To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
That's unpossible.
More pixels are always better. ALWAYS. The eye has nothing to do with it. Better hardware is always better. That's why we buy better hardware. Because it's better and has more numbers.
Are you trying to telling me I wouldn't be able see pixels at the molecular level? In the future I will be watching 50 episodes of Full House simultaneously on my fingernail and we'll see who the big dummy is.
"Pixels at the molecular level" (comparable in size to the wavelength of light) would be GREAT - it's more or less the thing needed for proper holographic video displays (along with processing power and memory we'll nowhere near).
Imagine a screen which feels like a window or mirror, that's what proper holograms feel like.




Member since:
2011-04-11
Which plays 1920x1080 movies with 1:1 pixel matching and plays games without taxing the GPU much (playing games in 1920 x 1080 -compared to a higher resolution- allows for more effects).
I hate the "more pixels is better" motto and the whole "retina" hype. With "retina", you are essentially taxing the GPU more in order to push more pixels than your eye can really see from a normal distance (15cm for tablets and phones, 30cm for laptops). For a 17inch laptop, you don't need more than 1920x1080 for normal viewing distances. For normal viewing distances, it already exceeds the limits of your eye.