Here’s an idea for home decor: a wall of digital picture frames, each slightly recessed into the wall. Why not just a single big TV showing a collage? That doesn’t seem as visually interesting or attractive as a collage of picture frames in a variety of sizes.
If people can walk right up to the wall we ideally want at least 200 dpi resolution (standard “photo quality” for prints). Thus for a display that is 20 inches on the long dimension we would want a 4K resolution; a display that was just 10 inches wide could be 1080p.
What would one use for actual displays, though? A bunch of computer monitors? A 4K monitor marketed as “24 inches” is about 20 inches in width and costs a semi-reasonable $345 (Acer at Newegg). What if you have a cluster of such monitors, though? Do you need to have a PC buried in a closet that is crammed full of graphics cards and then run DisplayPort cables out of it (an AMD card that can drive six 4K monitors; an equivalent from Matrox)? Given the low-bandwidth communication that is required (one new image every 5 minutes?) it would be a lot better if the monitor could grab images via WiFi.
What about a bunch of TVs? The smallest TVs out there seem to be 22-24 inches in size and are 1080p resolution maximum (example from Vizio
). Perhaps that will change over the next year or two. TVs do typically have WiFi and USB ports, but how to drive them without going crazy?
How about a cluster of digital picture frames (Amazon’s current collection
)? They are a little on the small side, 15 inches maximum, and tend to be low resolution (1024×768 for example). It is not obvious how to drive a typical digital photo frame, even one with WiFi, from a personal computer.
Full post, including comments