3 ms·
This is a tangent but I wonder if 24fps is what you should consider acceptable today. Yes, movies are 24fps, but I've always felt like that was a byproduct of e
by saxonww 5y ago
This is a tangent but I wonder if 24fps is what you should consider acceptable today. Yes, movies are 24fps, but I've always felt like that was a byproduct of economics which we're stuck with now because of tradition. No one wants a 24Hz desktop monitor, that's for sure; when the first 4k displays became generally available and the connection standards of the time could only push them at 30Hz, people absolutely noticed and disliked it.
Another thing I pulled from the article that I forgot earlier - they talked about their current-gen color E-Ink being able to represent 50k colors. Not quite a 16 bit color palette. We're getting to where LCDs commonly advertise support for a billion colors (10 bit panels). They have a long way to go before people will consider the color reproduction acceptable for general use.
If and when E-Ink gets to the point where color LCDs are today, we're probably going to be able to make "8K" high-refresh microled or self-emissive quantum dot displays. The reflective low-power nature of E-Ink will always have a place IMO but it's just hard to see people in volume valuing that over the speed, resolution, and color reproduction of a contemporary emissive display.
- egypturnash 5y agoI wouldn't want a 24fps display either. I would be pretty happy with an e-ink display that's about as reflective as nice ink on glossy paper even if it's not 300dpi, I've been waiting to be able to sit out in the sun and work without my screen's light having to try to overpower the sun for a long time.