Dell Demos 5K Display 204
An anonymous reader writes: Even though 4k displays are just making their way into consumer affordability, manufacturers are already pushing beyond. Dell has previewed a computer monitor it calls a "5k" display. The resolution is 5120x2880, stuffing 14,745,600 pixels on a 27" screen. For comparison, that's more than seven times the amount of pixels in a 1920x1080 display. Pixel density is 218 PPI, roughly the same as a 15" Retina MacBook Pro. ExtremeTech suggests, "As far as we're aware, no one is actually making 5120×2880 panels, especially not at 27 inches diagonal – so what we're probably looking at is two 2560x2880 panels squished together as a 'tiled display.'" Unfortunately, it's pricy, expected to cost around $2,500. But hopefully it will help drive 4k display prices even further toward mainstream availability.
in the meantime : (Score:3)
when will we finally get hihger than 1920*1080 resolution monitors at a decent price ????
Re: (Score:2)
about 2500 * 1500 should suffice for now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes to both the points in your post.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why x1200 when x1440 so much better?
16:10 is dead but we've finally got resolution numbers rising again, so you won't miss it much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
16:10 means that while watching a 16:9 video, you can pop up the control panel of the player without obscuring the video itself. Also, people who like the taskbar or equivalent on the bottom of the screen appreciate all the vertical pixels they can get. Personally I bit the bullet and adapted to putting the taskbar on the right on the machines that have vertically cramped displays, but it would be nice not to have to make this choice. Even at 2048x1152, I find I want more vertical pixels often, and only occ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Economies of scale. LCD makers already have huge factories pumping out more 1920x1080 screens for use in HD TVs each week than the whole laptop industry uses in a year.
Re:in the meantime : (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Decent prices... (Score:3)
I saw a "Good Guys" circular from the late 1980s yesterday and they had a Motorola "car phone" for sale in there for $1200. IIRC, it must have been a bag phone because I remember they said it was portable from car-car in the ad.
That's like $2500 in today's purchasing power-- can you imagine $2500 these days for an analog-only mobile phone? And what do you suppose calls were back then, 50 cents or more per minute, closer $1/minute in contemporary purchasing power?
About the only thing good about those bag p
Re: (Score:2)
About the only thing good about those bag phones was they had more transmit power.
They had bigger antennae, too, and you could reasonably retrofit an even larger one. These days, if a phone even has an external antenna jack, it's one that could be clogged by a single grain of sand.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeh, 1920x1200 is chump change. I spent over $2,000 for my 1920x1600 monitor a decade or so back but, it eventually blew a capacitor, and at current display prices I was willing to accept a drop in resolution. It's nice to see that display quality is moving forward again, rather than backwards, although 24" is enough of a desk-eating behemoth that I'm doubtful about increasing the size.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, some mod doesn't like the 2560x1440 options, apparently.
Sadly all (or almost all) 2560*1440 monitors are 27". That's too big for my tastes; I find I have to move my head (and my neck) to look around the screen, and that is NOT good.
24" would be MUCH better.
That's a good point - I was considering one of those when I got my 24", and the dpi on the 24 is about as high as I'd like for a desktop monitor (using standard scaling levels). I currently have two displays connected, both at home and work, so I'm used to having to move my head to look around. I consider 2560x1440 a single-monitor upgrade from two 19" 1280x1024 displays, and at 27" should be less head & neck movement than the dual-monitor s
Re: (Score:2)
I just bought a Seiki 39" 4K TV for use as a monitor. I paid $329 (USD) because I was too slow to get the sale price at $299.
Re: (Score:2)
TVs are often awful for gaming, having very high input lag. Some can have over 50ms, equivalent to a decent internet connection. Yup, that's right - there's more lag between the computer and the screen than there is between the computer and a server hundreds of miles away.
Note I'm not talking about response time or refresh rate here.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh sure, but I'm a software developer who live in emacs with multiple frames spread across two 2560x1440 27" monitors with each frame usually split into 6-10 windows. 30Hz is just fine for that.
Holding out for 640k (Score:4, Funny)
Because that ought to be enough for anybody! :D
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=640k+is+enough
Re: (Score:2)
That's over 9000!
Fix 4k first (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Until there are GPUs powerful enough for gaming on a 4k screen, I'll just wait this one out.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You think my gtx770 would play games at 4k? I'd love to be able to play The Crew at 4k when it comes out.
I don't get why so many people in the gaming press are saying "not yet" for 4k gaming because the GPUs can't handle it. I'm going to check it out. Thanks for the tip about benchmarking 4k.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a display problem.
Just because the video card and processing industry is playing catch-up does not mean that R&D should stop on display tech itself. I'd rather them force the change by creating more and more high res displays so that pressure is put on the other players to fix their problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this, current 4k implimentations are balls.
There's a large contingent of gamers pushing for 120/144hz gaming for example, we can't even do 60hz at 4k easily. (Forget about the GPU power, the damn cabling and interface standards to send the signal to the display) this really needs to be solved, especially with OLED coming and it's potential 1000's of frames per second refresh rate.
I suspect the display will work on some kind of 10:1 ratio, where it updates 10 times for every 1 time the GPU can - as
In other news: Are 4K displays worth getting yet? (Score:2)
I was thinking about getting a Asus PB287Q 28" 4K 60Hz as it has good reviews but was unsure as to whether I can stick with icons and stuff being small. I love the idea of the additional pixels as I always seem to not have enough but I here some programs aren't a good match as they don't scale well.
Anybody use a 4K display for programming / development work? Good or bad idea?
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking about getting a Asus PB287Q 28" 4K 60Hz as it has good reviews but was unsure as to whether I can stick with icons and stuff being small. I love the idea of the additional pixels as I always seem to not have enough but I here some programs aren't a good match as they don't scale well.
Anybody use a 4K display for programming / development work? Good or bad idea?
This guy thinks so: http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-i... [tsotech.com]
The Seiki is only 30Hz @ 4k resolution, but at 39" and $339 (compared to the Asus 28", 60Hz at $600), I (hoping, because one is being delivered next week) think its a better deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody use a 4K display for programming / development work? Good or bad idea?
i would LOVE that. I am now using 2 * 1920*1080, and i would gladly trade them in for a 4K. I would love to be able to see more code, multiple windows side by side, and more vertical space would eliminate a lot of scrolling
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of folks at work are switching to these and they seem happy.
I'm going for a stand-up desk first. I'll look into the 4k monitor early next year and see how things are then.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking Black Friday / Cyber Monday might be a good time to get a 4K monitor.
Re: (Score:2)
30Hz is a deal breaker for me. 60Hz or nothing. 30Hz is ok for watching movies apparently but I don't think I could cope with mouse lag.
39" would be nice though and removes the issue of everything being small.
Re: (Score:2)
The mouse lag is annoying at first but it's not so bad if you get a high dpi mouse and spend a few weeks getting used to the new setup. I wouldn't play games on it, but it's been awesome for code/productivity at the office.
I've had one [the seiki 39"] for about 9 months now. It's due with our baby in two weeks, because we had such a honeymoon when I first got it.
Re:In other news: Are 4K displays worth getting ye (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have eagle eyes or sit close to the screen? (Yes, and no, in my case.)
Can you see the scan lines and pixels of a normal, good-quality display from a distance greater than the diagonal size of the monitor itself? (I do.)
Have you ever set shell windows to 6 or 8 point fonts so they don't clutter up your screen(s), yet still find them legible? (Also yes for me.)
Are you looking to reduce the WALL OF DISPLAY effect without losing precious real estate? (I have three monitors totaling 6.5 MPix, and wouldn't mind at all if I could reduce that to two [I'd still want a video display for watching across the room] or just one [if the scaling works well enough to do said video]).
If you sound anything like me, then yeah, you probably want this. If you're one of the types that runs a display at something other than its native resolution ALL THE TIME, because everything is too tiny for you, then you almost certainly do NOT want this.
Re: (Score:2)
All good points. I do like stuff small so it would probably be ok for me and I absolutely insist that displays are run at native resolution. It would be nice to see a 4K in operation though before I purchase. More research needed.
Re: (Score:2)
I got this display -- Asus PB287Q -- for work. It's been absolutely delightful.
That said, I found that at the distance I'm sitting -- about 24" from the display -- The full 4K resolution was way too high and made me have to upscale things pretty regularly. I downgraded to the second-highest resolution (~3200 instead of ~3800 on the horizontal) and it's delightfully usable, and gives me SO MUCH more real estate than the previous monitor (27" Apple Cinema Display -- the standard for my workplace).
One word
Re: (Score:2)
Most Linux desktop environments are DPI independent for fonts and toolkit controls, but it can be a bit hard to change as such things are often tied to your system theme. Of course, that doesn't help with scaling things like images. For many years now you could get desktop scaling using Compiz, but that requires hardware with good OpenGL support so few distributions use it. The current standard for things like 4K monitors is HiDPI (which Apple is calling Retina for marketing reasons).
The only Linux distr
Higher Resolutions in Bigger Screens (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This may not be practical, but I'm still glad to see companies driving bigger displays with higher resolutions.
Me too. It may be more than current video cards can handle, but personally, I typically go through two video cards for every desktop computer, and two to four desktop computers for every generation of displays I buy. That means the video hardware will get there.
It will never beat my tv. (Score:2)
Mine goes to 11.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
oled displays promise inky blacks-- as there isn't a backlight to bleed through.
Meanwhile at HP HQ . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory: Five Blades (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.theonion.com/articl... [theonion.com]
"What part of this don't you understand? If two blades is good, and three blades is better, obviously five blades would make us the best fucking razor that ever existed. Comprende? We didn't claw our way to the top of the razor game by clinging to the two-blade industry standard. We got here by taking chances. Well, five blades is the biggest chance of all."
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing progress with "progress". There are many of us dying to get higher than 1920x1080 as the standard display types. I recently realised I have had 1200 vertical pixels on my computer display for 14 years now. It's quite sad.
At last ... (Score:2)
... a display that actually has the number of kilopixels in width that is advertised.
DPI Scaling (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's like 4 of my dell U2711 packed into one? (Score:2)
I've got 2 x 2560x1440 screens and it's more than enough real estate for anything. I can't see the point of effectively having 4 of them on one screen of the same size. Even modern graphics cards struggle to do decent 3D on what I have, so what on earth is going to work on such a high res display? The only advantage I can see in 3D is less need for AA which might save some cycles...
Plus Windows scaling is so rubbish, and there is still so many non-dpi aware apps out there that many people still (need to) us
Hopefully leads to a 6K display (Score:2)
I have a 39" Seiki 4K monitor (TV) that I mostly love. It's not the best color rendition, but it's hard to beat sheer screen real estate for dev work. My biggest complaint is that at that size, 4K is a similar resolution to existing 30" monitors @ 2560x1600.
I'd love a 5K / 6K display in this size and thought it was probably a few years out. 8K would be nice, but I doubt that will be practical in a 35"-40" size for quite a while longer. I don't need 300+ dpi, but a solid 220 or so would be great.
Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (Score:5, Informative)
Sincerely, Guy who watched 0% of content in HD 5 years ago, and watches 95% of content in HD now.
Re: (Score:2)
4k Blu-Ray drives and movies are scheduled for next year.
They'll be using H.265 compression and some new DRM.
I'll end up with one, but only if/when my current blu-ray player dies.
Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
"and some new DRM"
Why are they still bothering? It never stopped piracy, and only serves to punish people who buy the stuff (no possibility to rip for iPhone, tablet,etc)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It stops some people. Not everybody wants or bothers to torrent movies, and TPB only reliably carries Big/Popular/New movies, they don't really keep a deep library or long tail -- you can find just about any title in existence but the seeders off the main drag are a flaky breed. BluRay DRM seems to be working pretty well if you're trying to make sure people pay for a copy of Cat Ballou or Brigadoon, particularly if the alternative of Hulu or Netflix is a click away.
Also, if they didn't use DRM, then you c
Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the option, I'll watch HD over SD, but I can follow all the action on SD.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The difference between it and the same 4K display beside it, up converting off a Blu-ray player was stark, and the difference between even the up converted 4K Blu-ray images and the 1080p displays running off the same Blu-ray source was absolutely obvious and clear.
I wanted to play with the settings on 4K Blu-ray display and the 1080p displays to see if they had been deliberately crippled to make the 4K
Re: (Score:2)
"Up-Converting" is just a marketing term for scaling and scaling is a techy phrase for stretching. Of course 4K should look better. You can't magically add (real) information that isn't there to begin with.
Re: (Score:3)
The original argument though was that the additional information in a real 4K stream would not be apparent...
It is. No upscaling is not going to magically add detail, but if you have a real 4k source you'll be able to see it even on kind of small monitors.
The real question is, where are you going to get 4k sources from...
For desktop use though 4K seems really nice.
Re: (Score:2)
"The real question is, where are you going to get 4k sources from..."
I'd like it for my home video. I've been taking 1080p @ 60 fps for 3 years and it's definitely worth the extra required space. The extra framerate makes it much more realistic. I noticed when shopping for a new video camera there are quite a few that shoot 4K.
Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (Score:4, Informative)
For example, the average person needs to be less than 4 feet away from a 32" tv in order to see any benefit from 4k resolution over 1080p resolution
32" is pretty small for modern displays, which is why most people can easily discern 4k differences at a couch distance.
When you are talking about computer monitors of course, you are way closer than 4 feet, so you can discern 4K difference in quality even on a 27" display...
I really think though the whole circle of confusion thing is not truly taking into account nuances we can detect unconsciously. It's not as hard a science as the calculations make it look.
Re: (Score:2)
Define "couch distance" - as the chart I linked to indicated, a 60" display at 8 feet is only good for 1080p.
That's what I was talking about the Circle of Confusion being not very accurate in terms of real results.
If you go into a real store, from 6' you can easily tell the difference between a 1080 and 4k display with equal content. I go to CES every year and have spent a lot of time looking at different displays that was showing the same content.
"Streams" are for primarily for TV viewing.
Oh, you want to
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of real information does not mean something can't look better. See the many different interpolation algorithms. Nearest-neighbour is only suitable for horizontal and vertical lines where absolute positioning isn't important.
Effectively looking at HD content on low resolution display, or looking at any content on a display where pixels are visible is like using nearest-neighbour interpolation. There are far better looking algorithms for smoothing the content when you have a high resolution display.
All o
Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (Score:5, Interesting)
^ This, thank you...
I see comment after comment from people who are talking out of their back ends, or perhaps their eyes suck...
We saw the exact same comments about 720p vs. 1080p almost 10 years ago, that you couldn't tell the difference.
Stupid is as stupid does I suppose...
True 4k is amazing, it blows 1080p out of the water. I've seen a similar display as you did, but this was on a 70" 1080p next to a 70" 4k display, from about 8 feet away, in a store.
Wow, once you've seen the difference, it is smack dab obvious how much of an improvement 4k really is. You don't have to look at the signs, just watch the video playing.
Now the issue is content... Since we've all now replaced much of our VHS and DVD content for 1080p Blu-Ray, I think few fewer people are going to be willing to do that again.
As much as I like it, I won't spend all that money yet again.
So... If they REALLY want 4k to take off, they need to offer a reasonable upgrade option, perhaps $2 per movie, to get the 4k version.
If I could take my stack of Blu-Ray discs into Walmart or Best Buy and trade them all in for $2 each for 4K versions, I'd probably go buy a 4K TV this Christmas.
$5 each? Meh, that is pushing it, maybe make it $5 each, but $2-3 each if you do 50 or 100 or more or something.
As far as digital copies, such as my now extensive library with Vudu and Amazon, those need upgrade options as well, also for a low price.
Take care of the customer and we'll throw money at you. Try to charge stupid high prices and we'll just not bother.
Re: Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (Score:2)
You mean the same BBY that showed the gold plated monster hdmi look so much better than the display next to it?
They crippled it on purpose and what you saw was a downgraded or scaled image to make you blow $$$$. I could be wrong but don't trust Bestbuy
Re: (Score:2)
I never said anything about Best Buy, now did I? I haven't bought anything there in many, many years...
It is quite possible, that I do in fact know what I'm talking about, heaven forbid...
Re: (Score:2)
I see comment after comment from people who are talking out of their back ends, or perhaps their eyes suck... (...) True 4k is amazing, it blows 1080p out of the water. I've seen a similar display as you did, but this was on a 70" 1080p next to a 70" 4k display, from about 8 feet away, in a store.
With all due respect, if you're seeing a huge difference then I very much suspect it'd due to the actual devices, settings and algorithms rather than the resolution. I have an 3840x2160 UHD monitor and I've taken very high resolution photos (18MP) with lots of fine patterns that makes changes in detail easy to spot and scaled it to 3840x2160 as well as 1920x1080 then made a dumb pixel doubling upscale to 3840x2160 to simulate a 1080p display and a high quality upscale to simulate an upscaling UHD display an
Re: (Score:2)
With all due respect
Yea, that rarely means that... :)
But taking it at face value, you should have shown that same image on a 1080 screen of similar size, that would have been more useful.
I have a very nice Sony 70" 3D 1080p TV at home, I also have 2 other smaller 1080p TVs. My main work computer has 3 Dell 30" 1600p monitors on it and as soon as the 32" 4K screens come down in price, I'll have three of those.
The difference is night and day, if you can't see it, fair enough, not everyone can.
But there is a difference, and to m
Re: (Score:2)
Perfectly find may be good enough for you.
That is ok, nothing wrong with that.
Just don't confuse what YOU find to be perfectly fine with actual improvements.
My Father got off the bandwagon with cassette tapes. Doesn't make CDs bad, just means that cassettes were "perfectly fine" for him.
A CD is still better than a cassette tape.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the threshold of perception is a bit better than HD.
Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (Score:5, Interesting)
*slow clap* because anecdotal evidence
I hate to break it to you (actually no, I enjoy it) but Blu-Ray is a dead format, Sony won the physical media war just in time for digital media to enter the scene
http://www.zdnet.com/whatever-... [zdnet.com]
Want an eye opener? Ok!
Blu-Ray sales (ending June 29th)
http://www.the-numbers.com/wee... [the-numbers.com]
Biggest seller? Frozen with 7 million units
DVD sales (ending June 29th)
http://www.the-numbers.com/wee... [the-numbers.com]
Biggest seller? Transformers with 16 million units, oh and there are more big numbers in that list adding up to an overwhelming difference in per unit sales
Maybe it's just a slow month you say? Here are the numbers for 2013:
http://www.the-numbers.com/hom... [the-numbers.com]
http://www.the-numbers.com/hom... [the-numbers.com]
Same story. DVD is still consistently moving more units, much to my surprise, I honestly thought it would be closer.
All this format war / pissing match conversation is pointless anyway because the day of the disc is done and digital sales will continue to increase.
http://bgr.com/2014/01/08/digi... [bgr.com]
Turns out a stream from Netflix is good enough for most people, packaged media is dead meat
Personally speaking, I prefer the BluRay copy of "Breaking Bad" then a not quite always HD stream... then again I have a record collection, so what does that say about me
Re: (Score:3)
> Personally speaking, I prefer the BluRay copy of "Breaking Bad" then a not quite always HD stream... then again I have a record collection, so what does that say about me
Even a DVD copy of Breaking Bad will probably be better than streaming it. Streaming quality can go to crap pretty quickly. Plus you have to "download" a stream any time you watch one. This is wasteful, consumes your data cap, and again exposes you to the problem of quality degredation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blu-Ray didn't take off in the sense that it's not driving massive video sales. Imagine that consumers get tired of buying videos that are obsolete in 4 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Actually, the winner is bittorrent...)
Re: (Score:2)
It's strange that the majority of people who don't actually give a shit about fidelity get to determine the "winner", and not the ones who actually compare things. But hey, that's tyranny of the majority for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
I still watch most of my content in 480p, which is fine even on a 52" 1080P LCD right up until you get to stuff with fine detail and diagrams, like a car show. Then you really start to want at least 720p, and often want to run it right up to 1080p. 1080p content compressed down to 480p and then blown back up to 1080p looks like crap when there's a bunch of fine detail.
The average TV show or movie actually benefits from being at a lower resolution, because if you can actually see the fine detail, you'll be u
Re: (Score:2)
There is never any situation where a lower resolution looks better than a higher resolution, given all
Re: (Score:2)
I can only assume it's some form of nostalgic conditioning where you've decided something less accurate somehow looks better
Because you are apparently the only guy who's never watched porn, you wouldn't understand. But you can see shitty stitching and fake-ass plastic lacquers in HD that are concealed in SD by the simple lack of detail. So like I said, normal TV (or again, porn) often looks better at lower resolutions, because you can't see how cheap-ass it actually is. Of course, if you have no appreciation for anything finer than crap, you might not be able to tell the difference. In that case, I salute you with one finger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense. Blu-Ray discs cost the consumer about 50% more and the players are about twice the price. Most people don't even have a Blu-Ray player, and even those that do may balk at paying more for a movie that they'll only see a few times, or that only their children will watch.
Many people don't buy a new TV until the old one breaks. It's going to be another 10 years before the CRTs are for all practical purposes gone, and they can't even accept the output from common Blu-Ray players. I expect high resol
Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a 35" 4K TV that I use as a display for my main computer. I now wish I had spent the extra money to get a 50".
On the 35" the text is too small to read comfortably for any length of time, I don't see how reading on a 27" is going to work unless you increase your font size which reduces the benefits of the higher resolution.
For viewing pictures/diagrams you will get a sharper display, and for some people the AA fonts will be seen as another plus but I think a larger display is needed to get the full
Re: (Score:2)
I expect using a larger font, or actually a larger system DPI setting, is exactly what he wants to do. There's a huge difference between a 12 pt sentence at 92 DPI and at 300 DPI, one of the reasons I still prefer to print out articles when I'll be reading them intensively. It's the high DPI in addition to the lack of backlight that makes e-paper displays so great.
I'm only 31 and I can't see details like I used to either, so anything that makes text sharper is good. I'd be interested in a 300 DPI 27", but t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the 35" the text is too small to read comfortably for any length of time
Text size has no relation to the display size. Text size is generally specified in "points", where one point is approximately 1/72 inch. If you find the text too small to read, the obvious solution is to increase the size. Display size affects how much text you can display given a certain text size. E.g., you might get 40 lines of 10 point text on a 24" monitor, and 45 lines of 10 point text on a 32" monitor.
I don't see how reading on a 27" is going to work unless you increase your font size which reduces the benefits of the higher resolution.
Why wouldn't reading on a 27" work? A long time ago, I had a 15" CRT and was able to read text on it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a 14 megapixel camera; a 14 megapixel display would complement it nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Problem is, there is no ideal ppi, there's an ideal ppr (pixels per radian) which varies with screen-to-eye distance. so 1080p is ok across the room, but not right in your face. GP is lying, a monitor would have to be pretty huge for 8k to not be ok...
Re: (Score:2)
Hijacking this comment (Score:2)
Anyone know the effective resolution and screen size of the Oculus Rift?
Can we envision one day the elimination of external monitors in favor of lightweight and inexpensive versions of Oculus Rift with a form factor closer to that of Google Glass?
Re: (Score:2)
The DK1 was 1280x800, the DK2 is 1080p, and the consumer version is at least 1080p but they haven't said more.
Re:Hijacking this comment (Score:4, Interesting)
Not likely any time soon. The DK2 has a 1080p display, but due to the extreme field of view this looks more like an old 800x600 display with a screen door effect to boot and chromatic aberration. The CV1 is expected to use a 1440p display, which is a nice step up, but still might not be enough to reduce that screen door effect.
Reading delicate text and fonts in a no-go with a Rift. Everything needs to be scaled up to deal with the low pixel / degree of view factor. Colours wash out slightly as well I think, but that might just be subjective.
If you live in a hot climate you're not going to want to be wearing the Rift unless you have some nice air conditioning. Things can get sweaty or foggy in there.
I think we can expect to see some improvement in display density, and more accurate adjustments for the chromatic aberrations and other artefacts over the next few years. I wouldn't expect to be replacing my desktop display any time soon with a VR display.