4 ms·
I'm confused by this stretch goal: $1M - Option to upgrade to 1080p HD screen (w/ additional cost) ... which would suggest that the original screen spec is ac
by rsync 10y ago
I'm confused by this stretch goal:
$1M - Option to upgrade to 1080p HD screen (w/ additional cost)
... which would suggest that the original screen spec is actually lower than "1080p" ?
Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/732/ https://xkcd.com/732/
- leojg 10y agoIn the specs says: 11.6" LCD display at 768p
- Roboprog 10y agoRe: 1080p. We lived with 480i in our most-used display for a very long time :-) (comment written on my aging MBP with a 700-something screen, rather than 1080/retina class display)
- FussyZeus 10y agoWe also lived in caves for a long time too, I don't see people lining up for that. LCD's are so damn cheap now there's really no excuse for anything under 1080p. I've seen chromebooks with 4K displays for $300.
- Roboprog 10y agoThank you (literally LOL). Point taken :-)
- Roboprog 10y agoForgot to mention: once you reach a certain pixel density, you really hit the point of diminishing returns. 4K x 2K on a small laptop screen is going to look much the same to my aging eyes as 2K x 1K on that size. Now, give me a nice 40 to 50 inch 4K on my desk, and that sounds pretty nice. I can sit back a ways, and not have to focus on something 2 feet away.
- FussyZeus 10y agoI have a 28" 4K on my desk and the picture is absolutely stunning. I'd imagine any more dense than that I'd have a hard time appreciating, but I think it matters way more in terms of where the display is relative to your eyes. For example, my monitor is usually about 12" away from my face, whereas my TV is about 7 feet. A 1080p picture looks just fine compared to a 4K picture at those distances, I never feel like I'm missing anything.