> I'm just wondering why nobody makes regular monitors at high resolution
> yet, if the technology exists.

326 dpi on a 20" display is 5500 x 3500 pixels.  Can you get a regular 
graphics card to do that, imagine the fill-rate needed!  I don't think 
DVI can go that high either, you'd need something special.  Plus on the 
display itself you'd need a monster backlight probably with fans, 
yield/reliability would be very low due to the sheer number of 
rows/columns (chances are relatively high that one would be broken 
somehow and render the panel useless).  Maybe in 10 years time or so, 
but today it would be an astronomical waste of money to try and 
manufacture such a device.

> That's one hell of an accident! o_O

At least I learned first-hand that Nokia can tell if the phone's ever 
got wet :-)

> So that's a cheap display that *does* do proper 24bit? (You said
> "doesn't".)

I said it was *unusual* to find one that doesn't do proper 24bit.

>> It's not hard, you just need more bits for the DAC, and that takes up
>> valuable space on the glass (don't forget each DAC needs to be the width
>> of 1 sub-pixel!).
>
> And here I was thinking that the electronics is round the edges of the
> display...

It is, but you need a separate DAC for every column on the display, so 
there's no other practical solution than making them the same width as a 
sub-pixel and putting them along the bottom (or top) edge.

Post a reply to this message