[Discuss] 4K monitors

[abreauj at gmail.com (John Abreau)]

Personally, I find the vertical resolution more important than the
horizontal. When the industry abandoned 1600x1200 in favor of 1920x1080,
the increase from 1600 to 1920 wasn't that big a deal, but the decrease
from 1200 to 1080 was extremely painful.  Truthfully, even the 1200 was a
bit cramped when working with high-resolution images.

If a 50-inch or larger 4K display increases my vertical resolution from
1080 (or even 1200) to 2160, that's enough to sell me on the idea.



On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Dan Ritter <dsr at randomstring.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:37:06PM -0500, Tom Metro wrote:
> > The author said that the ideal size for a computer monitor was 50" in
> > his opinion. Do you feel that a screen that big actually gains you
> > something? Beyond a certain size, when you are sitting only a few feet
> > from the display, large portions of the display end up only being in
> > your peripheral view.
>
> 50" is an excellent size for a monitor. It will need to be about
> 200 dpi, and have an extremely tough front pane. Waterproof, and
> easily cleanable, from all the coffee spills. Multitouch, with
> an innovative rejection scheme for anything larger than a finger
> or unmoving for more than a few seconds.
>
> I expect it to be tiltable a few degrees from completely
> horizontal, but not close to vertical, because it will form a
> large portion of the desktop. Not a metaphorical desktop, but
> the furniture kind.
>
> This will take another few years, but it is clearly within our
> foreseeable capabilities.
>
> -dsr-
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix
Email: abreauj at gmail.com / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0x920063C6
PGP-Key-Fingerprint A5AD 6BE1 FEFE 8E4F 5C23  C2D0 E885 E17C 9200 63C6