3 ms·
That monitor is just under 3.69 billion pixels compared to 13.5 billion on the Surface Studio. It doesn't include the dial interface, the real-life scaling, the
by ewzimm 10y ago
That monitor is just under 3.69 billion pixels compared to 13.5 billion on the Surface Studio. It doesn't include the dial interface, the real-life scaling, the pivot mechanism, the color profiles, a lot more. It's probably the closest you can get, but not in the same league.
- usaphp 10y agoI agree, that's why Microsoft had to sell this monitor on its own, without that PC attached. Also I did not see any mention of pressure sensitivity on that Studio panel, if it does not have it - it's a major point to still choose Wacom.
- ewzimm 10y agoThe Wacom has the pressure level advantage: 2048 vs 1024 levels on the Surface. But with well-calibrated software, it should be enough. I'm not sure if people can discern 2048 levels of pressure, and I'm sure this device was tested on a lot of artists. Can't comment from experience but I would think the delay would be a bigger issue than levels (MS say they optimized for delay.)
- mmel 10y agoThat is a number beyond meaning for feedback to humans, like arguing for a 3000dpi screen vs a 6000dpi screen, they're both far beyond human levels of perception. From my experience of trying to eek out every variation in pressure with a wacom, 32 levels is enough. I'm not able to create 64 levels of varing pressure strokes, let alone 1024.
- zc75 10y ago(It's "eke". Unless you've just seen a big spider!)
- ewzimm 10y agoJust noticed I said billion, meant million. Looking forward to VR displays with that kind of resolution though.
- m_mueller 10y ago> Looking forward to VR displays with that kind of resolution though. In before Google releases the "Google Cardboard Surface Studio edition" xD