Finally, a good high-res 17" screen?

Was pointed to this thing on another forum: http://www.panelook.com/B173ZAN01.0_AUO_17.3_LCM_parameter_25358.html


17" 4K, AHVA, 8bit, 100% Adobe RGB, matte, eDP

The only not-so-good spec is 23ms G2G.

 

But this screen goes into?

 

Nothing yet. But at least we know it exists. All mid-high range 17" non-touch laptop products in the following years would be good candidates.

At 100% ARGB and 8bit it would be a good screen for Optimus mobile workstations where gamut is more important than blur reduction and 10bit is not available.

 

I highly doubt that will be true unless the laptop manufacture states otherwise. That would be a candidate for Desktop panel replacement more then laptop.

 

Who uses a 17.3" 4K desktop monitor?

 

Thanks for posting this.

Specs-wise, that looks like a very, very interesting screen.

Not that I own a 17.3" system at the moment, but...I might get one just to play with this LCD.

 

The announcement last month specifically says it is for "high-end notebook PC applications", "meeting the demand for professional graphic designing and audio-video gaming".
http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/17-laptop-with-3k-4k-display.741137/page-7#post-10018294

The spec says the backlight is only WLED, so it might not be as wide gamut as DreamColor, unless WLEDs have improved, or there is a sibling model with a different backlight.

 

Haha good to see this.. although 4K is too much for me, a 3K pannel at 17.3" will be fine for me!

 

It's not like we have much choice (I think 2560x1600 would be idea for 17", but it's just me), but here to say, took them long enough! After even cigarette lighters have higher res displays than 17" laptops, it was about time. BTW What does "circular display" mean?

 

Circular polarizer, fairly common in many LCD panels of the MVA/PVA/IPS families.

 

I'm happy to see that higher-res 17" screens are being developed. I had been wondering if 17" laptops were going to end up being a dying breed, like socketed laptop CPUs.

While it appears that it was posted back in June, thanks for re-posting. I certainly missed it at that time as well.

 

Very interesting indeed - thanks for sharing. I don't need a new notebook but I would be tempted to make an unnecessary purchase if this were available on a 17.3" notebook.

Charles

 

Charles ... we still have the 10 bit screens though

 

Nope, it's not 16:10.

Other than that, maybe, but to be honest I'm pretty satisfied with the 16:10 1920x1200 display on my 17" HP. It's enough pixels for my purposes, and is larger vertically (in actual height).

 

I would still go 4:3 if I had a choice.

But at 4K, there is enough space in either directions anyway if you don't bump the scaling to 200%. (I can tolerate ~250DPI at 100%, so I'm very happy with this thing.)

 

Well 16:10 DreamColor type wont happen as it seems, so it's refreshing to see any kind of development on the 17" front.

 

Still patiently waiting for a 2560x1600 17.3" LCD... 4k be damned.

 

It appears that 2560x1600 is dead for good. 4K is the new cool now.

Would prefer 1600p if available. But with the other option being getting stuck at 1080p, I'd take 4K.

 

2560 x 1440 120Hz 8-bit matte 72% NTSC with nice contrast and colours and yes pls.
Pair that with a wonderful two 1080M cards and a 4.3GHz CPU and 32GB 2133MHz or faster RAM and =D

Of course such a thing will never exist because what is high performance notebooks these days... but I can dream =D

 

ok, I need to catch up what exactly does this mean? Will we see higher resolutions i.e 4K this year?

 

Your question is kind of vague, we've already seen 4K this year. This (thread) is just another example.

 

We haven't seen 4k on a 17" this year...

 

I was referring to a 17"

Yes, Thanks

 

More importantly, this appears to be a good panel with high gamut, proper depth and good viewing angle. It's not just for the cool 4K name, it's a good general purpose display.

 

Oops! Sorry.

But crazy high resolution screens on tiny devices (like a 17" monitor) is not what I'm into these days. The quality, I'll take. But that quality doesn't necessarily require the resolution to make it so.

 

Sadly with the move to WLED and 16:9 it's exactly the tendency. There were quite handful of nice displays (2CCFLs, RGB LEDs for the higher end) throughout the 16:10 range from 1280x800, all the way up to 1920x1200 (15.4" and 17.1", since they were mainstream back in the day). One would've expected that not only IPS would be found more often, but also better quality displays in general. Well, obviously it was a pipe dream, since the whole movement to 16:9 was because of cheapness. This way only very few displays were actually worthy and only in Full HD resolution. Only VERY recently things started to change and again, if you want quality display, you'll have to go for all the bling, which means 4K. Yeah, it's stupid, but the whole industry went stupid.