Are We At the Limit of Screen Resolution Improvements?

itwbennett writes "A pair of decisions by Motorola and Ubuntu to settle for 'good enough' when it comes to screen resolution for the Ubuntu Edge and the Moto X raises the question: Have we reached the limit of resolution improvements that people with average vision can actually notice?" Phone vs. laptop vs. big wall-mounted monitor seems an important distinction; the 10-foot view really is different.

Comments

already passing it

[tverbeek]

We're already past the level where I can benefit from higher resolution on phones. I'm over 40 and already have reading glasses, but I'd need to get special phone-only glasses to see any more detail or smaller type.

Not until Anti-Aliasing isn't a thing

[earlzdotnet]

We've reached this point with some devices, but a screen isn't a high enough resolution until Anti-Aliasing isn't needed in any form.

Re:Not until Anti-Aliasing isn't a thing

[Chris Mattern]

A sharp edge contains infinitely high frequencies, so even a very high resolution display will produce aliasing,

But once it's aliasing invisible to the human eye, anti-aliasing becomes pointless.

Re:No

[Andrio]

Phones? Yes (There's not much benefit going past 1280 * 800 )

Tablets? Getting there (Nexus 7 at 1080p, Nexus 10 at 2560 * 1600)

Monitors? NO! Let me put it like this. Most monitors sit somewhere between the previously mentioned phone and tablet resolutions, despite being 2-5 times the size.

Re:Digital Movie Projection... and "Average People

[bill_mcgonigle]

Basic stats fail.

I can't believe there are five posts on here that declare 'average' to be 'mean' and then go on to criticize the GP's lack of statistical knowledge.

I think the very first thing on the very first day of my first statistics class was a discussion of mean, median, and mode, and how all three are referred to as 'average' in common parlance, depending on context.