Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Japanese Display Company Announces LCD with 651ppi

Tags:
  • LCD
  • Japanese
  • Displays
Last response: in News comments
Share
June 8, 2012 4:13:32 PM

Still waiting for them to make desktop monitors with at least 120 ppi
Score
31
June 8, 2012 4:16:31 PM

This seems to really benefit languages that use complex characters such as the Japanese script above.
Score
20
June 8, 2012 4:18:44 PM

The high pixel density would be good for head-mounted displays.
Score
22
June 8, 2012 4:23:39 PM

That's impressive...to make 326ppi look bad is not easy.
Score
13
June 8, 2012 4:30:12 PM

HMD please!
Score
6
June 8, 2012 4:44:37 PM

Can we PLEASE get higher resolution desktop screens now?
Score
23
June 8, 2012 4:57:06 PM

As a proof of concept this is awesome. The next generation will of course be larger and in color but at this resolution we are approaching the granularity of control from the old crt displays where you could change resolutions without any loss of quality in the picture.
Score
3
June 8, 2012 4:57:19 PM

serhat359Still waiting for them to make desktop monitors with at least 120 ppi


It has been done before:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/IBM-T221-9503-DG5-NOT-DGP-48-hz...
204 pixels per inch, came out around 2001.

BTW, for those curious about the Japanese text used, I think it says something about eagles and hawks dancing in the sky (might be part of a longer sentence, though)
Score
4
June 8, 2012 5:08:08 PM

a few more month and smart phones have higher resolutions than our desk top 'monitors' (i.e. TVs).

It is about time that a company steps up to the place and brings us a decent resolution that does not break the bank.
Score
7
June 8, 2012 5:38:33 PM

I second the fact that monitor manufacturers are slacking..... I do photography with high megapixel camera's and want to know when the 326 or 600+ ppi displays are coming to my 24 and 30 inch monitors.
Score
7
June 8, 2012 6:14:44 PM

2.3 inches is good for a refrigerator magnet. It will be great when this is brought to a desktop monitor...
Score
4
June 8, 2012 6:59:20 PM

jacekringBut did you look at the contrast ratio and response times on that monitor??? 400:1 contrast is horrible, my monitor has 700:1 and I consider it just barely passing and I wish I had bought one with 1000:1. Although I bought my monitor like 6 years ago and it's 32". Oh and my monitor has 8ms response time not 50 like that monitor. Forget playing a fast paced shooter on that monitor, the blur will be unforgiving. Res on my monitor is 1920x1200 btw.


I didn't say it was a good monitor, just that it qualified as a desktop monitor with >= 120 ppi. I like the idea of more pixels per inch on desktop monitors, but I think it's not so much "waiting for them to make" as "waiting for them to bring back" and provide better contrast and response time, though I'm also waiting for desktop-size OLED monitors to become affordable.
Score
6
June 8, 2012 6:59:54 PM

yadudeThe high pixel density would be good for head-mounted displays.

My thoughts exactly!

Sad thing is that my 10" netbook cannot run win8's metro apps naively because the res is too low (thank God for reg edits!)... then 3 years later comes this 2.3" display and it should be able to do it with no problem... granted a touch screen this size would be damn near impossible.
Score
1
June 8, 2012 8:47:44 PM

CaedenVMy thoughts exactly!Sad thing is that my 10" netbook cannot run win8's metro apps naively because the res is too low (thank God for reg edits!)... then 3 years later comes this 2.3" display and it should be able to do it with no problem... granted a touch screen this size would be damn near impossible.


My phones screen is 2.6 inch with a touch screen.
Score
0
June 8, 2012 9:44:54 PM

lol look at the Japanese characters how hard are they to write???
Score
0
June 8, 2012 10:10:50 PM

I might not need this much for a desktop monitor (yet), but at least give us a 30" 4k monitor for now! Please?
Score
1
June 8, 2012 11:27:34 PM

jacekringBut did you look at the contrast ratio and response times on that monitor??? 400:1 contrast is horrible, my monitor has 700:1 and I consider it just barely passing and I wish I had bought one with 1000:1. Although I bought my monitor like 6 years ago and it's 32". Oh and my monitor has 8ms response time not 50 like that monitor. Forget playing a fast paced shooter on that monitor, the blur will be unforgiving. Res on my monitor is 1920x1200 btw.

Although I agree that the contrast ratio isn't good, but the response time is as expected, since as Toms pointed out in a 27" roundup that higher res monitors have a longer response time.

Oh, if only someone would give me the best of all monitor worlds! because even if it does come out, I'll only be able to dream about having it!
Score
0
June 8, 2012 11:28:18 PM

There are 4 Chinese characters and 2 Japanese characters in the text
Score
0
June 9, 2012 12:38:58 AM

eddieroolz said:
That's impressive...to make 326ppi look bad is not easy.


Trouble is it wouldn't make 326ppi look bad. It would be very hard to notice a difference during regular use. You could only tell if you brought it uncomfortably close.
Score
-3
June 9, 2012 2:09:34 AM

if you can't see the pixels on 326 ppi, how will going to a higher ppi be better?

From a technical standpoint its better, but if we can't see the difference is there a point? Its like buying monster branded cables for 200$ and thinking you hear the sound difference.
Score
-2
June 9, 2012 2:10:58 AM

jryan388Trouble is it wouldn't make 326ppi look bad. It would be very hard to notice a difference during regular use. You could only tell if you brought it uncomfortably close.

That's a crazy claim. Read into angular resolution and minimum separable acuity.
Score
1
June 9, 2012 2:24:23 AM

from what i remember the best screen resolution belong to HTC Rezhound with 342 ppi pixel density...love mine :) 
Score
1
June 9, 2012 3:59:08 AM

Only good this is for is like what someone said already, HMD, other then that I think the 326 is just fine considering it is very difficult to tell the difference between that and 600+.

Score
-1
June 9, 2012 10:01:58 PM

sacreOnly good this is for is like what someone said already, HMD, other then that I think the 326 is just fine considering it is very difficult to tell the difference between that and 600+.

Have you seen the comparative pictures at the top? Of course not, if your eyesight is so bad that you can't tell the difference then you probably have cataracts, or you are really Stevie Wonder
Score
2
!