Toshiba's New 6.1" Display Packs 2560×1600 pixels
Toshiba has revealed a new 6.1-inch LCD display crammed with 498 pixels per square inch. Eat that, Apple.
Thursday Toshiba Mobile Display (TMD) said that it had developed a direct-view 6.1-inch LCD display with the world's highest level of resolution: as high as 498 pixels per square inch (ppi). LG’s Retina display for Apple's iPhone 4 only does 326 per square inch.
More specifically, Toshiba's new panel -- slated for tablets and other mobile devices -- has a resolution of up to 2560 x 1600, a contrast ratio of 1000:1 and a viewing angle of 176° or broader in both the vertical and horizontal directions. It also has a 61-percent NTSC color gamut allowing for 16.7 million colors... all crammed within a 6.1-inch form factor.
"This newly-developed world-class, high-definition LCD panel is based on our processing techniques for forming fine-pitch and high-performance, low-temperature poly-silicon (LTPS) thin-film transistors (TFT) on glass substrates, and other precise fabrication techniques which have been cultivated over the years," the company said. "This direct-view LCD panel achieves high-definition images with photographic quality, and although the images are displayed in 2D format, they impart a sense of depth and realism."
Currently little else is known about the new display. However Toshiba said it plans to exhibit the high-res LCD at FPD International 2011 next week in Yokohama, Japan.
- Super Mario Wedding Invitations Are Awesome
- Sony’s PlayStation 3D Monitor Arrives Mid-November
- Google Apps, Fake Names Coming to Google+
- Microsoft, Google Sued Over Hyperlinks in Documents
- Siri May Let Anyone Gain Access to a Locked iPhone 4S
- Asus Shows Off Quad Core-powered Eee Pad Transformer
- Galaxy Nexus Sign-up Form Has Seven Carrier Options
- MC Hammer Launching Search Engine (U Can't Touch This)
- Apple Closed Retail Stores in Memory of Steve Jobs
- NASA Visualizes Millions of Earth's Fires
- Android's Andy Rubin Slaps Down Apple's New Siri
- RIM May Have to Rename BBX
- Google Accidentally Posts Video Tour of New Gmail
- Samsung Designs Galaxy Nexus to Bypass Apple Patents
- Google Music's "Twist": You Can Share Songs
- Adobe Flash Exploit Gave Websites Access to Webcams
- This Android Tablet Has Built-In QWERTY Keyboard
- VIDEO: Parts of Avengers Movie Shot with iPhone 4
- Android Developers Create Siri Rival "Iris" in 8 Hours
Very impressive, but who would want a 6.1" tablet?
Too big to fit in your pocket, too small to be useful.
That is pretty crazy for such a high res on such a small screen.
higher than retina display.
wow! I still wonder why they don't make 40'' + displays with beter than 1080p
wow! I still wonder why they don't make 40'' + displays with beter than 1080p
Because there is no widely available content to play on it?
Even 4K2K video is rarer than hen's teeth...
I still wonder why they don't make cheaper 23+, 16:10 LCD monitors.
Honestly companies, will you hurry up and help out the stagnating pc market instead of too-small tablets? I'd pay good money for a 498 dpi, 24" monitor. The old ibm T221 is just a bit too dated.
Because there is no widely available content to play on it?Even 4K2K video is rarer than hen's teeth...
Because a computer desktop and space need (in graphical desing or multimedia) really cares about 4k videos no?
i was thinkin 1080 should be more than enough for handle held devices, anything higher in res should be a stationary monitor. wonder what the response and refresh is on that bad boy
1080p is enough for viewing and understanding picture alright. but take a 4K2K 24" display and you will be amazed how much more every picture and movie (if any at that rez) would look like. it's not about giving enough detail anymore, it's how close to the real view it gets.
I wonder what sort of power would be required to get that sort of a resolution.
the goal of any screen now a days is to give the impression of looking through a hole in the wall, the downsize is when this reaches monitors just like 4k2k file sizes becomes the bottle neck, whos going to download 50gb+ when most ISP's have datacaps
Get a clue dude. Those specs are not "pixels per square inch" they are pixels per inch.
500dpi doesnt really help on a desktop other than for sharper image, youd need to scale everything up or sit with your nose against the screen to see things.
500dpi doesnt really help on a desktop other than for sharper image, youd need to scale everything up or sit with your nose against the screen to see things.
This argument is tantamount to suggesting it 'doesn't really help' with anything. How is it good for a tablet and not for a desktop or laptop for that matter? The main goal of screen development is to make pixels invisible no matter what any screen is for. I can certainly see pixels on my 24" as well as my friends 30.
Because a computer desktop and space need (in graphical desing or multimedia) really cares about 4k videos no?
You see many 40" TVs used as monitors?
You see many 40" TVs used as monitors?
Sure do!
well, no mostly 42's
I currently use 32" but plan on upgrading to 3x 42's
Honestly companies, will you hurry up and help out the stagnating pc market instead of too-small tablets? I'd pay good money for a 498 dpi, 24" monitor. The old ibm T221 is just a bit too dated.
A 498 dpi, 24" monitor would have about 16 times more pixels than the 498 dpi, 6" monitor described in the article, since it has the same density and 4 times the width and 4 times the height. That is, 10240*6400.
What kind of graphics card would you need to play Crysis at that resolution, I wonder.
And a 2-hour movie at that resolution would have to be shipped on 30 Blu-Ray disks...
I'd love to see that monitor too, but I don't think we're quite ready for it yet....
Hm they can make a 2560x1600 in a cheap tablet but can't make one for desktops that isn't over $1500... wtf. I'd like me some big ass high def monitors for less, please and thank you!
You see many 40" TVs used as monitors?
Did you completely miss the point? The original comment asking why there aren't more 40" displays with better than 1080p is talking about MONITORS. You then ranted on about there not being videos available at that resolution. The post who replied to you explained that graphic designers don't care about playing videos on their workstation, they care about high resolution graphic design. You then reply by talking about 40 inch tv's?
Come on, kid. Sort it out.
(and if you DID get it, then your logic is completely failed. The reason you don't see 40" TV's being used as monitors is BECAUSE they don't have high enough resolution)
@Device Unknown
@ 3 x 42 your going be sitting a fair distance away from your screens, tell me again that you'll notice all those extra pixels at that distance........
@watcha
you do realize the distance you'll need to sit at to comfortable utilize a 40" monitor almost certainly negates the extra pixels fidelity
I'd still be holding off for TRIM support, even in the enterprise market...thanks.
wtf
i was thinkin 1080 should be more than enough for handle held devices, anything higher in res should be a stationary monitor. wonder what the response and refresh is on that bad boy
actually anything over 300dpi is over kill, regardless of resolution in mobile devices, as its around the limit of the human eyes ability to see detail at XX inches. the number escapes me.
1080p is enough for viewing and understanding picture alright. but take a 4K2K 24" display and you will be amazed how much more every picture and movie (if any at that rez) would look like. it's not about giving enough detail anymore, it's how close to the real view it gets.
4k at 24" is 186.34 PPI
1080p at 24" is 91.79 PPI
Viewing Distance (inches) - Resolution ppi
6 1145
10 687
24 286
36 191
60 115
120 57
600 11
i sit normaly about 24 inches from the computer screen comfortably recline to 48 inches when i am reading something, and closer to 90 inches when i lay in my bed and watch a movie.
for me a 24 inch 4k monitor wouldn't bennifit me at all, however, 1080p... so much more. the only reason that we use 4k and higher for movies is because they get blasted onto 100 foot screens, for me, 4k wouldn't even be beneficial until i get to an 80 inch screen.
@watchayou do realize the distance you'll need to sit at to comfortable utilize a 40" monitor almost certainly negates the extra pixels fidelity
You only need to sit further back because the resolution is poor.
I have 2 x 30 inch Dell monitors, if they were joined into one 60 inch monitor I wouldn't have to sit further back.
The only reason I don't use my HD television as a monitor is because it doesn't have the same quality. If it did, I would.
You only need to sit further back because the resolution is poor.I have 2 x 30 inch Dell monitors, if they were joined into one 60 inch monitor I wouldn't have to sit further back. The only reason I don't use my HD television as a monitor is because it doesn't have the same quality. If it did, I would.
Alright, back to being sensible as confrontation is just wrong and escalation only upsets everyone.
The reason why more displays aren't made with resolutions above standard 1080p is cost, although there is a market for it amongst graphic designers and a few high-end gamers the market penetration is so low that there is no volume production and costs astronomical.
When, and only when, the supply on higher than 1080p resolution panels enters into the standard consumer market for TVs will the volume of production increase and costs fall.
Law of supply & demand 101.
actually anything over 300dpi is over kill, regardless of resolution in mobile devices, as its around the limit of the human eyes ability to see detail at XX inches. the number escapes me.
300dpi is about 80 microns per pixel... take a human hair and hold it out, it's about 80 microns in diameter and you'll find you can see it at an impressive distance depending on lighting. My hair is about 50microns (fine) and on a light background I can see it well beyond arms length. A year ago I would have been one of the people who said "it probably doesn't matter that much" but then I got a device with a retina display and I'm a believer now... the display has a HUGE impact on the visual appeal of the device, as well as the usability.
Alright, back to being sensible as confrontation is just wrong and escalation only upsets everyone.The reason why more displays aren't made with resolutions above standard 1080p is cost, although there is a market for it amongst graphic designers and a few high-end gamers the market penetration is so low that there is no volume production and costs astronomical.When, and only when, the supply on higher than 1080p resolution panels enters into the standard consumer market for TVs will the volume of production increase and costs fall.Law of supply & demand 101.
And lets not forget all the /b tards that think 1080p is the resolution 360 and PS3 plays games at.
Also wasn't it just 4 years ago that a 720p plasma monitor made you a "big dog" anyway? Considering that I think another jump up in monitor resolution for the "everyman" would just put people off even more. We've had 3 standard changes in the past decade, for TVs (and explaining to people that TVs and computer monitors is like trying to explain the difference between a chicken and duck egg to them) and you expect people to go out and buy an even higher resolution display right after they plunked down the half grand for a 3D display? Your out of your mind!
Wouldn't you need a magnifying glass to see the detail though?
@watcha
actually no, you have to sit further back to be able to see the whole screen comfortably without having to excessively tilt your head up/down/left/right nothing to do with the resolution fidelity
and erm 2 x 30" does not make a 60" (same way 2 x 21" screens do not make a 42" screen), panning across multiple large screens is acceptable as long as you dont stretch a single app across multiple screens, ever tried to start reading on one screen and having to move your head so you can read the rest on another screen, do that a few times you realize keep it to one screen and use the scroll mouse is more useful