Recent content by Randomoneh

It's just that it becomes impractical to achieve high angle of coverage (180° for example) for immersive gaming when radius of curvature is much higher than your viewing distance. Even impossible with flat panels.

Samsung S34E790C - equidistant surface at 3 meter distance. LG 34UC97 - equidistant surface at almost 4 meter distance (3.8). Average Eyefinity / Surround setup - equidistant at ~1 meter distance.

What's the point of making a monitor where every point (horizontally) is at the same distance from you... ...only when you're sitting 3 meters (that's what "3000R" from announcements is) away? Jesus Christ, standard viewing distance is ~70 cm. Bend it accordingly, not this bullshit.

Aging of the white element could cause a color shift.You take for granted that aging of the white element causes only a decrease in luminance while color temperature of the white element might change as well.

Very simple - high immersion above all. Then high motion resolution (crystal clear image during fast movement). Next static resolution. Then color.

But wouldn't you rather buy our new shiny edition after a few years? Now seriously, do you consider non-organic LED to be true CRT replacement, something like Sony's Crystal LED? Then you most likely haven't used a TV for PC gaming / image manipulation. Tricks and intentional(?) limitation. All...

[delete]

Curved with curvature matching usual PC viewing distance (unlike anything on market today).

Would you rather have something like this (in form of projector & screen, LCD, OLED, whatever) or a 32'' 4K display? What is the end-game of displays for you? Is it full immersion and total FOV coverage? Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CftlkMGQpS0

And why is that? What about it would make anyone "blind"?

I agree with Brian Hauer here who has a priority list for desktop display features . Displays need to fill as much of my field of view as possible. This means I won't stop until I have a 360 dome. You're doubleclick away from immersive worlds.

I think the evolution of display comparisons, size-wise, goes like this. Compare diagonals. Problem: different aspect ratios. Compare total screen area. Problem: FOV coverage not growing linearly with total area. Final solution: compare total angular area (FOV coverage) of the screen in square...

A cup of laziness + pinch of incompetence + 2 gallons of greed = current state of displays. What do your reckon a board found in those high-end monitors / TVs costs? This is just pathetic. Imagine I need a lot of storage for my desktop. Terabytes and terabytes of storage. All I have to do...

In the terms of apparent size (FOV coverage), 24-inch viewed from 70 cm is comparable to 105-inch display viewed from 10 ft. Both are covering ~42° horizontally. Anyway, you want anything lower than 2 arcminutes per pixel. At 10 ft, that's 15 PPI or higher. No. That's 0.7 arcminutes per pixel...

This. Also, I'd like to add you'll be able to recognize distant objects you couldn't recognize before.