttons...but... Monitors like print. The holy grail?
Lemon Bon Bon
And the ones who 'know the most' so poor in extracting their wisdom to the 'least'.
Even the stone tablets turned to dust in time. After no doubt dazzling the folks (who knew the least...) with their blinding light in the first instance.
Hmm. Er. Time to leave R.Indepence for one evening I think...
Lemon Bon Bon
The basic math you used is utterly wrong, unless your display is a single line. Did you fail geometry somewhere? ppi is a linear dimension, but that scales by the square for area. That's where the four and nine come in.
A 100ppi display has 10000 pixels per square inch. A 200ppi display has 40000 pixels per square inch. A 300ppi display would have 90000 pixels per square inch. That also means that the video memory and DVI bandwidth quadruples for 200ppi, 300ppi would probably require a new display standard or a major scaling of DVI so that its bandwidth is 9x or more than the current standard. Which is why the IBM T221 needed a quad-link DVI to get an adequate refresh rate.
Oh, yeah, sure...in a perfect world where pixels are perfectly square. :P
At 100 dpi, a square inch is 100 x 100 = 10,000 pixels.
At 200 dpi, a square inch is 200 x 200 = 40,000 pixels.
It's 4 times the bandwidth and memory.
300, likewise, is 9x.
Re: display that looks like paper... eventually electronic ink may get us there (I doubt it), but the problem has to do with the blacks. Currently, they're more of a gray... to get any kind of dynamic range, we need the brighter monitors (which in turn, of course, makes the grays a little bit brighter, too).