Why did 3K not get any real attention?

StriderX · 23 Mar 2014 at 17:32

3K going by the 16:9 ratio, is 2880x1620, where as we really only have 2560x1440/1600 resolutions.

I don't get it?

Randomface74 · 23 Mar 2014 at 17:34

presumably the make the 1440 x 900 panels from the same stuff?

Ksanti · 24 Mar 2014 at 12:58

2560 was a standard for longer with 2560*1600 panels which scaled nicely with 720p content and is a 1.5x scale for 1080p content. Just calling it 3K doesn't make it useful.

DannyDrama · 24 Mar 2014 at 13:37

Closest thing I have to 2880*1600 is my rMBP which is 2880*1800. It's a proper fist fight to make it scale right sometimes, perhaps that is why. Not to mention the text is the smallest thing ever to be displayed on a screen!

I rue the day I bought the thing, anything less than 1440 makes my eyes weep after that.

smilertoo · 24 Mar 2014 at 17:39

3k probably never caught on cos its not a TV res, and that's where they save money and offer cheaper screens; even 2560x1440 have a price premium cos it's a monitor only res.