{ "numMessagesInTopic": 15, "nextInTime": 1212, "senderId": "RW5j4o1JABSIH0ljvDia_Ef8mehy9qn0-RD31HxKhP-RJTKK_cQimtD21wYNUPSNiJbZiCe4-3GTTv2Tb_KRasCxjkmPMuoJJx9UWsgnuQ", "systemMessage": false, "subject": "Re: New screen: 56" lcd 3840 x 2160", "from": ""fluppeteer" <yahoo@...>", "authorName": "fluppeteer", "msgSnippet": "... They seem a bit undecided about who l buy it. 79-ish dpi isn t unusable as a monitor (a 19 SXGA LCD is only 86dpi). It d be a bit bulky on a desk, though", "msgId": 1211, "profile": "fluppeteer", "topicId": 1205, "spamInfo": { "reason": "12", "isSpam": false }, "replyTo": "LIST", "userId": 192443393, "messageBody": "
>They seem a bit undecided about who'l buy it. 79-ish dpi
\n> Come on. This is not a computer display, at 56".
\n
\n
> This is going after the HDTV market, with the hope that withI'd agree, except that 3840x2160 is a bit of an extreme way
\n> HD DVDs, there will finally be a source that can generate
\n> 1080p, which presumably would look great with the larger 56"
\n> display. Broadcasters will still be bandwidth limited to
\n> 720p and 1080i.
\n
\n
> It seems like a computer display's size usefully maxes outFor a desktop screen, I'd agree. Although I'm using four
\n> somewhere between 22" and 30", given workspaces and
\n> ergonomics. And I would argue the number is closer to the
\n> 22"-25" range.
\n
\n
> So, if we can have 1920x1200 15.4" notebook displays on $2K:-) Absolutely. Especially if I didn't already have a T221.
\n> notebooks, why can't some vendor deliver a fairly high res
\n> (say 3000x1700) 23" display for $2000-$3000? Wouldn't we
\n> all jump and buy one tomorrow? I would!
\n
\n