Eizo debuts 56-inch 4k x 2k RadiForce LS560W LCD monitor
By Darren Murph 
posted Apr 2nd 2009 1:29PM
posted Apr 2nd 2009 1:29PM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
sweet
Ezio? Is that vizio's little brother?
I see what you did there, OneLove. You were trying to sound clever, but instead you just sounded ignorant.
Did i forget the smiley face. :) bombaclaat!
I see what you did there OneLove, and I laughed! dont listen to this jackace ^
Actually, it was Msalivars comments that made me LMAO.
Recession antidote? Please?
Seconded! Make it a 4x4 array of these and I'll be set.
Do they even make cards that support that high of a res!?
They have since at least 2001 - the IBM T220/T221 was WQUXGA, which is the 16:10 version of 4K - 3840x2400.
ATI Fire Pro V cards can do up to 5k pixels wide
I might actually be wrong.. I think only some of them do up to 5k pixels and they are very expensive
that is native 4k x 2k you idiots.
4k x 2k is 8.4mp or 4 x (1920 x 1080) thats why if you have both the numbers you get 1920 x 1080.
I was about to post it but you already did. 3840x2160 is 4k. (or 4k x 2k or 4 times 1080p, whatever you want to call it)
It is "halve" not "have". Now who is the idiot?
It's a typo. Stop being an arse.
still want 4k though (7880 x 4320)and yes it was a typo.
No, you idiot. It depends who you talk to, but 4K is a DCI specification (Digital Cinema Initiative) and is 4K (4096×2160) at 24 fps. That's why DCI-approved displays should be able to display 4096×2160.
From the specs and the size, this is the same glass used by several other manufacturers (barco, toshiba, ....).
cheers.
So bottom line, you're all idiots??
me likey,
me want =P~
i think i would die if i had dual 56in lcd's. i might have to tone down some compiz settings to avoid motion sickness.
What would you have to fill that estate?
Apart from Gnometris?
Porn? Or frozenbubble.
Knowing my luck ubuntu would still decide that the optimum resolution would be 640*480. The mouse pointer would be hand sized.
Eizo's late to the party: we've been doing this for over a year now: http://www.systemsonellc.com/products.html
"Including any standard DVI, Composite and VGA output display up to 1920 x 1200 resolution capabilities"
I dont see how you are comparing these?
This monitor has a MUCH higher resolution, and better specs across the board.
Grin... 1920x1200 refers to the inputs, we push four DVI outputs at 1920x1080 each to a 56" UltraHD monitor virtually identical to this one. Hit the news area at http://www.systemsonellc.com to get an idea of our timeline.
Wow, that's like minority report police HQ kind of resolution!
Or you could take 3 $700 1080P 32" monitors and rotate them 90 degrees... Plus a displaylink
You'd have some gaps and only 1920 x 3360 res, but a screen about the same size for only $2100. Looks like their content would fit nicely on three separate vertical screens anyway.
i want this in our operating rooms... for no reason really
Zero pixel guaranty FTW!
My monitor is worried that it might get replaced soon.
> The interface unit accepts inputs of 24 types of signals.
but not the damn Apple Mini Display Port!
HAHA! One dead pixel would suck so much with this!
if i'm ever in the hospital I hope there is one of these in my room so i know exactly what is going on with everything. wouldn't want them placing something in me i don't know about.
and it would mean the hospital is looooooaaaaaddddddeeeeeeddddddd
notice the msn message alerts at the bottom of the screen.
"Scalpel, we begin the first incision"
"Oh my god! Sharon and Davey have just broken up!!!"
"No way, cortisol 5mg"
"He only went and shagged another bird!"
"What is he like.... Coronary artery is leaking, duck tape"
"But this is HD TV, it has a better resolution than real life"
I work in medical imaging, and there really is no need for that kind of resolution in the OR. Most of the monitors used for surgeries are 1600x1200 20" monitors. We have a couple of 42" 1080p monitors so they can see several CT slices at once from a few feet away. The live stuff is usually on small monitors. Also, the most of images they are looking at is not that high res anyway. typically 256x256 to 1024x1024 for CT,MR and US. Some digital xrays are higher, but you can always zoom the image to native resolution or higher if needed.
yeah in OR's you wouldnt really need something like that, my dad is a retired radiologist and he used to have HD CRT monitors with crazy vertical aspect ratio that were very high resolution for looking at MRI's and such, back when they were first starting to digitize x-rays and send them over dial-up (lol at waiting 30 minutes for your images to load).
even then at home he would use just a normal lcd.....
well...exspecially in OR is that important. In some cases, depending in what kind of surgeon you're working you have more than two monitors displying radiological images. You can easely come up to 6 or 8 monitors by having actual dynamic seuqence, referene sequence, ecg wave mapping, blood pressure mapping, reference image nr.2, maybe evaluation of a stenosis, etc...
Now imagine you work in a 30m² OR, having different telescope holders on the roof, having even the anesthatic tools, and on and on....
This monitor, 100 ", has 24 inputs, so you can display whatever you want only on ONE monitor and one monitor roof telescope holder. And there's even a GUI for different visualization layouts.
You will not use that in the radiology doing normal angiograms, but think in special OR like Cardio OR where in the last years the technology has been multiplied like hell. There are some clinics using that at the moment
I work in Medical Illustration, and this stuff is way too ahead of its time. Most OR's are still in SD, as the equipment is installed with the room. New theatres being built are being kitted out in HD (ie: 1080p), which means at the hospital I work in, out of 36 operating theatres, 12 are HD and the rest are SD. Some of the newest (designed for cardiology) have "walls" of displays (40", 1080p) with 6-8 screens in, and the surgeons are in total love. They're mounted to the ceiling and can be pushed around as a bank, or split up into pairs/threes as needs demand.
This thing though? We don't have QuadHD cameras, we don't have the rear-end hardware to run QuadHD, and we don't have the displays. Give normal HD a chance to filter through before pushing this stuff out.
Like zagito said above, this is more geared towards labs in which procedures involve many different modalities, I.E. electrophysiology, radiology, neurology, etc. We routinely integrate upwards of 18 systems in an EP lab, and having the ability to overlay 4, 6, 8, etc images on one seamless screen and manipulate said inputs easily is invaluable to the doctors and technicians involved. We get a lot of love from those with weaker eyes after they've seen an ECG fullscreen on a 56" monitor, too.
We've got pictures of our setup at the last Heart Rhythm Society show in San Fransisco here: http://www.systemsonellc.com/HRS2008.html
This monitor is clearly for medical use....
the dpi sucks