I'm putting together a high performance workstation for doing hyper spectral image analysis. I've selected most of the hardware already but I need help selecting monitor. So telle what you'd get if price were not an issue.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Is 3D important? My impression is that most 3D technology is entertainment-focused and involves tradeoffs in areas that may be more important for business/science like brightness, contrast, and resolution.
If money were truly no object, I'd go for one of the 4K displays that are starting to trickle out. If money were only somewhat no object, then I'd be looking for a high res 30-inch class monitor.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
We are doing 3D hyperspectral imaging so 3D would be nice but it's not crucial.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It looks like there a handful of products starting to come out for the medical vertical, like the Panasonic EJ-MDA32U-K, but they seem to be relatively low resolution for their size (1920x1080 on a 32" display) and are extremely expensive. That Panasonic lists for $14,500. If you don't need that grade of device you can pick up 1920x1080 3D-capable flat screen TV as large as 42" for under $1000, and much larger models for a couple thousand more.
You'll have to determine whether the 3D ability is more important than pixel count as that appears to be the major tradeoff. A high-end 2D display of the same size as the Panasonic would be 2560x1600 and consumer/business models can be found for under $1000.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Here is my personal "money is no object" monitor preference. I haven't yet seen a 3D implementation that is good enough that I'd prefer it for real work over a 2D projection of the same material but then I don't have any experience with $15,000 monitors either.