4 ms·
> Until displays reach 1/60th of an arc minute from standard viewing distances (roughly the discerning power of the human eye under assumptions on contrast), I
by sxp 10y ago
> Until displays reach 1/60th of an arc minute from standard viewing distances (roughly the discerning power of the human eye under assumptions on contrast), I will always want higher resolution.
The human eye is normally rated at 1 arc minute == 1/60 degree rather than "1 arc second == 1/60 arc minute". This is around 1/30th the size of the full moon.
8K 32in at > ~.32m is "Retina" quality since it's > 60px / deg. 4K achieves this at >.6m. The former is ~275 dpi which is close to the ~300 dpi Apple used to define "Retina" for their iPhone.
Personally, I would prefer 120+ fps rather than higher resolution. I have both a 120Hz & 60Hz LCD on my desk and the difference when scrolling or dragging windows is quite noticeable.
- dbg31415 10y agoTotally agree... I have a 32" 4k monitor, and it's great. If I get really close I can still see pixels, but... realistically now I want a 32" 4k monitor with a 120Hz refresh rate. And graphics cards that can handle it... I know my MBP, even though it had the extended graphics card option, is struggling...
- devoply 10y agoI got a 29" wide-screen monitor. I want it to be twice as tall as it is. I guess I want a 42"+ desktop monitor that's reasonably priced.
- xur17 10y agoIf you're okay with 4k at that screen size there are TVs that would work.
- dajohnson89 10y agoIt takes some elite window management skills I'd think. How many windows do you expect to have on a screen that big? If more than 4, doesn't moving them around get cumbersome? Side note: sizeUp for osx is very good, I wish there were something as good for Ubuntu.
- fiddlerwoaroof 10y agoTiling window managers solve this problem pretty well. I've used xmonad and stumpwm, although people generally seem to prefer awesome or i3 derivatives
- nirv 10y agoConsider Dell's P4317Q[1] for ~$1000, which is a 4K 43-inch display with multiple inputs (you can split screen across 2/4 devices simultaneously, if you need). I couldn't be happier, well, except for 120Hz. [1] http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&sku=210-AHSQ http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&c...
- RachelF 10y agoI agree. 4k is enough. If you have perfect eyesight you need to sit about 1 foot away to resolve the pixels at 8k. At that distance you cannot see the whole screen anyway, as the 1 arc second resolution is limited to a very small spot at the center of your vision. Personally, I'd prefer a taller aspect ratio than 16:9, which seems designed for movies. 4:3 or even 1:1 (square) would suite desktop and medical imaging work better.