[ewzimm]

That monitor is just under 3.69 billion pixels compared to 13.5 billion on the Surface Studio. It doesn't include the dial interface, the real-life scaling, the pivot mechanism, the color profiles, a lot more. It's probably the closest you can get, but not in the same league.

[ewzimm]

Just noticed I said billion, meant million. Looking forward to VR displays with that kind of resolution though.

[m_mueller]

> Looking forward to VR displays with that kind of resolution though.

In before Google releases the "Google Cardboard Surface Studio edition" xD

[usaphp]

I agree, that's why Microsoft had to sell this monitor on its own, without that PC attached.

Also I did not see any mention of pressure sensitivity on that Studio panel, if it does not have it - it's a major point to still choose Wacom.

[ewzimm]

The Wacom has the pressure level advantage: 2048 vs 1024 levels on the Surface. But with well-calibrated software, it should be enough. I'm not sure if people can discern 2048 levels of pressure, and I'm sure this device was tested on a lot of artists. Can't comment from experience but I would think the delay would be a bigger issue than levels (MS say they optimized for delay.)

[mmel]

That is a number beyond meaning for feedback to humans, like arguing for a 3000dpi screen vs a 6000dpi screen, they're both far beyond human levels of perception. From my experience of trying to eek out every variation in pressure with a wacom, 32 levels is enough. I'm not able to create 64 levels of varing pressure strokes, let alone 1024.

[zc75]

(It's "eke". Unless you've just seen a big spider!)