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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix Email: [email protected] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0x920063C6 PGP-Key-Fingerprint A5AD 6BE1 FEFE 8E4F 5C23 C2D0 E885 E17C 9200 63C6 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
