>> Seriously, does anyone know if the device contains any technology
>> which is
>
> Very high resolution,

It works out lower than a consumer 1920xRGBx1200 monitor, plus you don't 
need to bother with any colour filters which makes things a lot cheaper 
(3 fewer process steps on the panel, plus the backlight can be less 
powerful, so fewer LEDs/smaller CCFL).

> 10-bit grayscale,

Yep, that would need some specialist drivers not used in most consumer 
equipment = expensive!

Also it's probably guaranteed to some medical standards which are much 
stricter than consumer grade = very expensive.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/02/2011 02:48 AM, stbenge wrote:
> It's got a native resolution of 1920x1080, cost me about $155, and
> there's *not*one* pixel out of place.

To be honest, it's a long time since I've seen an LCD with any dead 
pixels. It used to be quite common, but these days it seems to have been 
nearly eliminated. (Although, the absurdly cheap LCD we got for my 
grandparents has a single green pixel near the edge that's stuck at 100%.)

> The viewing angle is very satisfactory.

Most desktops manage to do this now. Laptops are another matter, but 
desktops are usually quite good now. (As are TVs, BTW.)

> Of course, this is my first LCD monitor, so take everything I say with a
> grain of sodium chloride. But I've seen other comparably-priced LCDs,
> and I must say, this thing is awesome :)

I'm still very happy with the Samsung SyncMaster I got for my mum. Then 

exchange rate...)

Post a reply to this message

>> ...there are people who use colour-calibrated monitors?
>
> I take it you didn't actually read the description, then.

I'm having a hard time believing that just because somebody is a 
"professional photographer" they can afford to blow £1k on a monitor. 
And let's face it, it isn't actually going to help them take better photos.

Post a reply to this message

>> 10-bit grayscale,
>
> Yep, that would need some specialist drivers not used in most consumer
> equipment = expensive!

Using parts that aren't produced in large volumes? Yeah, I'd say that's 
expensive.

> Also it's probably guaranteed to some medical standards which are much
> stricter than consumer grade = very expensive.

Well, if they're going to do things like guarantee no dead pixels, that 
probably reduces panel yield.

But more to the point, I know our lab contains equipment which is 
absurdly expensive for no reason other than the guarantees attached to 
it. For example, you can buy small heating devices for mere pence. But 
our column ovens cost something like £200 each. We have a stirring 
machine which is little more than a spindle and an electric motor, yet 
that costs hundreds too.

Our mass spectrometers cost roughly £250,000 each (i.e., more money than 
the entire company makes in a decade). And yet, they all have stamped 
all over them "not for use in diagnostic procedures". In other words, we 
can use them for gathering statistics, but you're not supposed to use 
them to diagnose a specific person's illness. To do *that*, you would 
presumably need to buy an identical device at 500x the price...

Post a reply to this message

> I'm having a hard time believing that just because somebody is a
> "professional photographer" they can afford to blow £1k on a monitor.

How much do you think the camera equipment costs that a professional 
photographer uses?  Or how much does it cost to fly somewhere and stay 
in a hotel for 2 weeks to cover an event?  A monitor like that is 
insignificant.

> And let's face it, it isn't actually going to help them take better photos.

No, but it will help prepare them accurately for publishing.

Post a reply to this message

> Well, if they're going to do things like guarantee no dead pixels, that
> probably reduces panel yield.

Also things like the general uniformity of the display - display a black 
image on your PC monitor and turn out all the lights, it's probably not 
very even.  Also that nothing will go wrong in use.  A dark or bright 
smudge on the front polariser is annoying for a PC monitor (you might 
take it back and get it replaced if you noticed it), but on a device 
used for medical diagnosis that absolutely cannot happen.  The only way 
to guarantee that is very extensive testing and much tighter quality 
control during production and throughout the whole supply chain.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/02/2011 09:47 AM, scott wrote:
>> Well, if they're going to do things like guarantee no dead pixels, that
>> probably reduces panel yield.
>
> Also things like the general uniformity of the display - display a black
> image on your PC monitor and turn out all the lights, it's probably not
> very even.

Presumably it's very awkward to make an emissive display really even.

(I thought medical diagnosis is always done with film prints anyway...)

> Also that nothing will go wrong in use. A dark or bright
> smudge on the front polariser is annoying for a PC monitor (you might
> take it back and get it replaced if you noticed it), but on a device
> used for medical diagnosis that absolutely cannot happen. The only way
> to guarantee that is very extensive testing and much tighter quality
> control during production and throughout the whole supply chain.

My LCD has a dead bug inside it, remember?

Post a reply to this message

> My LCD has a dead bug inside it, remember?

"Funny, you're the third person in this morning with a dead bug stuck 
inside their chest."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I'm having a hard time believing that just because somebody is a 
> "professional photographer" they can afford to blow £1k on a monit
or. 

I'm not even a professional and I spent more than that on a camera or two
.

Plus, it's the kind of monitor you'd have hooked up to your printing pres
s, 
not the kind you'd have hooked up to your desktop machine. You don't thin
k 
places like Time Magazine or Cosmopolitan wants to know exactly what the 

cover is going to look like when they ship it off to the printer to print
 
ten million copies?  That's what color calibration is *for* - so everyone
 
sees it the way you do.

(Altho I must admit I never figured out how you could calibrate an emissi
ve 
display with subtractive ink set.  I wonder how long before this sort of 

thing is available in color eInk?)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>> Seriously, does anyone know if the device contains any technology
>>> which is
>>
>> Very high resolution,
> 
> It works out lower than a consumer 1920xRGBx1200 monitor,

Max Resolution - 2560 x 2048

Lower resolution if you count each pixel on an RGB as three addressible 
pixels, which I guess is what you're saying.

>> 10-bit grayscale,
> 
> Yep, that would need some specialist drivers not used in most consumer 
> equipment = expensive!
> 
> Also it's probably guaranteed to some medical standards which are much 
> stricter than consumer grade = very expensive.

Compliant Standards - TUV, CCC, RoHS, CE MDD

I'm guessing MDD is medical diagnostic device, for example.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message