IBM's 5.2M Pixel Flat Panel 142
An anonymous reader writes "A current prototype of the Roentgen monitor offers a resolution of 200ppi (pixels per inch), with a total of 5.2 million full-color pixels, laid out in a 2,560 by 2,048 grid. Once the production version of the monitor is released, Greier said it will be able to display two full-sized 8.5-inch by 11-inch documents side by side.
The article also notes that the monitor needs a 4 head Matrox graphics board to drive it." Thats ungodly. Sign me up.
I know what you mean - but.... (Score:3)
The advantage of having a much higher dpi resolution means you can get crisp large fonts without the need for anti-aliasing.
You've got to remember to up the font size when you up the resolution on a monitor, otherwise you do end up squinting at tiny text - though sometimes (scanning large web docs, editing html etc.) it is helpful to fit a large body of text on screen at once.
At the moment it is much easier to read printed rather than on-screen type. Hopefully higher res monitors will fix this pretty soon - or my eyes are going to be dead by the time I'm thirty.
+++++
if only.... (Score:1)
And the windows icons wouldn't look like specks of dust....
Mmmmmmm..... (Score:1)
Only 200ppi? (Score:1)
Re:Good for astronomy (Score:1)
A professional who is looking at digital backs for $10,000 or so could also be quite interested in this device.
Re:Starting to prefer small monitors (Score:1)
radiation sickness (Score:2)
Naming their monitor technology Roentgen worries me a bit.
This vs. The SGI Flatpanel 1600SW (Score:1)
For a while, the big let-down about this flatpanel was SGI's use of the (now defunct) #9 Revolution IV graphics card and the so-called "OpenLDI" digital interface. Basically, it meant that one card and one card only worked with this monitor. But recently, SGI has released a VGA-to-LDI adapter that lets you hook any video card up to the flatpanel. The question I have is: what video card (besides the #9) supports the SGI's funky (yet wonderful) 1600x1024 resolution?
Yeah, the IBM flatpanel sounds nice, but I think I'd take three SGI flatpanels on my desk instead.
Chris
I am not so sure... (Score:1)
that I actually want to sit in front of that thing... Roentgen invented the X-Rays.... And even though I would like to leave an "imprint" in the world, it doesn't have to be as a shadow of my self on the backwall of my office
Michael
Re:Calculations (aka What?) (Score:1)
Re:Starting to prefer small monitors (Score:1)
It's interesting that a blurry (compared to a monitor) tv can be just as effective at smoothing blocky low resolution stuff as the best, most intensive anti-aliasing effects.
Actually anti-aliasing on images often happens after the image has been rendered (for best results it should be applied before), and at that point there is nothing else to do but apply a blur filter... so your observation is probably correct :-)
Multiple monitors (Score:2)
The link that wasnt there... (Score:1)
IBMs project page:
http://www.research.ibm.com/roentgen/ [ibm.com]
Wow... (Score:1)
Re:I know what you mean - but.... (Score:1)
Rob.
Drule damage (Score:4)
The loss of earnings is staggering and the share human trauma of being unable to use you computer is just mind bugling.
Rumor has it that they have signed a deal with the guys making the "Happy Hacking Keyboard" to increase sales.
isn't anyone else concerned? (Score:4)
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Framerate (Score:2)
200ppi/2560x2048/11x17 display? (Score:1)
I would think you'd have to have quite a bit more than 2560x2048 at that ppi to get a screen that size. Or am I doing the math wrong/missing some calculation?
In addition, the screen ratio they give is 1.25, as opposed to the 1.33 of most other resolutions.
-----
Try GIMP 1.1 (Score:1)
As much as I would like to have better screens, I don't think merely higher resolution will solve the problem of viewing a hi-res image all at once without loosing resolution. In fact, you eye cannot see full detail on all of a 17" screen at once anyway, you have to change gaze (lots of times) to see all details.
GIMP 1.1 has a very nice feature that makes panning of large images a very pleasant experience :-). It gives you a small pop-up showing the entire image at lower resolution, and lets you move around the region of interest in the miniature with the mouse. If you have enough RAM is actually quite quick, even on large images.
BTW I also work with large images: aerial photograph databases which I probably never will be able to see on screen at full detail at once :-)
Re:Multiple monitors (Score:1)
Windows 98 added this feature (a full decade after the Mac did - in 1988) but from what I've heard, it's spotty and unstable. Multiple-monitor support often requires slight modification of the way graphics code is written (all drawing commands have to be sent to both cards), and because Windows apps do generally funky nonstandard stuff more often, M$ instability seems to make sense (tho I'm not a Windows programmer). Multiple-monitor support was added at the same time as color support in the Mac.
Ramble on!
foo = bar/*myPtr;
Re:I still find LCD's distracting (Score:1)
Re:I still find LCD's distracting (Score:1)
Re:Thank the Green party! Re:Sign you up? (Score:1)
Good. No more conventional war in Europe after 2004.
(Next time we'll have to use bismuth.)
can you imagine... (Score:1)
(hey, no one else had said it yet.)
Re:Multiple monitors (Score:1)
Still, you do need to make sure you have compatible video cards.
Re:Multiple monitors (Score:2)
Some manufacturers (matrox [matrox.com] for example)are putting out cards that will drive multiple monitors from a single board. I think that makes the most sense. The thought of trying to persuade boards from different manufacturers to harmoniously coexist gives me acid flashbacks to the early days of the PC. Been there, done that, ain't goin' back.
5 million pixels = (Score:2)
whee!
--
blue
Re:Who will buy this thing? (Score:1)
it's kind of ironic that nearly everthing the Art Department prints out is only 800x600, and sometimes they even scale it up from that to get something like 60dpi on their printouts. All those lost dots per inch. *sniff* makes me sad.
Re:Starting to prefer small monitors (Score:1)
Re:Sign you up? (Score:2)
Ever programmed with a dual-head display? Code editor/IDE up on one, references on the other, execution on one, debugger on the other... I miss those projects....
And the market for this will be HUGE. Once people realize what they've been settling for, how will we be able to take pride in our little .22 dot pitch 1600x1280s? Even the Trinitron doesn't come close. Price'll be a pain, but there are enough different high-fidelity applications for this kind of display (how many will Lucas order to edit SWIII on?). Not just CGI, or IBM's favorite market, CAD - artists, architects, medical folk (like the article mentioned), the defense simulation folks (I know some tank simulators that could use this upgrade).
Of course, I'll have to sell stock to be able to afford one. :-( It still doesn't qualify as my dream workstation, but it's an improvement. (remember Stellar Cartography from Star Trek:Generations? Now THAT's a workstation!)
Re:Yowzers! (Score:1)
Re:isn't anyone else concerned? (Score:1)
Re:I still find LCD's distracting (Score:1)
Rob.
DPI (Score:1)
200+ dpi would rock.
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Stop the MPAA [opendvd.org]
Re:if only.... (Score:1)
Sorry but this is certainly wrong. Say we have 10"x10" 200ppi display (2000x2000 pixels) and we have 500 lines of text on it. It has now 4 pixels for each line of text - with good antialiasing it might be barely readable. With 100 ppi you have only 2 pixels per line - there is no way text could be recognizable. Now if we could have 400 ppi display still with 10"x10" we would have 8 pixels per line which could be readable even without antialiasing (not looking great though). So display with more ppi is obviously better. Why do you think that 1200 dpi printer makes better result than 300 dpi printer?
About physical size I would only comment that it only makes difference if you cannot select distance you look at your display from. You may use 1280x1024 head mounted display and it feels equally big (if not bigger) with 19" display on your desktop.
IMHO 10"x10"x200ppi is equal to 20"x20"x100ppi when it comes to for what you can use it. You just need to use it from different distance.
And bigger monitor with the same resolution (instead of ppi value) will be more expensive. Reason: you cannot decrease amount of light you create per area unit (because display would look darker otherwise). Because all known ways need more energy for brighter light when using same technology it will cost more to produce bigger display (for example in case of normal CRT you need to shoot much more electrons).
This isn't to say that smaller display is cheaper because there is limit when it's too hard to create smaller device. I think I would be happy with 300ppi 19" monitor.
_________________________
Re:Starting to prefer small monitors (Score:1)
LCD Projectors make this easy. I was looking at getting an apartment with a vaulted cieling. I could have had 1024x768 at 10' square, or TV at the same size... Apartment was too much though...
Done this at work a few times, in conference rooms. It's fun!
Re:I still find LCD's distracting (Score:2)
There are also monetary benefits like film costs and manpower spent hunting and transporting film. And storage: consider how many images you can fit on a raid array, then calculate how much space that would take up in plastic and paper files.
Re:Sign you up? (Score:1)
>Code editor/IDE up on one, references on the
>other, execution on one, debugger on the
>other... I miss those projects....
What's wrong with multiple virtual screens? Does anybody really run without that nowadays? I don't even run Windows without a virtual window manager. Sure I'd never say no if the boss were to offer me the Roentgen monitor, but I can make do with my 21" trinitron and virtual screens for quite a while. $10K is quite a hefty price, and I manage to make the space for a CRT still.
Re:Try GIMP 1.1 (Score:1)
Actually, the problem you are describing is due to the size of the image, not the resolution. If the pixels were drawn on the screen at a higher density than usual, then you would be able to see the whole image at once, without having to move your eyes around. And that extra resolution would not be wasted, since your eyes are plenty capable of resolving details at greater than the standard 72dpi or 100 dpi of a monitor (at a distance of about 18" to 20").
Re:Calculations (aka What?) (Score:1)
Re:Interesting way to drive those displays.... (Score:2)
BTW: Imaging is very different from graphics. This was one of the revolutionary things about Sun's UPA/VIS architecture in the mid-90's: it was the first affordable graphics susbsystem that did a pretty respectable job at both. Previously serious users had to choose which they wanted and select their hardware accordingly.
How much further can it go? (Score:2)
I'm sitting at a 26inch monitor with 1280x1024, which is a fair bit of 'bandwidth to the eyes'. But a lot of the time, I'm designing the site I'm working on using the wall behind - a 'screen' of 2 x 4 metres, with enough 'resolution' to fit 20 closely typed pages across its width.
I think it doesn't top out for a long time yet...
GigaPixel SchmigaPixel! (Score:1)
Bad name. (Score:1)
--
"How many six year olds does it take to design software?"
200 pixel per inch ? (Score:1)
The pixel grid is 2560*2048 colored pixel.
The display size is 21 inches * 16.5 inches.
This make about 120 colored pixel per inch.
Are they speaking about 200 mono-colored (Red or Green or Blue) per inch or am I missing something?
Still these display must really be impressive to see, the sad point is that they won't become affordable anytime soon.. Bah!
Why four display adatpers? (Score:1)
Dot on the i? (Score:2)
Re:Calculations (aka What?) (Score:2)
In any case, this is still *much* less than what will be required if we're ever to get usable interfaces. Even at 2 A-size sheets at a decent resolution, it's still tiny: A quick look around the stuff on my desk reveals 10 roughly A-size documents "open" and the corners of several others peeking out. The surrounding work area and walls have another severl pages available for reference.
So for $10,000, you can get a tiny fraction of the bandwidth of my standard-issue IBM desk. Killing trees isn't going to slow anytime soon until computer desktop bandwidth approaches or exceeds that of the physical desktop. Until then, I'll keep printing out the things I'm working on.
Really, though, this is a real problem - computers simply can't be really useful until they have big screens so we can stop trying to drive the freeway while looking at the world through a knothole. This is the sort of thing we should put all those extra CPU cycles to. Thank you, Gordon Moore.
Re:Starting to prefer small monitors (Score:1)
I first looked at anto-aliased text on an ATI card my boss was using in 1992. I hated it. When my eye couldn't reliably pick up the edges of the characters, I tired of reading in a few minutes. Meanwhile, back at my own desk, I can read for hours. I was in my bosses office because he wanted my opinion on whether his monitor needed to be serviced. We turned off the ATI feature and kept the monitor.
I feel the same about the demo of Gibson's anti-aliasong product at www.grc.com. The after image is soft and fuzzy and halfway unreadable.
My eye will learn to ignore aliasing in a font within a few hours. I never learn to see edges of characters that have been deliberately hidden, and without edges, the font becomes unreadable
Re:I know what you mean - but.... (Score:1)
When I worked at PARC I had one of the prototype 7 megapixel displays which had a resolution up near 300dpi (282dpi if I remember right). It was 4-bit grayscale only, not colour, but text looked REALLY nice. A lot of Web sites really sucked, though, because they used frames or tables whose sizes were specified in terms of an absolute number of pixels, which usually meant that I'd see a column containing about 2-3 words per line, since each character on my display was 3x wider (in pixels) than they'd been expecting.
Antialiased text on this display was just beautiful.
Re:I love LCD (Score:1)
Here's one: http://www.drbott.com/prod/MSDVI.html [drbott.com]
Since it's a digital interface, quality is not a huge issue, like it is with analog video switchboxes/cables.
Re:if only.... (Score:1)
If you have a larger monitor, you can display more PAGES at ACTUAL size. This is what I have been saying all along. If you have a smaller monitor, you can not. At one point in the original article they mentioned that this is very useful in some situations. I agree. I have done newspaper layout before... I want to see a bunch of pages at the same time, at ACTUAL size. Not half size. 100ppi has always been good enough to do this... now give me a bigger monitor.
A monitor at 100ppi has plenty of clarity to display text on an ordinary printed page (about 12pt) at actual size. I know, I have one. I never said that it would be great when fonts rendered 4 pixels high at actual size... of course that's true, but who puts text like this on a PRINTED PAGE? Even with your fancy 1200 dpi printer, you can't read it.
As far as the cost goes... we are talking about a LCD display here, not a CRT. They've been doing approx. 100ppi transistors for a long time now... I know, I have them in my laptop's screen. Making them 1/4 the size of that makes each one more expensive, naturally. Yes, they may be more energy efficient, but that's not the point. By making something using 4000000 cheapo 100ppi transistors, you've just saved money, instead of making something out of 4000000 expensive 200ppi ones.
ClearType is only icing on the cake after that.
I hope I have made it clear that time.
nice, thanks (Score:1)
> huge issue, like it is with analog video
> switchboxes/cables.
You're absolutely right; I guess what I meant to say is "I can't find a digital switch". Good call! It doesn't have quite PC support I'd hope for, but it looks pretty good.
With one of these I wouldn't have to upgrade all my video cards: http://www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/2000/j
Now all I need is $5000...
Re:New Monitors Bring New Way of Visualization (Score:1)
Look at the processor speed race. Soon we'll see a 1.4GHz Pentium IV processor, but apart from being able to finish a SETI work unit in 2 hours (I'm guessing)
2 hours? pphhhtt! :)
Look at the platform stats - there are Alpha machines (at DEC/Compaq?) that finish a unit in around an hour. I remember one used to be around 56 minutes, but I can't see it there. And these are probably 600Mhz (650?) 21264 processors. Intel still has a long way to go
ObSlashdot: Imagine a beowulf cluster of those!
(actually, we don't have to imagine, do we?)
Re:even better (Score:1)
I want to see this tech in a PDA/web pad (Score:1)
Chris
Yes, but with less detail... (Score:2)
IBM Fact Sheet [ibm.com] linked in Slashdot Article
-----
Re:I still find LCD's distracting (Score:1)
LCDs are subject to ghosting of images due to the relitively slow speed of liquid crystal. This is similar to slow phosphors on an old TV. But in the case of TV this actually helps the persistence of vision. With LCD you are running 60Hz refresh, and even turning your head will catch the update. This also happens with slower CRT monitors.
Also, keep in mind that this display is for viewing of X-Rays and other mostly still data. It is still a somewhat poor substitute to the original, but the ability to write on the X-ray without damage, plus the instant development of X-ray streams would be an added benefit. I think the latter already exists in some lab, but I'd also wager it is quite expensive. The former is great for keeping layers of notes.
Just don't expect any "TekWar" video-tables anytime soon :(
After Phytagore (Score:1)
This makes a 70cm diag. screen (26.7 inch monitor).
If this can sound good to play Civilization (is the refresh quick enough for Quake ?), this is just a little slow to watch DVD.
What about its consummation, especially compared to previous laptops ?
Do IBM intend to make big (I mean tall, not necessarily revolutionary) laptop using these ?
--
Forget huuuuge displays... lets have ickle ones (Score:4)
Rather than trying to have complicated pixels from what I can make of it they build up colours by simply flashing the primary colours at you in different proportions, and with frame rates in the kHz bracket it looks very interesting.
Re:Same factory as Thinkpad displays... (Score:5)
Not unless you want to be hauling around a car battery with your now huge, 25 pound laptop....
Roentgen features:200 ppi 16.3 inch Active Matrix Liquid Crystal Display
diagonal viewing area
2560x2048 pixels (5,242,880 full color pixels)
Subpixels are 42 x 126 microns
15,728,640 transistors
1.64 miles of thin film wiring on the display
Aperture ratio of 27.3%
Backlight power of 44 Watts
The smallest feature is 5 microns
The prototype is 21 inches high and 16.5 inches wide, the total depth (including base) is 9.5 inches,
the thickness of the display is 2.5 inches
The weight is approximately 20 pounds
The power dissipated by the new display is similar to the power used by an 18-inch CRT display.
Not quite ready for mobile applications, apparently (even if they used a TransMeta proc) ;-)
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
Re:I still find LCD's distracting (Score:1)
Re:200ppi/2560x2048/11x17 display? (Score:2)
Pythagoras says we need a hypotenuse of 20.2" to get a 11x17 viewing area.
-----
Re:FIST post (Score:1)
Re:Starting to prefer small monitors (Score:1)
I do like my big Viewsonic, though. It all boils down to quality: if you buy a cheap $200 17" or 19", you should expect it to ruin your eyes. Period.
--
Change is inevitable.
New Monitors Bring New Way of Visualization (Score:2)
Not so with monitors. The field is wide open--and overripe, if Sci-fi movie special effects have anything to say about it--for a revoluionary change in the way we view data. Whether it's a 50" flat-screen [pioneerusa.com] or a CAVE [uic.edu] environment or a holographic projecton [laser-magic.com], I think things are going to start changing. And it will start changing the way we see things.
--
Re:if only.... (Score:1)
Good for astronomy (Score:3)
As consumer digital cameras approach 2048x2048 resolution, I'm sure graphic artists will start to want high-end monitors like this one, too.
However current top-end astronomy CCDs are using chips of up to 4096x4096 pixels and new cameras are using arrays of 2-16 of these large format chips. This spring I worked on some data from an 8192x8192 mosaic imager and, boy, was it hard to work with images shrunk by a factor of 8x8 to make them fit on my current-generation screen!
Yah - too friggin big is too friggin big (Score:1)
Re:And for reference? (Score:1)
Re:200 pixel per inch ? (Score:1)
Your calculations are essentially correct, but unnecessarily complicated.
We already know from IBM [ibm.com] that the diagonal of the viewable display area is 16.3". All we need to do is calculate the number of pixels on this diagonal (sqrt(2560^2 + 2048^2) = ~3278.4), and divide that by 16.3", to get 201.1 ppi.
--
Apple's secret weapon? (Score:1)
Re:This vs. The SGI Flatpanel 1600SW (Score:1)
The first crop of SGI Intel-based workstations, the 320 and 540 series, supported the 1600SW out of the box with their Cobalt chipset. The SGI O2 could also drive it with a special adapter.
It's really kind of sad that the industry went with the other digitial signalling technology, which is encumbered by patents and limited in resolution. Check out SGI's whitepapers [sgi.com] on the subject. I think the new MultiLink Adapter is way overpriced. They should include it with the monitor IMHO.
Re:Only 200ppi? (Score:1)
Re:Starting to prefer small monitors (Score:1)
Hear hear, though it's especially true for the crap Compaq ships.
[...]
It all boils down to quality: if you buy a cheap $200 17" or 19", you should expect it to ruin your eyes.
You should re-read your reply in this context. I have a Compaq P110 21" at work and it is an excellent monitor. I'll probably never spend that much on a monitor for home, but it's a damn nice monitor. If a consumer or business spends $200 for a 17" or 19" Compaq monitor, I imagine most of the people who use the monitor will assume all Compaq monitors are crap.
Then again, if I were Compaq and I were selling crappy monitors cheap, I'd probably not put my brand name in an obvious spot on them.
Re:even better (Score:1)
I WANT ONE (Score:1)
Re:Why four display adatpers? (Score:2)
Thinking about the same thing, I did some simple calculation on bandwidth requirements... 2560x2048 is (as stated) 5Mpixels (using M to mean 1<<20, as in MB). At 32 bits per pixel, that's 20 MB per frame. If we want to display that at 60 Hz, that's a rather hefty 1.2 GB per second bandwidth requirement. One way to ease that is to split the frame buffer across multiple cards, since each frame buffer then only needs to deal with a fraction (here, a fourth, or 300 MBps) of the bandwidth. Reservation: 60 Hz might be more than an LCD uses, so the above figures could be off by a factor of 2 or so. Still, I think there's a problem here.
If you want to do full-screen 3D graphics (which seems to be high on everybody's wish list, judging from the number of drooling references to Q3 among the posts hereCalculations (aka What?) (Score:3)
2560" x 2048"
21" x 16.5"
two 8.5" x 11" side by side
2560/21=121.9 ppi
2048/16.5 =124.1 ppi
two 8.5" x 11" side by side = 11" x 17" portrait or 8.5" by 22" landscape
21" x 16.5" is slightly less than four 8.5" x 11" pages in a 2x2 grid.
So what are the real specs on this monitor?
Re:if only.... (Score:3)
Re:And for reference? (Score:2)
--
Email address is real.
Re:Yowzers! (Score:2)
Walt
And for reference? (Score:3)
--
Talk about a killer idea... (Score:2)
Starting to prefer small monitors (Score:5)
I still find LCD's distracting (Score:4)
I have the chance to play with a Sun Enterprise rackmount server with a flat panel LCD, it sure is nift looking, but the slow refresh rate is to distracting.
I imagine doing Quake or Doom on this would be lackluster, jsut a bunch of smeared pixels.
Are they every going to make the refresh rate better?
George
Sign you up? (Score:3)
That much said, expect around a decade before this technology works it down to a price point such that you can buy it, cheaply. Right now it's mainly for kick-ass CAD, which IBM has been targeting very heavily with its workstations recently.
Personally, I think the best part of this is the fact that Matrox gets attention out of it - they never seem to get as much attention as they should!
Dare I Say it? (Score:2)
Re:$10,000? WHo are they kidding... (Score:2)
The cost of the materials that goes into one monitor is less of a factor than the number of monitors that come off the production line flawed, and need to be discarded. We're dealing with the fabrication of tens of millions of microscopic components here, and if even a handfull of them are botched in production, the resulting monitor panel will be unsaleable. When someone pays $10000 for one of these flat panel displays, they're paying not only for the display they got, but for the X number of displays that (on average) came off the line too flawed to sell.
-- WhiskeyJack
I love LCD (Score:3)
The only reason I haven't switched to LCD for my desktop is that I don't know of any quality digital switches, so all my computers can share it.
I'm a little skeptical... (Score:2)
Now, I would love to see a breakthrough in technology and to have a 1200 dpi display device (other than paper that is
sPh
Re:And for reference? (Score:2)
Interesting way to drive those displays.... (Score:3)
While consumers are now seeing boards that have output for two monitors from Matrox, according to a friend of mine, Matrox makes a lot of specialty boards like the one mentioned. Some of the four screen models are used in financial institutions or somesuch.
As for the technology driving it, it's a massive board (or combination of boards) powered by the G200 chipset. Matrox may be making these based on the G400 (or even G450) by now, but I'm not sure.
IBM must be using some sort of tiling scheme to display the stuff. xinerema in hardware?
Blurb at IBM Research Site (Score:5)
But it's $10,000 (Score:2)
When somebody can get the price of this thing down to around $2000, that's news.
One thing I'd like to know... (Score:2)
OK. That's more than one thing I'd like to know.
Yowzers! (Score:2)
I'm drooling already, even though I won't be able to afford such a thing for at least a year. But in the way of everything electronic, today $10,000, next year $4000, year after $1000, and in three years, they're giving them away ('cause the things are obsolete).
Gonzo
This has been mentioned before (Score:3)
even better (Score:2)