CES 2013: What's exciting you?

[mark1234]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20957848

TBH, I think that if you have to use half naked booth babes to sell your latest iDroid case then your product is crap, you know it's crap and the audience knows it's crap. You're just hoping people will be too distracted by the chance of a loose nipple to notice how crap the product is.

<Let me get down off my soap box now>

[erkotz]

Never mind all the tech, where were the hot ladies draped over everything this year?!

Tech is soo much better with totty, don't you think?

I had actually commented that there were far less booth babes (especially in car audio) than in prior years. I blame the moving of AVN to another week for this.

[barnabas1969]

I guess I am mostly excited to see the 4K stuff come around.
Ben had a great write-up http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/11/ultr ... -ces-2013/ the issue really is content and TV which will take forever to switch over.

I think 4K is just a marketing ploy to get people to throw away the 1080p set they just bought a few years ago, and buy the shiny new TV.

With a 4K set, even at 80", you're going to need to sit VERY CLOSE to be able to distinguish the difference between it and 1920x1080. We've had this discussion before about the resolution of the human eye.

[foxwood]

But maybe we'll finally be able to get Monitors that we do sit only one foot from, that aren't tied to a resolution that works great if you're 10' away. I'd like a nice 27" monitor at greater than 1920x1080, without having to pay a King's Ransom. And I don't need it to be touch enabled!

(Unfortunately, nobody is talking about 4K at less than 45" screen size).

[makryger]

But maybe we'll finally be able to get Monitors that we do sit only one foot from, that aren't tied to a resolution that works great if you're 10' away. I'd like a nice 27" monitor at greater than 1920x1080, without having to pay a King's Ransom. And I don't need it to be touch enabled!

(Unfortunately, nobody is talking about 4K at less than 45" screen size).

There is actually one 4k laptop that was announced.. Or maybe it was a tablet. One of those.

[STC]

[barnabas1969]

When I sit on my couch and hold up my 17" laptop monitor at my normal viewing distance (about 2 feet from my face), it almost exactly matches the perceived size of my 64" TV that is 12 feet away. I agree that you would see a difference with a 27" monitor 1-2 feet away, but if the monitor is much smaller than that I don't think you could see the difference.

I've experimented with 1280x720 and 1920x1080 images that display alternating columns of black and white pixels on my 64" top-of-the-line Samsung plasma TV (which is setup for 1:1 pixel mapping). The truth is that I can't tell the difference between the two resolutions until I'm 5-6 feet from the TV... even while wearing my prescription glasses. At a distance greater than about 5 feet, the black/white columns of the 1920x1080 image blend together and appear gray.

[Motz]

For me I sit about 5 to 6 feet away from my Panasonic Plasma 55" so 720 to 1080 is a big difference. Watching a movie HD on TV and watching it on Blu-ray is a huge difference.

I think 4K or Ultra HD will come eventually as we all want larger displays and it makes sense in huge huge displays. For something smaller like 40"-60" probably not though, however I am ready for an upgrade at some point even though I just bought mine a little over a year ago. If anything it will continue to bring down TV prices which could be good for everyone.

Like I said the issue is content. Once I can get movies all in 4K that will be great. If/When TV makes the switch even better, but I have a feeling we have a few years.

[Motz]

But maybe we'll finally be able to get Monitors that we do sit only one foot from, that aren't tied to a resolution that works great if you're 10' away. I'd like a nice 27" monitor at greater than 1920x1080, without having to pay a King's Ransom. And I don't need it to be touch enabled!

(Unfortunately, nobody is talking about 4K at less than 45" screen size).

There is actually one 4k laptop that was announced.. Or maybe it was a tablet. One of those.

I saw a Windows 8 4K tablet... which is just silly. Content here even on apps is the issue. Look at the retina displays on Mac Book... you have to have content to fill that screen. It is hard to make apps with such large content.

[Motz]

Oh #1 thing thus far::: New legos: http://t.co/LeXmFsOj

G6cUdZRDQBw

[erkotz]

But maybe we'll finally be able to get Monitors that we do sit only one foot from, that aren't tied to a resolution that works great if you're 10' away. I'd like a nice 27" monitor at greater than 1920x1080, without having to pay a King's Ransom. And I don't need it to be touch enabled!

(Unfortunately, nobody is talking about 4K at less than 45" screen size).

There is actually one 4k laptop that was announced.. Or maybe it was a tablet. One of those.

I saw a Windows 8 4K tablet... which is just silly. Content here even on apps is the issue. Look at the retina displays on Mac Book... you have to have content to fill that screen. It is hard to make apps with such large content.

I disagree - for reading PDFs, it's very nice. Who make it - I might actually buy it.

-Eric

[makryger]

I bet those large Windows 8 squares look AMAZING in 4k.

[richard1980]

I've experimented with 1280x720 and 1920x1080 images that display alternating columns of black and white pixels on my 64" top-of-the-line Samsung plasma TV (which is setup for 1:1 pixel mapping). The truth is that I can't tell the difference between the two resolutions until I'm 5-6 feet from the TV... even while wearing my prescription glasses. At a distance greater than about 5 feet, the black/white columns of the 1920x1080 image blend together and appear gray.

In other words, you would beat a bat in a blindness contest.

[STC]

Oh #1 thing thus far::: New legos

I grew up on Lego Technical
*this was before Mindsrorm existed [cough]

I focused on bridge design a lot. Really made the cogs turn.

[edit] now I just burn them hah!