[jrockway]

Good luck getting >60fps worth of 4k pixels over DisplayPort or HDMI.

I will give my firstborn for an 8k* monitor with a 120Hz refresh rate. He or she will probably have kids when I get that, though.

(4k is not that compelling. At 32" it's only 140ppi, which is nothing approaching "retina" levels.)

[objclxt]

> (4k is not that compelling. At 32" it's only 140ppi, which is nothing approaching "retina" levels.)

...one would hope that you're not viewing the 32" 4K monitor at the same distance you would view your phone from. Comparing PPI of a 32" screen to a 6" one is rather meaningless as the viewing distance is going to be vastly different.

[evv]

But your phone, at retina distances, does not fill your field of view, and putting your face close to a large screen does.

The ultimate watermark will be retina-level resolution for devices like the Oculus Rift, allowing you to move your eyeballs all around and see real-life-quality graphics.

[kayoone]

Yes, 1080p in the DK2 is worse that i had imagined. But Oculus apparently demoed a device with a 1440p screen which is already a lot better from what i heard. Still 4K and above have a totally valid usecase for VR.

[jrockway]

I sit a little bit more than an arm's length away. It's not enough resolution to turn off anti-aliasing on fonts and still have them look nice. (And I use big fonts.) Circles still look blocky.

The Chromebook Pixel has a nice resolution. That's 240ppi.

[kayoone]

I agree, while 32" makes native 4K useable in terms of desktop real estate, 8K in retina mode (basically viewable 4K) would be the endgame for usable monitors i guess. However since we are already starting with 5K, i don't think we have to wait as long as you imagine.