3 ms·

This is one of those "oh my gosh" technologies that you put in the lobby of your venture capital firm or hedge fund to just calibrate the level of money the cli

This is one of those "oh my gosh" technologies that you put in the lobby of your venture capital firm or hedge fund to just calibrate the level of money the client should be expected to have/invest. That said, AFAICT microleds are the only technology that really lets you tile them. So you can build a 4K UHD display that is basically a bit smaller shorter than 8 feet (2.5 meters). But at 31 PPI it isn't great up up close. (not bad obviously but not stunning). Once it crosses 72 PPI that is when the world gets really interesting. For me.

lioeters 7y ago
Interesting numbers.. If I recall correctly, 72 PPI is the minimum recommended pixel density for digital prints, so the final result looks smooth and not "pixely". In the specs for The Wall microLED display, they mention a pixel pitch of 0.84mm. A quick conversion (1 inch = 25.4mm) tells me that's roughly 30 pixels per inch - oh, right, that's what you meant by 31 PPI, you already calculated it. :) Still, it's an attractive product, and I can imagine many use cases. Looks like the price range is $17~22K, for 9.6m x 5.4m dimension.
- mattlutze 7y ago
  To extend the thought, 72 DPI has been the minimum recommended density for working at a desktop. For closer materials like magazines or photos, it was I think 300 DPI, since you might get closer. It's one of the reasons mobile screens got more dense, so that when you hold it 30 cm from your face things still look smooth. So... if your average viewer will be farther away from this wall than a desktop user, the DPI can go down and still be attractive. Edit: the not-science-backed chart here seems to track http://resources.printhandbook.com/pages/viewing-distance-dpi.php http://resources.printhandbook.com/pages/viewing-distance-dp...
  - joshspankit 7y ago
    At 300PPI, the cost of powering (electricity, CPU and GPU) a large feature wall might actually exceed the cost of the wall itself.

lioeters 7y ago

Interesting numbers.. If I recall correctly, 72 PPI is the minimum recommended pixel density for digital prints, so the final result looks smooth and not "pixely". In the specs for The Wall microLED display, they mention a pixel pitch of 0.84mm. A quick conversion (1 inch = 25.4mm) tells me that's roughly 30 pixels per inch - oh, right, that's what you meant by 31 PPI, you already calculated it. :) Still, it's an attractive product, and I can imagine many use cases. Looks like the price range is $17~22K, for 9.6m x 5.4m dimension.

mattlutze 7y ago
To extend the thought, 72 DPI has been the minimum recommended density for working at a desktop. For closer materials like magazines or photos, it was I think 300 DPI, since you might get closer. It's one of the reasons mobile screens got more dense, so that when you hold it 30 cm from your face things still look smooth. So... if your average viewer will be farther away from this wall than a desktop user, the DPI can go down and still be attractive. Edit: the not-science-backed chart here seems to track http://resources.printhandbook.com/pages/viewing-distance-dpi.php http://resources.printhandbook.com/pages/viewing-distance-dp...
- joshspankit 7y ago
  At 300PPI, the cost of powering (electricity, CPU and GPU) a large feature wall might actually exceed the cost of the wall itself.