3 ms·
Just a few days ago, somebody posted a link on HN for a 4K 24" monitor. Right now, I'm typing on a computer hooked up to two monitors with 2560x1440 resolution
by pawn 13y ago
Just a few days ago, somebody posted a link on HN for a 4K 24" monitor. Right now, I'm typing on a computer hooked up to two monitors with 2560x1440 resolution.
10 years ago, I never would've guessed we'd be up to 120" TVs with 4k resolution. I was pretty happy with my 42", which was a big step up from what my parents had used before.
Right now, those examples I mentioned are new and expensive, but it won't be another 10 years before they come down in price and Sony and Samsung will be looking to sell us on another resolution.
Meanwhile, having computers hooked up to your TV is also becoming increasingly popular. My dad hates looking at a tiny computer screen, and would much rather look at photos on a TV.
So you've got high resolution TVs, and low resolution photos. That means the photos are too small or blown up to show their pixelation. That won't fly forever.
- sjm-lbm 13y agoAs a hobbyist photographer, I can tell you the problem with this will be optics. The discussion here (and the article itself) seems to act as if sensor pixel density is the primary limiting factor on resolution at this point - and it's not. [1] is an article that has a good and through discussion on sensors out-resolving lenses. So, your limiting factor is glass, and manufacturing precision on that end is moving forward much slower than on the sensor. [1] - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml
- argumentum 13y ago> it won't be another 10 years before they come down in price I wager we'll see 4k tablets under $1k within 2 years, and TVs will have to follow suit (drop in price, increase in quality).