The top google hits say that there is little or no benefit to resolution above 4k. I recently bought a 40" 4k tv which I use as a monitor (2' viewing distance). While this is right at the threshold where I'm told no benefit can be gained from additional resolution, I can still easily discern individual pixels. I'm still able to see individual pixels until I get to about a 4' viewing distance (but I am nearsighted).
I did some research and according to Wikipedia the Fovea Centralis (center of the eye) has a resolution of 31.5 arc seconds. At this resolution, a 4k monitor would need to be only 16" at a 2' viewing distance, or my 40" would need a 5' viewing distance.
Now the Fovea Centralis comprises only the size of 2 thumbnails width at arms length (2° viewing angle) and the eye's resolution drops off quickly farther from the center. But this tiny portion of the eye is processed by 50% of the visual cortex of the brain.
So I ask, are there any soylentils with perfect vision and/or a super high resolution set up, and does this match where you can no longer discern individual pixels? Do you think retina resolution needs to match the Fovea Centralis or is a lesser value acceptable?
My 40" 4k at 2' fills my entire field of view. I really like it because I have so much screen real estate for multiple windows or large spreadsheets, or I can scoot back a little bit for gaming (so I don't have to turn my head to see everything) and enjoy the higher resolution. I find 4k on high graphics looks much nicer than 1080p on Ultra. I find the upgrade is well worth the $600 I spent for the tv and a graphics card that can run it. Have you upgraded to 4k and do you think it was worth it? I would one day like to have dual 32" 8k monitors (not 3D). What is your dream setup if technology and price weren't an issue?
Written from my work 1366 x 768 monitor.
Related discussions: First "8K" Video Appears on YouTube
LG to Demo an 8K Resolution TV at the Consumer Electronics Show
What is your Video / Monitor Setup?
Microsoft and Sony's Emerging 4K Pissing Contest
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 11 2017, @02:22PM
What is your dream setup if technology and price weren't an issue?
Given what they pay me, if a blank check resulted in a $10K invoice, if it increased my productivity by 10% (which seems on the very low side of what it actually does) it would pay for itself in mere months, assuming I'm producing significantly more than they're paying me which seems likely. Its hard to find investments in the business world that pay for themselves so quickly. Also its technically possible to drop $10K but my setup at work was only maybe $2K even counting the snazzy aftermarket monitor stands. I mean I could buy color corrected CAD/radiology grade monitors but it wouldn't really help so why bother.
Written from my work 1366 x 768 monitor.
Yet companies do dumb things all the time, see also the open office concept. Sure its like taking half your labor budget and throwing it away WRT productivity, but its just so trendy and cool ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @02:32PM
1366x768 is woefully inadequate for business use unless you enjoy using several virtual desktops, chunky pixelated fonts (ok, it gives the IDE a retro look), and keeping your windows near-maximized at all times so you can see an appreciable amount of what's in them.
Then again the habit of virtual desktops is a great one to get started on :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @03:40PM
OP here, sorry I don't have an account.
They spent $160 on this monitor, and got it new for me. I bought 1080p monitors for $100 each back in '13. My dual screen in the laptop on the docking port. Sure it works. Not as convenient with the large spreadsheets I work on (engineer), but I didn't really have a choice in matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @04:33PM
1366x768 is not only inadequate, but with the new skype for office, you lose 50% more screen real estate because cloud tablets!