[maverickronin]

Quote:

Seriously what do you guys achieve with monitors that size?

Lots of stuff open at the same time or lots of room for layers, effect pallets, and other stuff in Photoshop or Premiere.  Primary is that 20" Viewsonic @ 2048x1536.  Secondary is a 19" Viewsonic @ 1600x1200.  Tertiary is my TV @ standard 1080p.
 
Quote:

Apparently there are 17 inch laptop panels available (mostly for those who want to repair their out of warranty laptop), maybe it's possible to make a DIY display ?

Laptop panels don't really count.  The panels are available, but you have to get separate (and expensive) converters because the bare panels use a different interface standard from VGA, DVI, or anything else that's used on desktop video cards.  Or at least it was still that way the last time I looked into it.
 
They still AFIK don't get any higher resolution that 1080p-ish like yours.  All the decent and sanely priced models with more or same amount of pixels as my current display are just too big, or at least too wide.  Being thinner doesn't help since I wouldn't have any us for extra space behind them that I can't reach anyway.
 
I'd love to know if any of that has changed though.  I go into a flurry of research a few times a year and see if any this stuff has changed since I last looked at it and its been a while now.

 

[khaos974]

Lots of stuff open at the same time or lots of room for layers, effect pallets, and other stuff in Photoshop or Premiere.  Primary is that 20" Viewsonic @ 2048x1536.  Secondary is a 19" Viewsonic @ 1600x1200.  Tertiary is my TV @ standard 1080p.

Laptop panels don't really count.  The panels are available, but you have to get separate (and expensive) converters because the bare panels use a different interface standard from VGA, DVI, or anything else that's used on desktop video cards.  Or at least it was still that way the last time I looked into it.
 
They still AFIK don't get any higher resolution that 1080p-ish like yours.  All the decent and sanely priced models with more or same amount of pixels as my current display are just too big, or at least too wide.  Being thinner doesn't help since I wouldn't have any us for extra space behind them that I can't reach anyway.
 
I'd love to know if any of that has changed though.  I go into a flurry of research a few times a year and see if any this stuff has changed since I last looked at it and its been a while now.

Maybe several 24 inches in a portrait orientation?

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Maybe several 24 inches in a portrait orientation?

I thought about that, but it wouldn't be nearly wide enough for a Premiere timeline.  At least not without breaks and bezels in the way which is pretty annoying.  I still like 4:3 for my PC monitors.  I'm sort of in a bind these days....

 

[kiteki]

I'm enjoying the CRT discussion, I'm glad some people know what the **** they're talking about.

 

[maverickronin]

And in case that sounds like a contradiction, I think of "widescreen" monitors and "shortscreen" monitors...

 

[kiteki]

I'm not that hardcore with colour fidelity and pixel density but one thing I despise is input lag which is pretty bad on almost all modern monitors, we're just so used to it we don't notice it.

 

[ocswing]

Quote:

I'm not that hardcore with colour fidelity and pixel density but one thing I despise is input lag which is pretty bad on almost all modern monitors, we're just so used to it we don't notice it.

Heh I don't really care about color fidelity (I'm red/green colorblind), but pixel density is such an important thing for me. I really wish there were a 20" 1900x1200 LCD out there. Laptop displays don't really count cause even if you can buy the panel it's not just simply hooking it up to a desktop computer.
 
For input lag I thought that TN panels were getting pretty good about that. Though the measurements are never standardized, but I have seen 2ms times and that's pretty good.

 

[maverickronin]

I'm not hardcore on color accuracy but I think resolution is way more important than the physical size of the screen.  I also despise input lag as another pain-in-the-ass detail that complicates the purchase process for no good reason.

 

[khaos974]

Remember that 22 inch LCD IBM display with pixel density of 220 pixel/inch?
It was pretty horrible in all other parameters but as far as pixel density is concerned, it rocked!

 

[maverickronin]

I've heard about it.  Don't know much else about it though.  I'd need it at least not ghost or have any more input lag then a CRT.

 

[kiteki]

 
Quote:

 
For input lag I thought that TN panels were getting pretty good about that. Though the measurements are never standardized, but I have seen 2ms times and that's pretty good.

Are you sure you're not talking about grey to grey?  Monitors advertise 2ms and 5ms which is just G2G, the input lag is usually around 50~100ms, a really good monitor will be down at around 10ms, a CRT is 0ms.
 

 

[deadlylover]

You guys will like this.
 
4k by 2k resolution, imagine all the loli's you could fit on one screen!
 
Too bad it's like ~$36K.

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

What do you mean?

@ maverickronin: Apparently there are 17 inch laptop panels available (mostly for those who want to repair their out of warranty laptop), maybe it's possible to make a DIY display ?

What I mean is what is the point in having extremely high pixel density in a small screen. Wouldn't that be more annoying then useful. If I had a 2500x1500 display I would want a 45" or larger screen.
 
 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

What I mean is what is the point in having extremely high pixel density in a small screen. Wouldn't that be more annoying then useful. If I had a 2500x1500 display I would want a 45" or larger screen.

Are you trying to use it from across the room or something?  My monitor at home is only like 12-18 or so inches from my eyes.

 

[kiteki]

The point in high pixel density... is high pixel density.
 
If you watch 699MB movies on a projector on your living-room wall you are not welcome into the high pixel denizen club.