4 ms·
Using cost per area metric for LCD panels when we stopped for the most part increasing resolution means you will find that the main driver of lower costs is the
by bhouston 10mo ago
Using cost per area metric for LCD panels when we stopped for the most part increasing resolution means you will find that the main driver of lower costs is the cost of glass.
Basically, we have been, since 2018 (I incorrectly wrote 2010 here earlier), only spreading out the same number of pixels on larger areas of glass, so the number of pixel components per unit area has decreased.
I have tried to price out 8K TV/monitors and they are horribly expensive (also not supported on MacOS). Probably both because of the larger number of components and we haven’t yet achieved economies of scale.
- thfuran 10mo ago>Basically, we have been, since 2010, only spreading out the same number of pixels on larger areas of glass Only if you ignore that 4k entered and then became common in the consumer space since then, followed by the introduction of 8k.
- Forgeties79 10mo ago4K TV’s were not really a thing in 2010
- bhouston 10mo agoYou are correct, I should have said 2018 or there about.
- robin_reala 10mo agoI’ve not personally tried it, but Apple have an “Use an 8K display with your Mac” support document at https://support.apple.com/en-us/102236 https://support.apple.com/en-us/102236.
- bhouston 10mo agoYou are correct! I hadn't checked since I had an M1 MacBook, back then it was 6K (https://juicedsystems.com/en-ca/blogs/news/macbook-m1-and-m2-maximum-resolutions-a-comprehensive-guide-to-video-input-connection https://juicedsystems.com/en-ca/blogs/news/macbook-m1-and-m2...), but it appears that since the M2 (according to the same website), the upper limit is now 8K.
- NedF 10mo ago[dead]
- jezzamon 10mo agoThe article doesn't use that metric though: > The units are “dollars per area-pixel”: price divided by screen area times the number of pixels So it seems like it factors in the pixel density too