Other than the 2year, 24 hours a day warranty is translated as "24 years warranty". It's the small details like this that are impossible for a machine translator to get right 100% of the time.
That is just an amazing piece of tech. Now if only we could stop using that goddamned 16:9 aspect ratio.
Just think how tiny and insignificant all your desktop short cuts would be unless they were set to the enormous setting. But I'll still take one
I hear ya. LOL. Nice to know there are some mental screen res options. Price is crazy of course, but 4K will filter down into the domestic cam and TV market at some point, and then screens like this will become more realistic. There's light at the end of the dreary, dark 2560x1440 16:9 tunnel after all it would seem.
They do have awesome screen for CAD and medical purpose. But I keep thinking that I hate those non 4:3 aspect ratio. I'd love to have a big 4:3 screen with a pitch at the CRT's level. My old CRT had smaller pixels, higher res, higher refresh rate and better color than all LCDs I've seen. LCDs only have the small footprint for them. I really really really think that we went 10 years back with LCDs.
3x crappy TN panel's like this one http://www.scan.co.uk/products/22-v...-1920x1080-1000001-300-cd-m-speakers-dvi-hdmi £320 5760x1080
7680x4800. 3 2560x1600 Goodness. Or rather 4800x7680, that's almost square, and the horizontal res makes it epicness.
It "works," but in my experience it doesn't scale things up uniformly all around and makes a lot of things very ugly.
That would require nine monitors at 2560 x 1600 to achieve that resolution, actually, and it would maintain the 16:10 ratio, bezels not included.
You're all missing the point. We can all get a desktop res like this now, as someone else pointed out above for £300 - 400, but look at that vertical res!... it's not just about horizontal res. Also, one screen.. no breaks, no borders, and 36". Those who think gaming on 3x smaller screens is where it'a at have never gamed on a 30" screen at 2560x1600. Smaller pixels? I had a LaCie Blue IV 23" CRT which also ran at reasonably high res, but the dot pitch was pretty much the same as my 30" Eizo. I just can not see the pixels at all unless I'm 6 inches from it. In fact the LaCie and my Eizo have exactly the same dot pitch at 0.24mm. Colour is MUCH better on my LCD. I had to calibrate the CRT every damned week, and it never got less than a Delta E of 3. My Eizo achieves less than 0.5 consistently. The CRT couldn't produce the colour gamut my current screen can either. My CRT looked blurred as soon as I compared it to my first LCD (A Dell 2405) Clearly (if you think about it) a CRT will never achieve the same sharpness as a LCD. The ONLY thing it rocked at was black level. Nothing comes close to a CRT for black level, but it is an easy sacrifice to make for the other advantages.
