Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

michael.stapelberg.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 470 posts

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#211

Post by autoexec »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #58
rektide wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been pretty amazing how stagnant the monitor space is. I too am really craving an 8k@120 monitor, although there's a decent chance I'll balk at the price.

It’s crazy how much of a regression there was in resolution and picture quality when we went from CRT to LCD displays. In the late 90’s you could get a CRT that did 2048x1536 no sweat with great color and decent refresh rate. Then suddenly LCD displays became the standard and they looked awful. Low resolutions, terrible colors and bad viewing angles. The only real advantage they had was size. It took a decade or so t…

LCDs didn't replace CRTs because they offered better quality to consumers. They were worse for all the reasons you mentioned and then some. LCDs were cheaper to make, much lighter and less frail so they cost less to ship, and they took up much less space while in transport, and while sitting in warehouses, or on store shelves. We were sold an inferior product so that other people could save money. Gradually, some of those savings made it to consumers, especially when it became possible to generate profit continuously though TVs by collecting our data and pushing ads, but it was always a shitty deal for consumers who wanted a quality picture.

I imagine that in the future, people will look back at much of the media from recent decades and think that it looks a lot worse than we remember because it was produced on bad screens or made to look good on all of our crappy screens.

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#212

Post by Retric »

kelvie wrote: post #121
Retric wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People say this, but I’ve had people fail double blind tests for 120hz vs 90hz vs 60hz. I’ve yet to find anyone that can reliably tell 144hz vs 120hz. What people mostly notice is latency not refresh rate.

That's crazy to me, just move the mouse around really quickly and you'll quickly notice it's not 120hz (if you are used to it). What blind test did you use?

They watched normal desktop use and a video game loop.

I added mouse trails to verify people were actually noticing the FPS not just artifacts from the rendering pipeline.

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#213

Post by johnwalkr »

fomine3 wrote: post #181
johnwalkr wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still not reached a point where you can just choose high resolutions with no drawbacks. 2048x1536 19" (135ppi) at up to 72Hz was common at reasonable prices in the late 90s if my memory is correct. Although OS scaling sucked and text looked weird due to the shadow mask at that size. 1600x1200 (105ppi) was the sweet spot for me. And actually in my first job in 2004 I had two 20" 1600x1200 (100ppi) LCDs that I rec…

IBM T221 (2001, over 4K) was popped up from the future.

Very cool but not really relevant to what was/is available for reasonable prices.

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#214

Post by dylan604 »

creato wrote: post #206
111111IIIIIII wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor is 120. Even with a 240Hz display, capturing and editing should use 3:2 pulldown for best end user playback. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down

This doesn’t make any sense. Why would you want to use 3:2 pulldown unless your display is interlaced, which AFAIK will never be the case for any modern display? And even if you did use it, it doesn’t do anything to help with the extra 1000/1001 factor, so what is the point?

here here. we finally have a standard starting with UHD that does not included interlacing. finally. hallelujah the chorus of angels are singing.

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#215

Post by 111111IIIIIII »

amatheus wrote: post #194
111111IIIIIII wrote: post #85

I just purchased 2 of the 6Ks and I am keeping both. AMA. I do not understand the complaints about pixel density. The display is 223 ppi, which is the same or slightly higher than Apple displays. I am using them in a dual display configuration with an M1 Macbook Pro via TB4 and a Windows PC with an RTX 4090 via DisplayPort. The KVM feature makes switching back and forth a breeze. I am using 175% scaling (in Windows)…

Would you mind elaborating on the cables and connections? Do you plug a DisplayPort and an usb cable from windows and get kvm working? The monitors are daisy chained?

> Do you plug a DisplayPort and an usb cable from windows and get kvm working?

Yes. There is one upstream USB-C port on each display that is used for this purpose.

> The monitors are daisy chained?

Daisy chaining with Thunderbolt 4 (not Thunderbolt 3) is supported, but when daisy chaining the second display will only do 4K@60Hz or 6K@30Hz. For this reason, I plug both Thunderbolt 4 cables directly into my Macbook Pro M1, both on the left side of the laptop so it's a clean setup. Thankfully, the included Thunderbolt 4 cables are plenty long enough to reach across to the laptop positioned on either side. Apple's displays include such short TB cables that you'd have to buy another longer one to do this.

In addition, you may want to know that HDR mode is great but only supported with HDMI for some reason and I haven't found any DP->HDMI adapters that support it which rules out dual HDR displays with an RTX 4090 which only has 1 HDMI port. I think this is due to HDR needing HDMI 2.1. But I can have 1 monitor connected with HDMI for HDR when I need it. I just haven't bought a long HDMI cable for that yet. The KVM switching could support that setup just the same.

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#216

Post by steveBK123 »

partiallypro wrote: post #137
steveBK123 wrote: post #48

Friends dont let friends buy Dell monitors.

Every Dell monitor I've had from the UltraSharp line has been incredible, especially for the price. So, not sure what you're talking about.

Had an Ultrasharp 27" 4k USB-C that passed the sniff test spec-wise on paper, and was a great deal, again, for the specs.. but it just had awful glare/reflections, low brightness.. backlight failed in under 2 years, warranty service was awful, and they sent me a replacement with a green pixel line.

Just an absolute clown show of warranty service.

The ROI on the replacement was negative, I'd have been better off throwing it in the trash.

If you are happy with it in practice, and not just on specs, and are not banking on warranty being fulfilled - enjoy.

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#217

Post by pxc »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #184
pxc wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I loathe fractional scaling Why? Is that an OS problem?

Not the original commenter but, it... has a certain look to it. It's not something that can be totally solved by the OS or any scaling algorithm because fundamentally you have to deal with rendering fractional portions of a pixel to a physical screen where there is no such thing as a fractional pixel. It just always looks different, and IMO worse, than integer scaling. You have to trade off distortions for bluriness…

I don't understand why 'distortion' (things being rendered ± 1 pixel over on some screens vs. on others) is a problem unless your GUI frameworks and/or apps count on pixel-exact layouts for some UI elements. But why would they? Isn't the entire web built on a reflowable format that works pretty well? Shouldn't those tiny 1-pixel differences be like the easiest possible variation for a GUI system's layout engine to cope with?

Do we have lots of scalable UI elements that expect to line up with raster images a certain way on most operating systems?

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#218

Post by steveBK123 »

photonbeam wrote: post #56
steveBK123 wrote: post #48

Friends dont let friends buy Dell monitors.

What do friends let friends buy?

Eizo, Apple, LG, maybe a Viewsonic or Samsung..

Basically go read rtings.com for whatever size/resolution/price class you are looking for, and look at the in depth reviews for the things that matter to you.

In my case I have a bright office, so glare/reflection and backlight brightness are extremely important.

A good monitor can last you 2-3x as long as the compute you hook up to it, and your eyes are important.. I think its not the place to skimp on cost in the total home office setup.

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#219

Post by dylan604 »

111111IIIIIII wrote: post #174
kurthr wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your point is that 1/1000 frames would need to be 6:5 at 120Hz? I'd be more concerned with the automatic black frame insertion most LCDs do to increase contrast.

Theoretically maybe, but 3:2 pulldown is used for playing 23.976 fps video at 29.97Hz. Since this is HN maybe someone with more knowledge about how video editors and modern TVs typically handle this can jump in here. Regardless, I think this would actually have more impact on the end user viewing experience than the job of video editing. The time between frames is tremendous from the standpoint of a video editor, and…

The worst part of incorrect refresh rates for me is on panning footage and you get those janky blocky tears in the image.

>The time between frames is tremendous from the standpoint of a video editor,

This sounds like something I've heard from people with a head full of fun stuff talking about the space between the notes. There have bee times where that absolutely makes sense, but I'm at a loss on your time between frames.

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#220

Post by [deleted] »

zamadatix wrote: post #208
111111IIIIIII wrote: post #85

I just purchased 2 of the 6Ks and I am keeping both. AMA. I do not understand the complaints about pixel density. The display is 223 ppi, which is the same or slightly higher than Apple displays. I am using them in a dual display configuration with an M1 Macbook Pro via TB4 and a Windows PC with an RTX 4090 via DisplayPort. The KVM feature makes switching back and forth a breeze. I am using 175% scaling (in Windows)…

32" is an extremely common size for 4k at 100% scaling so I can see the desire for 8k using 200% scaling at the resolution. 225-250% would probably be more "proper" densities for such a display but many like to go a bit under standard scale.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN