Why? I don't think 3D ever really caught on with glasses and without them? Meh. The industry is moving us on to 4K, 5K, then of course 8K. While this sounds cool having spent years now at 1440 and above with screen sizes up to 32" there is no way I would drop $1000 on a 27" 1920x1080 panel.
I think this product is about four years too late.
I got to actually try the monitor at Immersed (I only saw the earlier prototypes until now). To focus on resolution for a 27" display is pointless. 4K benefits don't really shine until you are working with a bigger screen size; at least that has been my experience. Also, when rendering in true 3D, it takes more processing power which most don't have anyway. 4K 3D isn't a feasible goal for most - even if it's technically offered. 3D content isn't even readily available in that format from what I've seen.
The much bigger deal is this could overcome a lot of challenges and setbacks for 3D that will make it a practical platform for gamers and 3D content makers like never before. There are a lot of trade-offs DTI is working to overcome. Resolution isn't a limitation for a far bigger innovation that can be re-purposed for future products. If it's good enough for NASA...I think it's a big deal.
@Enterfrize Thanks for the first person account. This is the kind of reaction we have been getting at SIGGRAPH, Immersed, and with leaders in the aerospace and automotive industries. We think it's a big deal too!
Anything past 1440p or 1600p on a 27" display is pure retardation. People gobbling up the 27" 4k displays are pretty much the lowest common denominator. 4k on big 50" displays makes sense, especially if you're sitting very close to them, but to justify anything past 1440p on a 27" display you need to have the monitor 6 inches from your eyes.
1080p on 27" display isn't that bad, especially if it's going to be a first gen glasses-less 3d display. Maybe a 2nd gen model could bump up to a 1440p.
[quotemsg=14688102,0,133701]Anything past 1440p or 1600p on a 27" display is pure retardation. People gobbling up the 27" 4k displays are pretty much the lowest common denominator. 4k on big 50" displays makes sense, especially if you're sitting very close to them, but to justify anything past 1440p on a 27" display you need to have the monitor 6 inches from your eyes.
1080p on 27" display isn't that bad, especially if it's going to be a first gen glasses-less 3d display. Maybe a 2nd gen model could bump up to a 1440p.[/quotemsg]
You actually have this backwards - see this article - it proves that 4K and higher res monitors make sense while a 50" TV is silly.
From the conclusion:
"On computer displays there is definitely something to say for 4K. You can display a lot of information simultaneously and you usually only have to focus on a small area at the time, which means the higher detail really has added value. Furthermore the short viewing distance allows a wide field of view without the need for extremely large displays. 8K might have its uses with very specific applications, but in general it would be excessive.
With televisions it’s a different story. Many people probably aren’t even making full use of their FHD TV yet. To really profit from 4K you’d need an extremely large screen, or sit extremely close. And 8K is just plain ridiculous. For a 250 cm viewing distance you’d need a 595 x 335 cm screen. There aren’t that many people with a wall that big in their house and even if you had, you’d need a pretty impressive beamer and a very large projection screen (they obviously don’t make TV’s that big).
One of the reasons that 4K televisions sell relatively well might be that in the store people tend to look at it from a very short distance, at which they could easily see that 4K is sharper than FHD. If they would look at it from the same distance as the actual distance they would view it from at home, many would not be able to tell the difference (if all other aspects of the image reproduction were identical for both displays). Manufacturers know this, so from a marketing perspective 4K is very clever."
Read it here - http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/visual_acuity.htm
The human eye can't tell the difference in pixel density on a 1440p 27" display and a 4k 27" display when the monitor is placed on a desk and sitting over 12 to 16 or more inches away from the user (which is normal for a desk setup).
Also the text on a 4k display is also extremely small. So if you tried to "display more", by having multiple windows open and up on a 4k display you wouldn't be able to comfortably read any of the text without scaling it up greatly, which would then defeat the purpose of this kind of "advantage".
4k displays on huge TVs and projectors makes sense because it allows you to sit very close to 70, 80, 90, 100" screens without a massive loss in clarity. If you sit far enough away from a 50" 1080p screen you get the same clarity, but with 4k it allows for same / better clarity if you sit closer or have a much bigger screen.
Places 4k displays make sense:
VR headset Screens (the screen is so close to the eyes so high pixel density is warranted). GPU hardware capable of pushing that man pixels is another story, and 1440p VR screens are good enough for a great experience, but 4k can be justified.
Huge displays (sitting close to very large TVs, and huge projector setups).
Places 4k and up doesn't make sense:
27" computer monitors