5 ms·

You know some of us don't care about having retina density display. I just want tons of big ass text. I'm mid thirties and still have very good vision but I'd r

You know some of us don't care about having retina density display. I just want tons of big ass text. I'm mid thirties and still have very good vision but I'd rather have super easy reading of large text on a gigantic ass monitor with tons of pixels than super crisp anti-aliased fonts on my normal sized monitor. Hell, i've considered one of the 50" tvs for my desktop and just standing slightly further back. In general with these monitors I can stand back in a more comfortable position than lean forward like I did when I was 24 with my ~2500x???? 30" crt I had back then. Sure I could get tons of stuff on that screen but I can get more on a bigger one here. In fact I remember what I really wanted back then was that same resolution on my 12' projector image. That would have been amazing.

jrockway 13y ago
I run my 4K monitor at 200% scaling, and I can still see font aliasing artifacts. You definitely can't turn antialiasing off yet, even on a "retina" display. We still have a ways to go before computer terminals are as readable as papaer.
- henk53 13y ago
  I'd say 8k would be the minimum for that. Unfortunately on many sites with a supposed tech savvy public "everyone" will start to yell that it's just a conspiracy of vendors and that even 4K is nonsense because your eyes can't possibly see it. They'll show fancy graphs and link to wikipedia articles that supposedly prove that 4k, let alone 8k on desktop screen sizes (roughly 20" to 30") is completely nonsense. Maybe vendors are picking up some of these sentiments and maybe this is in part holding back progress.
  - neverminder 13y ago
    I find this luddite attitude offensive. I think that display technology should follow the path to eventually making the view look like any other material in nature, that means achieving the size of the pixel = size of the molecule - isn't that the pinnacle of video technology?
    - henk53 13y ago
      If that pixel then also reflects light like most materials, then yes indeed, it would be the holy grail. But for the next couple of hundred years or so I think we'll be more than happy with 32k~64k displays or something in that range. Displays with pixels the size of molecules would effectively be a kind of real-time matter duplicator. Bound to happen one day, but not today ;)

jrockway 13y ago

I run my 4K monitor at 200% scaling, and I can still see font aliasing artifacts. You definitely can't turn antialiasing off yet, even on a "retina" display. We still have a ways to go before computer terminals are as readable as papaer.

henk53 13y ago
I'd say 8k would be the minimum for that. Unfortunately on many sites with a supposed tech savvy public "everyone" will start to yell that it's just a conspiracy of vendors and that even 4K is nonsense because your eyes can't possibly see it. They'll show fancy graphs and link to wikipedia articles that supposedly prove that 4k, let alone 8k on desktop screen sizes (roughly 20" to 30") is completely nonsense. Maybe vendors are picking up some of these sentiments and maybe this is in part holding back progress.
- neverminder 13y ago
  I find this luddite attitude offensive. I think that display technology should follow the path to eventually making the view look like any other material in nature, that means achieving the size of the pixel = size of the molecule - isn't that the pinnacle of video technology?
  - henk53 13y ago
    If that pixel then also reflects light like most materials, then yes indeed, it would be the holy grail. But for the next couple of hundred years or so I think we'll be more than happy with 32k~64k displays or something in that range. Displays with pixels the size of molecules would effectively be a kind of real-time matter duplicator. Bound to happen one day, but not today ;)