backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by inighthawki.. on Apr 19 at 3:11 AM

Toshiba unveils new high-end ultrabook

Toshiba has pulled the wraps off a new series of notebook computer called the KIRAbook. The machine is an all-new ultrabook promising a lightweight and compact design thanks to its magnesium alloy chassis.

The 2.6-lb machine has a 13-inch PixelPure display with a resolution of 2560 x 1440 (221 pixels per inch). Toshiba promises that the screen delivers razor-sharp clarity for text, photos, movies, games, and other content types. The KIRAbook will be available in standard, and touch screen versions -- the touch screen version of the ultrabook supports 10-points of touch and Windows 8 gestures.


Toshiba says that a high-capacity lithium polymer battery promising all-day battery life, while storage duties are handled by a 256 GB SSD. The ultrabook will offer 8 GB of 1600 MHz memory and a range of third generation Intel Core processors.
 
Pre-orders for the KIRAbook will kick off on May 3 with purchases starting May 12 online. Pricing begins at $1599 and goes up to $1999 depending on the processor chosen.
 
The KIRAbook joins other high-resolution 13” notebooks like the 13” Retina MacBook Pro and the 13” Google Chromebook Pixel.

Sources: Toshiba, The Verge



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Brilliant
By TakinYourPoints on 4/17/2013 5:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On a 27" screen? Nah. Sounds good to me.


But it gives the same benefits you'd get on a laptop screen. I don't see any difference between the two.

If anything the benefits are greater on a laptop screen since they're placed closer to your eye than a desktop monitor, just as the benefits of higher PPI increases as you go from tablets to smartphones.


RE: Brilliant
By Motoman on 4/17/2013 7:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
No, the point of diminishing returns comes a lot faster on a smaller screen.

The 27" example makes a lot more sense than the 13" example. It helps to remember that area doesn't double with a measurement like the "27 inch" monitor vs. "13 inc" monitor.

My monitor has a viewable area of about 23.5" diagonal, with a width of about 21" and a height of about 12". The total area there is 252 square inches.

If you cut the width and height in half, to 10.5" and 6", one might instinctively think the area drops by half as well - but it doesn't. The area of the 10.5" by 6" monitor would be only 63 square inches - a fourth of the area of my monitor.

Which is why, from a pure numbers standpoint, that forcing higher pixel counts into smaller screens quickly makes no sense. The area is decreasing at a rate twice as fast as the outside dimensions.


RE: Brilliant
By TakinYourPoints on 4/17/2013 8:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
Higher pixel density matters more the closer a display is to your eyes. It is all about viewing distance.

This is why you can get away with about 35PPI on a 60" HDTV that you view from 8' away while you need closer to 100PPI with a 23" LCD to get approximately the same sharpness.

With computer displays you're viewing them at about 2'-3', about a foot and a half with laptop display, about a foot with a tablet, and finally about 10" with a smartphone.

Needing greater pixel density with greater display sizes does not follow given that viewing distance increases accordingly. It is the opposite, the larger the screen, the farther the viewing distance, and the lower pixel density is required.

It makes sense given that you are able to discern individual larger pixels and screen door effects the closer you are to a display. This is why going over 300 PPI was so important with smartphones, while doing the same with a desktop display goes well past the point of diminishing returns.


RE: Brilliant
By Motoman on 4/17/2013 8:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
You're varying the screen area very disproportionately with the distance from your eyes.

My eyeballs are right about two fee from my 24" desktop monitor. When I set my 17.3" laptop on my lap, my eyeballs actually wind up being closer to 26" away from that screen...and trying my best to juggle my cell phone and a tape measure at the same time, it seems I generally hold that around 16" from my eyes.

So my phone, with it's 3.7" screen at 800x480 is about a third closer to my eyes than my 24" monitor at 1920x1080. Meanwhile, the decrease in display area is roughly a factor of 42. The screen area of my cell phone is a smidge over 6 square inches, vs. 252 inches for my monitor. It's literally 42 times smaller.

That 1/3 change in distance pales in comparison to the change in surface area. While obviously viewing distance is important, the size of the screen you're talking about isn't less important - looks like it's more important to me.

Subjectively speaking, I can look at a photo on my cell phone, and then on my desktop monitor, and honestly say the quality appears to be the same. It really makes no difference - even though my cell phone has such a "pathetic" resolution by your "standards."

So no...massive PPI on a cell phone actually *is not* important. It just isn't.


RE: Brilliant
By TakinYourPoints on 4/18/2013 6:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
So you're saying that you use a small laptop even farther away than a desktop monitor? Do you gorilla arm the keyboard?

Your logic is backwards, and as usual you use it to justify something inferior. Just because you don't care if something is objectively inferior doesn't mean that everyone else shares your incredibly low standards.

I mean, if you like a Kia, great, but don't pretend they're better than a car that costs twice as much simply because its cheaper.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki