View Full Version : 3840 x 2400 Resolution question
09-17-03, 11:38 AM
Has anyone ever seen 3840 x 2400 resolution?
As far as I've seen, the greater the resolution, the smaller things get.
Would you even be able to see anything at that res?
I have a client that wants a system with the Nvidia Quadro FX 3000.
and a Viewsonic VP2290b 22" LCD monitor.
Both will do 3840 x 2400 resolution.
I've read that the FX 3000 has some software that enhances text, to
make it more readable.
He is adamant about this particular monitor.
09-17-03, 02:55 PM
Ive seen one but it was on a 42 inch plasma screen, and it looked slightly bigger in comparison to a 1024 x 768 res on a 19 inch monitor.
Im not sure about putting such a high res on a 22 inch one, it might be very very small
09-17-03, 03:10 PM
Yeah, even with cleartype turned on that would be absolutely unbearable IMO, and that is with my young eyes. ;)
09-17-03, 03:22 PM
If the fonts are unreadable at such a high resolution, you can always incase your display property's dpi setting. People at dpreview do that so they can do their photo editting on those tiny 15" Dell laptops at 1920x1200.
09-17-03, 03:39 PM
I suppose there's always a workaround eh? I dunno, I have always been of the opinion that if you want to run in a high resolution then you are best served by getting a display that is BIG. :)
To each his own though.
No. Even if there was one i know it will cost alot.
Yikes, 3840 x 2400 resolution...that's a lot. In fact that's...*uses windows calculator*...HOLY CRAP! 175 times sharper then regular TV resolution!!! Well in the Windows GUI, I think at that res it would be TOTALLY impossible to see anything on less then a 60" view distance (think of 640x480 res scaled down to 175th it's origional size). Though you can make text and icon size bigger in Windows, but most programs would probably have major issues since they simply aren't made for above 1280x960 res.
But as another person said, you might be able to change the DPI, but I'm not sure how much it would help at that resolution. I honestly don't think there's any way to make that resolution usable on any display under 30" without losing the benefits that such a high resolution is supposed to give you. But hey, it's a nice feature to have!
Oh, and can you imagine a resolution like that being used for games or something? I remember back when HDTVs came out, they said at 1920x1080 you could see the makeup on newscasters faces. Think of all the defects you'd notice at 3840x2400!
At that resolution, it'll take about 2 years to move your mouse from one side of the screen to the other. Or adjust the sensitivity to 1000 times the normal
but still its cool to see all the files on your HD in one explorer window :cool:
09-17-03, 09:21 PM
I can't be the only person here who'd want to use that monitor. :p 3840x2400 is big enough to view a 9 megapixel image at 100% so it's perfect for serious photographers.
09-17-03, 09:49 PM
Sorry about posting in the wrong place, I just wanted the most viewers, cause I'm sure not very many people have ever witnessed that resolution.
I reeeaaallllllly wonder why IBM and Viewsonic even make a 22" LCD that does that resolution, there has to be a legitimate reason. Also, nvidia makes the Quadro FX 3000 graphics card that does it too.
What on earth could it be used for at full res on a 22" monitor.?
Maybe one of those 10' wide multi panel monitors, but they require a dual head card for each 2 panels, which means using a back plane and several PCI cards(not hardly at 3840 x 2400)
EDIT, btw, anyone that wants to own one of there baby's can buy
the monitor for around $8000, and the Quadro FX3000 for another $2000.
09-17-03, 09:59 PM
You can use it for badass CAD work.
That's kinda it.
09-19-03, 09:56 AM
Hmmm, only problem is it isn't a 4/3 res, which means either the pixels wont be square-shaped or the image won't fill the screen.
As for TV res :
NTSC = 704x480
PAL = 720x576
SECAM = 768x576
640x480 is the basic VGA resolution.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.