It's already gone to shit when people present in 21.5:9 or 32:9 when the vast majority of us are on 16:9.Modular resolution sizes! This will really shine in our Teams presentations when everyone has a custom resolution =)
I hadn't thought of the custom resolution, but for work, this would be "shut up and take my money". the ability to change what is considered a "full screen" for apps would be OH SO WONDERFUL. I have four monitors, and it works ok with windows snap, but getting my chat programs to behave "full screen" while not actually 1/4 of my available screen real estate?! man, I'd love that.It's already gone to shit when people present in 21.5:9 or 32:9 when the vast majority of us are on 16:9.
I have a feeling 40+" 8K monitors go for more than $500. Or we'll be enjoying the screen area of 4 monitors at half the pixel density.jayzis h crist get a fuckin' 40+ inch 16:9 monitor for $500 and enjoy the screen area of 4 monitors with zero seams!
HP publishes these papers in lieu of filing a patent; not to support filing a patent.HP's paper is only a technical disclosure, which companies often publish in order to support potential patent filings. So it's possible that we'll never see HP release "composable Micro LED monitors" as described. An HP spokesperson told me:
You can control your resolution?It's already gone to shit when people present in 21.5:9 or 32:9 when the vast majority of us are on 16:9.
A 4k 40" monitor will have better pixel density than whatever screen you're using right now. They were $500 in 2017.I have a feeling 40+" 8K monitors go for more than $500. Or we'll be enjoying the screen area of 4 monitors at half the pixel density.
jayzis h crist get a fuckin' 40+ inch 16:9 monitor for $500 and enjoy the screen area of 4 monitors with zero seams!
Modular resolution sizes! This will really shine in our Teams presentations when everyone has a custom resolution =)
This, I think, pretty much kills the idea for anything except large-scale presentations where fine details don't matter. Trying to read text on a monitor-sized screen with seams in the middle of it would drive me nuts.Like with any multi-monitor setup, bezels or visible seams where the displays connect could distract users.
Egads... yes. I wish windows snap was treated like a virtual monitor/desktop so that screensharing could be easily "per snap area" as if it we were sharing a monitor. Maybe there is an idea for the Powertoys folks...It's already gone to shit when people present in 21.5:9 or 32:9 when the vast majority of us are on 16:9.
This is likely why they published a paper publicly disclosing the tech rather than filed for a patent on it.What a weird thing to publish.
These things have been on the market for decades. They're not getting a patent. The first one I saw was in the 1990s.
They're called "modular video walls." They're how digital billboards, those giant curved restaurant signs, those ridiculous command centers, and increasingly, how movie theaters are made.
Major vendors include ActiVU, Sharp NEC, LG, ViewSonic, Sony, Samsung, AlwaysBright, BarCo, PixelFlex, Daktronics, Avendor, Christie Digital, and Matrox.
In most major American cities, you can just walk into a Best Buy and buy these over the counter right now.
Someone should have told that dev to share only the app, not the whole screen. I see that happen with the less experienced, and they are quite happy when they learn how to share only the app.Just a couple weeks ago in a meeting, I watched a demo by a talented developer, showing his software running in a window. Problem was, his utility app runs in like an 800 x 600 window, but he was sharing his entire high resolution ultrawide monitor, but on our screens it was surrounded by additional chat and attendee windows and toolbars.
So what we saw was like a little business card floating in a sea of unused gray ultra wide desktop, subject to video conferencing compression (i.e. all blocky)...we couldn't see what the heck he was demoing.
I have a crappy little $70 15.6" HD LCD plugged into my computer just for presentations. Sharing that screen and moving what I'm doing over there usually results in people being able to see my presentation without them having to adjust things on their end. Or requiring me to up font sizes or increase zoom on my 32" UHD monitor.Just a couple weeks ago in a meeting, I watched a demo by a talented developer, showing his software running in a window. Problem was, his utility app runs in like an 800 x 600 window, but he was sharing his entire high resolution ultrawide monitor, but on our screens it was surrounded by additional chat and attendee windows and toolbars.
So what we saw was like a little business card floating in a sea of unused gray ultra wide desktop, subject to video conferencing compression (i.e. all blocky)...we couldn't see what the heck he was demoing.
ya that would actually be pretty cool. Color grading does have pretty stringent requirements, and buying huge color accurate screens is prohibitively expensive.This seems like the sort of thing that would be really neat in an ideal world; but does not seem likely to actually get implemented well enough(at least not for the remotely cost-sensitive) to beat a combination of just buying bigger displays that save by omitting the chassis-to-chassis power and data interconnects and buying monitors with unobtrusive bezels and off-brand ergotron arms.
There are certainly cases(say you want a very color-accurate panel for certain photo work and a big cheap panel for all your toolbars; and an e-ink panel for email and text work) where there's no "just buy a bigger monitor" answer because they don't make panels that do all of those things in one. However, you'd only be able to cater to such cases if HP decided to make all those distinct types of panel in the same compatible modular system; or managed to coax sufficient 3rd parties to do so down to the sub-mm tolerances you'd need to make the joints seamless.
That seems...less likely; with the more likely outcome being comparatively limited options and high prices for incremental improvements over the inelegant-but-functional approach of just slapping thin bezel monitors next to one another and doing a little cable management.
I've shared VNC sessions running on Linux machines on Teams/Webex/Zoom calls hosted on Windows if that counts.Currently running three monitors. For work, I don't care about bezels between them. I use different monitors for different tasks.
I do a lot of work over Zoom, and I need to be able to share my screen (usually more than one application at a a time, like an editor/IDE and a browser/application that shows the results). I also need to be able to see the people I'm talking to, and the meeting chat. (On a separate screen because I need as much real estate as I can get to make the documents/code I'm sharing big enough to be legible.) And I have things like calendars and clocks and emails and chat that I need to see alerts from and/or be able to read, but not share over Zoom. Plus I need to be able to take notes and otherwise do work on a non-shared screen, without blocking my view of any of the above.
It would be kind of nice to have one giant, seamless screen (eg. for watching movies or playing games), but I would get much less work done. AFAIK no zoom-like app has the option of sharing all apps withing a designated area of real estate.
Hm... I just had an idea: If I spin up a VM and access it via some kind of remote desktop app, that remote desktop counts as just one "application" for Zoom's screen-sharing purposes, right? So I could have the VM running in a window on some part of my (hypothetical) giant screen, and share just that window over Zoom, while within that window I have several apps running! Do any Arsians actually do this?
Tiling is a thing. You don't need two monitors to have two applications open side-by-side.Or have workflows that work well on a single monitor setup and don't need two or more to be efficient.
My multi-monitor set-up at home features 27" 4k monitors, so that's 174ppi. My multi-monitor set-up while traveling features 15" 2k monitors, so that's 147ppi. Thanks for playing.A 4k 40" monitor will have better pixel density than whatever screen you're using right now. They were $500 in 2017.
Actual facts and figures. My 4k "42.5" monitor at home, 103ppi. This 27" 1440 monitor at work, 109ppi. A 0.055% difference. Unless your multi-monitor set-up features 32" 4k monitors you're better off with one huge monitor.
Egads... yes. I wish windows snap was treated like a virtual monitor/desktop so that screensharing could be easily "per snap area" as if it we were sharing a monitor. Maybe there is an idea for the Powertoys folks...
With multiple monitors, I can rotate them to all point at me, or I could rotate them to point towards someone else, or for me to use while elsewhere in the room.Correct. Multi monitor is worse in every conceivable way.