Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Now we just need monitors, rather than projectors, that can actually display 4K content at its native resolution. Every LCD panel I've seen tops out at 2560x1600.



They don't make them anymore :-( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

native resolution of 3840×2400 pixels (WQUXGA) on a screen with a diagonal of 22.2 inch (564 mm). This works out as over 9.2 million pixels, with pixel density of 204 pixels per inch (80 dpcm, 0.1245 mm pixel pitch)


Yeah they do: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/562026-REG/Astro_Desig...

They cost a fortune though, like $50k+. Such hi-res monitors are only used for radiography and film at present.


That has a 4K resolution, but it's 56"--that's only ~91 DPI.


While true, you're not holding the display a foot from your face like you would a cellphone.


Quad HD 3840x2160 prototypes have been shown, so we're getting close. Once 3D becomes a standard feature, TV makers may have to adopt quad HD to keep margins up.


I've got a 2560x1600 monitor, and honestly, the 4k video looked worse to me than 1080p. Blocky all over the place. If they can't raise the bitrate on the 4k videos, there's really no point to it.


They do exist, they're just crazy expensive. They tend to be used for medical imaging and similarly specialised applications.


And gigabit internet access.




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: