Advanced display talk, display hackers, advanced game programmers, scientists, display researchers, display manufacturers, vision researchers. The masters on Blur Busters.
- Posts: 13
- Joined: 17 Dec 2013, 17:39
Seconding the "Why no 16:9" question and the ETA question.
I'm also curious (I'm not an expert in this field, I just really like high refresh rates) if others on this forum could answer the question of why these displays simply don't exist already. I assume manufacturing cost but even something like that should be assuaged by a high price tag. Is it simply too niche? What are the downsides to this technology? What's the lifetime of such a product?
As for the OP, I would buy a ~70cm 1920x1080x240Hz option at around the $600-$700 price you're quoting. I would expect to keep it until the rest of the world becomes aware of a higher standard.
By the way: If there was a Kickstarter for this product, I would not back it. The only way I will ever purchase something at a value of greater than $100 is if it's for sale, not for "possible sale." Just putting that out there.
flood wrote:maybe I've asked before, but why haven't oled's taken off in the desktop market?
I believe it's due to the low pixel lifetime and high probability of dead pixels per produced display. These have gotten better over time but I'm unsure if they managed to reach a point where we could have a full 1080 display with zero pixel death. Anyone can feel free to correct me on this.
- Posts: 283
- Joined: 23 Dec 2013, 17:16
- Location: Minnesota
You also have to make sure they're VESA mountable.
- Posts: 90
- Joined: 09 Jan 2014, 14:50
I would get the 70cm that does 1920x1200@325hz in a heartbeat! (Monitor 8)
Hell, even 1680x1050x550Hz would be amazing... at any size between 24"-30".
There must be a catch though.
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 27 Jul 2014, 00:55
Monitor 6 is where it's at, I'd totally buy one if it did really well in reviews.
If you really want to impress at the moment, despite having superior colour, you have to cover the ground that the current market is dominating, so 1080p at around 144hz or ideally better.
Low blue light emission modes would also be a bonus these days, curent thinking seems to be that its significantly better for our eyes.
People are willing to pay a premium for that as they finally are beginning to understand the advantages (hence this site!) and not hitting all the numbers would put some off, you'd definitely lose a few customers to 144hz lcd's now with a unit that only did 120hz at near 1080p if only due to misunderstanding of how much better it is in every other way.
1080p is basically standard on desktop LCDs now, and I don't honestly understand why you'd want to go 16:10 instead, bar it's nice for working with text, but at least it wouldn't be cropping anything.
I've been waiting for 6+ years for SED, FED, NED or something along those lines to actually be delivered as promised, it's hard to believe this forum post will actually herald that after all the delays and legal hangups (canon/toshiba legal problems over SED) and we might finally get a worthy successor, but I truly wish you all the best if this legit, LCD was a real step back in so many ways.
*QuakeLive is often run at the cap of 250fps now, it would be amazing to see what it's like with most of those frames actually being displayed. It's a highly competitive game, but has several hundred thousand players, and they'd all be drooling over the idea of your screens. In the next couple of months it's due to be released on Steam as well so those numbers could sore into the millions.
- Posts: 897
- Joined: 21 Dec 2013, 01:25
There must be a catch though.
rabidz7 wrote: I also want to state that I am in the very, very early planning stages for SED/FED monitor production; there is about a 25% chance of me beginning SED/FED monitor production but a 75% chance that this will not happen at all. CRT fans, please don't get your hopes up for this just yet.
I'm guessing if it's going to happen, it's gunna take a while.. 2 years maybe? idk
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 31 Jul 2014, 05:09
Would buy a 16:9 24" 1080p not matter the costs.
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 31 Jul 2014, 11:56
I just got here through my quarterly-year SED/FED google search and all i have to say is YES. I would buy a SED or FED display! Hell, give me 3 Monitor 3's in 50cm, matte, that i can set up in a boundless landscape view and i'm the happiest monitor afficianado you'll ever meet! Not super keen on the new 4K rush imho, but if we're talking commercial, it'll be expected.
Either way, don't know if this is still up to date or anything but after sending tons of emails to weird chinese/japanse adresses and being disappointed with either a nonreply or a 'we are not pursuing that'... i'm up for any solution. My old LG 19 inch flat 1280x1024 is really beginning to show its age both electronically and physically.. the CASE is beginning to crack... and i dread actually moving over to my secondary IPS monitor for gaming.
- Posts: 26
- Joined: 20 May 2014, 17:08
Count me in as interested. I would prefer 4:3 aspect ratio though anything CRT-like with LCD form would be a huge upgrade.
I thought these things disappeared due to patent trolls.
Last edited by Blural
on 03 Aug 2014, 14:04, edited 1 time in total.
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 23:51
would be nice to hear some more info from the OP.
- Posts: 48
- Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 11:36
- Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
16:10 is better than 16:9 in every way, so I do not plan on producing 16:9 monitors. There is no advantage to 16:9, so there is no reason to use it. 16:9 displays really are just TVs passed off as monitors. The reason 16:9 became popular is because it is cheaper for display manufacturers to produce one panel for both TVs and monitors instead of different panels for TVs and monitors. For an ETA, this is in the very early planning stages. There is no ETA. I'm not even sure if I will do this at all. I'm just making this post to assess interest.
Rabidz7 is a: PowerPC Fan, LCD and x86 Hater, and a Plasma/OLED/CRT/SED/FED Lover