Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Are We At the Limit of Screen Resolution Improvements?

Posted by timothy on from the eentsy-weentsy dept.

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.

48 of 414 comments (clear)

  1. I have a hard time by vikingpower · · Score: 4, Funny

    reading TFA...

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:I have a hard time by tehlinux · · Score: 2

      He probably just needs a retina display. It's got what retinas crave.

      --
      Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
  2. already passing it by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:already passing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I feel your pain. I can no longer do any glasses-free browsing on my smartphone without a lot of squinting and resulting headache. I fear that increasing resolution will just tempt younger developers (who have yet to encounter the joys of presbyopia) to design things in even smaller fonts.

    2. Re:already passing it by malignant_minded · · Score: 2

      You shouldn't have to. What we should be/are concentrating on is better reflow and text to speech. Higher resolution should be a benefit as text becomes less blocky making shape recognition easier. Just because resolutions are higher doesn't mean you should have smaller text if you don't want it. With so many different size devices you should be able to load and manipulate content on demand. So if you don't want images because of connection or space constraints, your choice. Images should also be vectored whenever possible. Currently I have 20/10 in one eye and 20/15 in the other at 33, I am hoping to hold onto this as long as possible but it will eventually decrease, that is life. Content should be able to handle all cases as the person desires. If I can only see 1 inch icons that should be my choice and my phone should have desktops with 4 icons.

    3. Re:already passing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Resolution. Is. Not. Font. Size.

    4. Re:already passing it by Dins · · Score: 2

      Of course it isn't. But if a web site is designed for a 1080p monitor and the font size is not adjusted upwards when someone's viewing it on a 1080p smart phone, the type is damned small...

    5. Re:already passing it by pipatron · · Score: 2

      Not having to zoom the view in and out when doing CAD work and being able to read text fluently without bad kerning/font hinting getting in the way.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    6. Re:already passing it by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      I agree 100%

      A friend of mine has designed the world smallest font: 3x3 for upper case which includes 2x2 for lowercase.

      On the iPhone 5 with ~326 ppi I can't read it so it looks like 300 dpi is "good enough" for screen. (Between 600 and 1200 dpi for print.)

      The problem is the cost of getting a proper 300 dpi monitor that is 24" diagonal = ~19" wide by ~15" tall makes for an effective resolution of 5700 x 4500 well over 4K resolution.

      It is going to be quite a while before the economies of scale deliver cheap 300 dpi monitors. There just isn't enough demand. :-(

      And don't get me started on that shitty 8-bits-per-channel, aka 24-bit color ...

    7. Re:already passing it by graphius · · Score: 2

      Yes I am using a small underpowered smartphone (I got it because I don't want to carry around a huge slab of a phone). As mentioned below, there are a number of sites that don't allow zooming (and I tend to avoid those sites when I find them), also things like images do not gain clarity when zoomed in. I used to have VERY good eyes, but some sites use very small thin fonts, and even on my desktop screen, they are a bit difficult to read. Sometimes designers thing form trounces function...

    8. Re:already passing it by Pubstar · · Score: 2

      If its being viewed as a regular desktop webpage, you almost never run into this problem. Certain mobile websites have it so that you are unable to zoom... atleast in the native Android browser. I ran into that problem a few times on some tech sites until I switched to Opera. Never had that problem again.

    9. Re:already passing it by profplump · · Score: 2

      Native apps should follow your system font size settings. Complain to the developer if they do not.

    10. Re:already passing it by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      > what value is there to > 24-bit color?

      TL:DR; The eye can clearly see more then 256 levels of primary colors.

      There are 3 big problems with 24-bpp.

      1. Mach Banding (or Gradients)
      2. Blending
      3. Limited Gamut

      10-bit, 12-bit, or even 16-bit per channel provides more headroom for finer gradients.

      The problem is exemplified when you do multiple blends. Since most display devices are still only 24-bit the maximum error we want with 8-bit-per-channel is 1/255 = 0.00392156862745. Using 16-bit per channel means we can literally add/blend/multiply 256 images before we would start to see quantization artifacts.

      Another way to think about this is that for every image you add ("process) you need 1 more bit of precision. i.e. Assuming we are "processing" 8-bit per channels, you need a total of n-bits:
        9-bit if you add a total of 2 images,
      10-bit if you add a total of 4 images,
      11-bit if you add a total of 8 images,
      12-bit if you add a total of 16 images,
      13-bit if you add a total of 32 images,
      14-bit if you add a total of 64 images,
      15-bit if you add a total of 128 images,
      16-bit if you add a total of 256 images,

      Keep in mind that part of the problem is _caused_ by the fact that we are stuck with shitty 100 dpi resolution so 24-bit images are fugly. With 333+ dpi images 24-bit is OK. One of my close photography friend argues that with 1200 dpi you could get away with 6 or 7-bit per channel and I almost inclined to believe him.

      With crappy 24-bit one is forced to do Tone Mapping (aka HDR) to get around the limitations of 24-bit to better utilize the color gamut. It is a huge "Hack" / "Kludge" which better approximates what the eye can see but it is still a hack.

      There are 10-bit-per-channel monitors but at $1,000 the demand just isn't there. :-( http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/10bit.shtml

      Now with all that said and done the BIGGER problem is "True Blacks" - the state of the industry is even more pathetic compared to 10-bit displays. ;-(( If you google "Pioneer Kuro Black" you'll see that Kuro set the "gold" standard for blacks back in 2007 and it has largely been ignored. :-( https://www.google.com/search?q=pioneer+black

      In the audio word we use 24-bit DACS to provide headroom when we add 16-bit audio signals because if you only used 16-bits for A + B you could potentially get clipping. With 24-bits you have more than enough head room to minimize overflow and underflow.

      Does this help?

    11. Re:already passing it by InvalidError · · Score: 2

      The only part of human vision that is capable of relatively high resolution is the "sweet spot" that makes up the middlemost +/- 8 degrees of your field of view. The eye's resolution drops off sharply once you get out of that zone which is part of the reason why if you fixate any word on this page, you likely cannot clearly distinguish words that are more than a few words or lines away in any direction from whichever point you fixated.

      There is no need to have retina resolution across the whole field of view when only ~5% of our field of view can make any use of such a high a resolution. They could just as easily have peripheral vision rendered at a much lower resolution as a backdrop to the "sweet spot" and use head-tracking to pick which part of the overall canvas goes in the middle where your eyes will usually rest. Keeping eyes locked way off-center for more than a second or two usually causes people discomfort so most people end up subconsciously using eye movement mainly to keep up with whatever they are tracking during head movements so looking at "off-sweetspot" space should usually be a very short-lived transient condition.

      Something like Oculus would not need to go much beyond 20MP total. All they need is a progressive resolution display to match the retina's non-uniform resolution.

    12. Re: already passing it by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      Yes. Web designers have all decided they're laying out magazines. It's dumb, and that capability should never have been added to HTML.

    13. Re:already passing it by SuperDre · · Score: 2

      If only it were that simple.. You clearly have no grasp on native application development, and the problems with changes in font DPI..
      Also what's the use of bigger resolution if you are going to increase the fontsize..

    14. Re:already passing it by voidphoenix · · Score: 2

      > 2x2 for lowercase. Right. That's 16 possible "characters" Correct. > with one of those being empty space and 4 of them being single pixels. Wow you figured out not every possible combination is -> useful <- all on your own? Here is your sticker.

      Condescending sarcasm only works if you're actually making an intelligent point, otherwise you just end up sounding like a jackass. The point of my statement, in case it went over your head, was that there are 26 characters in the English alphabet, and 9 pixel patterns are insufficient to portray them all. Nice try anyway.

      It should also be pointed out that the 2x2 lowercase font you're bragging about isn't 2x2. The h is 2x3; n, m, u and v are 3x2, s, t and y are 3x3... and those are just the ones I spotted in the first line. So yes, BS for a 2x2 font was correct.

      As you can see the uppercase is perfectly readable ...
      * http://peopleofhonoronly.com/michael/dev/fonts/font_uppercase.bmp

      The lowercase is "mostly" readable ... it is a great test to see what DPI is good, poor, and fail. (The lower the better for readability, but poorer for sharpness.)
      * http://peopleofhonoronly.com/michael/dev/fonts/font_lowercase.bmp

      Those fonts are readable in the same way grass is edible. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's useful as a reading font. It can be used to convey information and the reader can with some adjustment get used to it. That is far from "perfectly readable." Reading anything longer than a paragraph becomes an exercise in masochism. They might be useful as a small machine readable font that needs to remain decipherable by humans, similar to OCR-A.

      And just to demonstrate one can bold any font ...

      Simply changing the color of text from grey to white doesn't make it boldface. What if the text is white to begin with? Boldface refers to using heavier weight strokes, which you can't do with your 3x3 font without making it unreadable.

      people like you who know absolutely nothing about fonts.

      So now you're passing judgement on the knowledge or lack thereof of complete strangers on the Internet, when your own demonstrated credentials are the presentation of the work of another person?

      I'd normally refrain from this, but you did bring it up. I worked with 8-bit machines running CRT displays in the early 80s. Those displays are pretty low res and the built-in text patterns tended to use an 8x8 grid. To fit more information on the screen, I designed 7x5 and 5x5 pixel character sets. I also made one for 3x5 but I thought it was terribly ugly. I was 12 at the time. In high school, I was a writer and later editor of my schools' papers. In later years, I did a lot of desktop publishing work -- editing, layout and graphic design. I've also run an in-house press for one company.

      None of that really matters, because the original point, which others have also raised, is that your friend's 3x3 font isn't very readable. Not unreadable, but definitely far from anything any reasonable person would describe as readable. Anyway, you have a nice day, Mr. Has-a-friend-who's-an-expert-on-fonts.

      --
      Excuse me, wtf r u doin?
  3. Not until Anti-Aliasing isn't a thing by earlzdotnet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not until Anti-Aliasing isn't a thing by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm really excited for 4k monitors, but it's going to be awhile before really high quality ones that are great for work (color accuracy and reproduction, no weird problems exhausting your eyes like a lot of gaming-specific monitors) as well as great for gaming (responsive, negligible lag/input-delay/ghosting) are available. Even longer before they are around $3,0000 (which is about the price at which I'd pull the trigger on at least one of them).

      Hopefully, by the time those exist, GPUs will exist that can fully utilize a 4k display on a single GPU.

      As for home theaters? I don't think we'll see much 4k content in a very long time. I bought my first 50" 1080p HDTV in 2001 but it seems like most of the population is only now finally moving to HDTV in 2013 (and most of those are still the people who say things like "I don't know why we need HDTV -- standard television is as good as it needs to get and I can't tell any different!". There will be a huge chicken and egg problem for the next decade. Plus, since most of the content will start to be delivered over the network, there will have to be significant improvements in speeds and data caps in this country. We can't even count on true 1080p digital distribution, yet.

      Consoles will not make use of 4k this generation, so that is out of the question for the next decade, too. Yeah, the PS4 and XBOX ONE both support 4k, but I doubt that's going to be true 4k. It'll be upscaled. I just don't see how these dinky little consoles with only a few gigs of memory available will be able to push enough bits around for native 4k.

    2. Re:Not until Anti-Aliasing isn't a thing by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Informative

      can't seem to edit my previous post. antialiasing has nothing to do with resolution.

      antialiasing and font edge smoothing as it is understood when people speak of antialiasing has pretty much everything to do with resolution.

      if you can't see the individual pixels, and need say a group of 10x10 pixels to see a point on the screen, it becomes meaningless to do any subpixel effects of any kind on those 100 pixels that make up the smallest unit you can actually see.

      and slashdot doesn't have an edit functionality btw.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Not until Anti-Aliasing isn't a thing by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2

      You're not going to get the response times you want until we go back to electron/phosphor tech instead of physically moving pixels. I get a new trinitron off ebay periodically because even the fastest "gaming" screens these days are still so slow compared to a CRT that I can see the blur just from moving around ingame like a smeared oilpainting.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    4. Re:Not until Anti-Aliasing isn't a thing by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. No by wangmaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Come back and talk to me again when the average laptop and desktop screen hits high density PPI :)

    1. Re:No by wangmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The average smartphone has a 720p screen with a pixel density well above 200 now. In the context of this discussion, why can't an average panel that is generally within 12-24"s of your face (desktop or laptop) not have the same requirements?

      Sure, there exists laptops today that do. But those laptops don't provide you with alot of choice (both are walled gardens, yeah yeah yeah, I know you can install other things on them etc etc etc, but that's not the point here).

      That said, I know this is coming. We're seeing more and more high resolution ultrabooks/laptops. So when I say come back and talk to me again, it's very likely by the end of the year :).

    2. Re:No by Andrio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
    3. Re:no by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Pretty near everyone would notice a higher color space. Not because we can distinguish between two colors one bit apart, but because there are some colors that just aren't displayable on a current RGB screen. Oranges are a common example.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. no by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have rather poor vision, having to use different lens for reading, computer, distance...and I can still see the difference between 1080i and 4K monitors, a person with 20/20 should be able to benefit from even higher resolution (and I suspect even higher contrast ratios).

    We know from testing a significant part of the female population would notice higher bit color space too.

  6. Digital Movie Projection... and "Average People" by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you build for the average person, you are doomed to fail. Because 1/2 of the population is above average. Also there are the finer details that a person doesn't fully recognize. The average person cannot tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. However if you have them side by side (with colors/contract/brightness matching) They will see the a difference.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  7. Printers by Princeofcups · · Score: 2

    Didn't laser printers show us that 300dpi is still a bit jaggy, and 600dpi is perfectly smooth at arm's length? When screen resolution is around 400dpi then we are probably done.

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    1. Re:Printers by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

      Laser printers are bitonal devices and need extra resolution for dithering. That's why there is even a detectable, although slight, difference between 600dpi and 1200dpi.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  8. We've fixed resolution... by maroberts · · Score: 2

    how about sorting out readability in bright sunlight and battery life (without losing the gains in the other factors)?

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  9. seems like... by buddyglass · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's a matter of PPI and typical viewing distance. Phones are often held about a foot from your face. Computer monitors are usually two or three feet away from your face. TVs are significantly further away. Greater distance = eye is more tolerant of lower PPI. That's why the iPhone 5 is ~326 PPI, a Macbook Pro with Retina is ~220 PPI, an Apple 27" Thunderbolt Display is ~110 PPI and a 65" 1080p TV is ~35 PPI.

  10. Re:900 dpi by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's a bit complex, because the retina doesn't really have a static resolution: it integrates information from constant movements, responses nonlinearly to different patterns of photon impacts, and has different sensitivies across different parts. You could put a ballpark number on it, but it's difficult to really sort out what the "resolution of the retina" is.

    To quote a paper:

    Many would say that new display technologies, 9 megapixel panels and projectors for example, are coming ever closer to “matching the resolution of the human eye”, but how does one measure this, and in what areas are current displays and rendering techniques still lacking? [...] The resolution perceived by the eye involves both spatial and temporal derivatives of the scene; even if the image is not moving, the eye is (“drifts”), but previous attempts to characterize the resolution requirements of the human eye generally have not taken this into account. Thus our photon model explicitly simulates the image effects of drifts via motion blur techniques; we believe that this effect when combined with the spatial derivatives of receptive fields is a necessary component of building a deep quantitative model of the eye’s ability to perceive resolution in display devices.

    Pretty interesting stuff, from a project that tried to build a photon-accurate model of the human eye.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  11. Smallest pixel by jones_supa · · Score: 2

    What is the size of the smallest pixel that can currently be made using LCD technology?

  12. Re:Digital Movie Projection... and "Average People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because 1/2 of the population is above average.

    Half the population is above (or below) the median.

  13. Hasn't stopped manufacturers by HangingChad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Have we reached the limit of resolution improvements that people with average vision can actually notice?

    Hasn't really slowed the push toward 4K in video production. While it's sometimes handy to have the frame real estate in production, it takes up a crapton more space, requires more power to edit and it's mostly useless to consumers. Even theater projection systems can't resolve much over 2K.

    But if the industry doesn't go to 4K, then who will buy new cameras, editing software and storage hardware? And consumers might never upgrade their "old" HDTVs. Think of the children!

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  14. Re:Holograms by iggymanz · · Score: 2

    the rods and cones of the eye are on a surface, we only need concern ourselves with paths that terminate on that surface, they can originate from a surface

  15. Human eye by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wikipedia says:

    Angular resolution: about 4 arcminutes, or approximately 0.07Â

    Field of view (FOV): simultaneous visual perception in an area of about 160Â Ã-- 175Â.

    So that's about 2200 x 2400 if the screen is at the correct distance. Further away and you need less resolution. Closer and you won't see the whole image.

  16. Re:Yes. by bobbied · · Score: 2

    But you always have the "My screen resolution is better than yours" crowd that will fall for the device with the better specs in droves so you can bet device makers will be designing and building resolutions that you and I can't ever hope to see.

    But one should be careful to note that the issue is pixels per inch and not overall resolution here. 720P might be overkill on a 2" screen, but it might be way too low for the latest movie theater screen. Even at the best PPI you can see, the next frontier will be refresh rates (Although, going much past 120 FPS is totally overkill.. )

    Personally I really *hate* watching blue ray movies in full resolution. Usually the material just looks cheesy to me, where you can see the boundaries of the CGI sequences, makeup smudges on the actors, obvious short cuts on the set construction and all kinds of things that just are not right. It actually makes it more difficult for me to suspend reality long enough to enjoy the movie. Of course, being an old projectionist from years ago makes me sensitive to vestiges of bad editing, splices, reel changes and queue marks which also distract me.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  17. Re:Yes. by bobbied · · Score: 2

    My point being, even if you can see it, having more resolution is not necessarily a good thing.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  18. Re:Digital Movie Projection... and "Average People by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  19. Printers and resolution by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Didn't laser printers show us that 300dpi is still a bit jaggy, and 600dpi is perfectly smooth at arm's length? When screen resolution is around 400dpi then we are probably done.

    300dpi didn't cut it for dithered images - 600dpi was close, but not quite enough. The winner was the 1200dpi laser printers.

    When you have a grayscale image you want to print on a single-color device, you use dithering to create the illusion of gray shades. A 1-to-1 mapping of pixels to printer dots gives you 2 colors - black and white. Photos look horrible. Double the printer resolution so you have a 2x2 dot array for each pixel and you have 16 possible shades. Double it again for a 4x4 dot array per pixel and you have 256 possible shades. So if you want a 300 pixel-per-inch gray scale image to look good, you need a printer resolution of 1200dpi.

    Now, all this changes for RGB displays, since each pixel can be from 16 to 256 shades each. But less depth per pixel might be compensated for by smaller pixels and a higher density.

    I remember in the early days of computer graphics, it was believed that 24-bit color (8-bit each Red, Green and Blue pixels) was the pinnacle. But once 24-bit color became widely available, we discovered it wasn't enough. When edited in Photoshop, often a 24-bit image would show banding in the sky, due to rounding errors in the math involved. Adobe added 48-bit color (16-bits per RGB channel) the rounding errors became much less visible. Today cameras capture 8, 12,14 or 16 bits per RGB channel, and using HDR software we get 96-bit color.

    My point is we have a history of thinking we know where the limit is, but when the technology arrives, we discover we need a little bit more....

    --
    Place nail here >+
    1. Re:Printers and resolution by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 2

      Not quite. In a 2x2 array, the number of black pixels can be 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4, that is 5 different values. In a 4x4 array, you have 17 different values.

      In a way, we are both correct. My example shows the maximum number of combinations, while your example groups them by the number of black dots possible. Yes, in a 4x4 array there are six possible arrangements of 2-black and 2-white "dots". But those six arrangements may give you the appearance of different shades of gray - depending on the surrounding dots.

      As an example - a 4x4 array with the two left dots black and the right side white. Imagine what that would look like if the same array is repeated vs. surrounded by black dots. Or if the arrays to the left are one color and the arrays to the right are a different color. Remember - you are looking at a group of 4x4 arrays, not just a single 4x4 array.

      --
      Place nail here >+
  20. Projectors need as much resolution as you have wal by Quantus347 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have a friend that is a huge fan of a projector for his primary display. When you take even high end resolution and project it out to 12 feet across, there is no such thing as too much resolution.

    --
    Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
  21. Dead Ends by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Funny

    What we should be/are concentrating on is better reflow and text to speech.

    Ask me how I can tell you don't go out in crowds much.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  22. One Megapixel Per Fist by Speare · · Score: 2

    I once did the back-of-napkin calculations to make a scale-independent metric. Astronomers know that if you hold your fist at arm's length, your fist occludes roughly ten arc degrees in whatever direction you measure across your fist. My search found that someone's 20/20 eyes can generally resolve details to about 1 arc minute (didn't read Wikipedia's rationale). If that much screen area contains one megapixel or more, then the screen is well within the definition of a "Retina" display (at the given viewing range).

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  23. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  24. 3D and beyond by John+Sokol · · Score: 3, Informative

    Moore's law has allows us to double display densities nearly as fast as CPU and memory had been improving.

    The addition of a simple lenticular or image mask can turn any LCD in to a glasses free display.
    An additional increase in resolution will then turn this in to a multiview display.

    A bit more resolution and a micro lens array can then create a light field display.
    Beyond that is digital holography.

    It's all fairly cut and dry, standards are already falling in place to accommodate and stream this level of video and even capture live video like this.

    So any software developer that assumes we've hit the limit will looks as foolish as Bill Gates saying no one would ever need more then 640k of memory.

    http://videotechnology.blogspot.com/search?q=Lenticular
    http://videotechnology.blogspot.com/search/label/3D
    http://videotechnology.blogspot.com/search?q=Multiview
    http://videotechnology.blogspot.com/search/label/Digital%20Holography

    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso