Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor? • Hacker News Board

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

#291

Post by adrian_b » Tue, Jul 04, 2023, 4:37 AM UTC

111111IIIIIII wrote: post #120

diziet wrote: post #105

I think there are three groups of people with opinions regarding 120Hz vs 60Hz refresh rate. Group 1 can tell the difference between the two and strongly prefers 120Hz. Group 2 can't tell the difference between the two and prefers the more affordable options. Group 3 has not done a lot of comparisons between the two refresh rates, or has used 120Hz displays that were actually in 60Hz mode, or compared lower resolutio…

Group 4 does video/photo/graphics work so they prioritize color accuracy and high resolution, so they would always trade >60Hz for more resolution, at least up to a point that has yet to be achieved. And that isn't even factoring in cost, which is a big one since Group 4 is a smaller market than Groups 1-3 so the displays targeting them (like this Dell 6K) tend to be the most expensive on the market by a large margin…

Yes, since many years my minimum requirements for any monitor are 4k resolution and 30-bit Display P3 / DCI P3 colors. There are plenty of very affordable monitors like this.

I would like very much to also have an 120 Hz frame rate, but then the price would become much higher.

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

#292

Post by watersb » Tue, Jul 04, 2023, 4:41 AM UTC

larusso wrote: post #274

watersb wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

218 ppi matches the native displays on current Macs. The Dell 8k has 288 pixels per inch, which is 4x the detail of the original Mac. Macintosh 128k was released with a 72 ppi display, so every pixel was the size of a "point", a unit used in more traditional, paper-based graphic design.

The history of the point [1] is equally interesting and messy. Back in school, my old teachers (mostly old printing machine operators, and typesetters) preferred Apple over anything else especially because of the native 72ppi vs windows normal 96ppi. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(typography)

And these days, 96 ppi is the de facto standard, via the CSS specification:

https://webplatform.github.io/docs/tutorials/understanding-c...

It's as if the Windows spec were retconned into being the historical norm all along, but I need to dig around to find the origin story here... Why 96 dpi?

My simple guess is that 96 is also divisible by 12, and thus easy to split up into 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 18, 24 parts... you also have eight pieces in 72 for every nine pieces in 96.

  72 = 8  x 9 = 2^3 * 3^2
  96 = 32 x 3 = 2^5 * 3

Huh. Never really realized that...

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

#293

Post by DiabloD3 » Tue, Jul 04, 2023, 4:47 AM UTC

111111IIIIIII wrote: post #256

DiabloD3 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So set your monitor to 119.88 instead of 120. Theres a reason why monitors give you both x/1000 and x/1001 framerates.

I didn't know this was possible, but in such a case why not set a 60Hz display to 48Hz, 59.95Hz, etc.?

48hz is supported on few monitors, not often (but can be hit by gsync/freesync/VRR); 24hz is sometimes supported (often seen in TVs).

And you can set it to 59.94, nobody is stopping you.

This entire comment chain started with, essentially, what is the LCM of 60 and 24 (or 59.94 and 23.976), and its 120 (or 119.88).

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

#294

Post by wkat4242 » Tue, Jul 04, 2023, 4:52 AM UTC

stock_toaster wrote: post #269

wkat4242 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I love my 4K 24" monitor but nobody seems to be making them anymore :'( especially at this price point ($250). It's the minimum DPI I'd consider HiDPI. Really worried about it breaking at some point. I wish I had bought two. 27" 4K just won't cut it. And I don't want a monitor that big anyway.

My Dell P2415Q is thankfull still kickin' (knock on wood). I have had my eye on an LG[1] out there at 24" 4k (currently about 300usd) -- as that size/resolution has been the sweet spot for me for the last few years. I'm planning to pick one of these up and stick it in a closet just to have on hand in case the Dell dies on me. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01LPNKFK0

That's the exact one I have! It's great, perfect for me. It's old stock I think, in Europe these aren't available anymore :'( I recommend picking one up.

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

#295

Post by Nition » Tue, Jul 04, 2023, 4:53 AM UTC

kimburgess wrote: post #290

LoganDark wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The display is 223 ppi, which is the same or slightly higher than Apple displays. For context, my MacBook from 2015 had a PPI of 220, so this comment is extremely accurate.

Forget 4K, 6K, or 8K. Pixel density is the spec when considering any display. It doesn't matter if it's a wearable, phone, laptop, monitor, TV, or stadium wrapping LED surface, the only important factors for resolution are the distance to the viewer's eyes and the distance between the pixels. For context, 20/20 vision is the ability to perceive 1 arcminute of angular resolution. Beyond that point there are diminishin…

So viewing from 40cm away is about the point where 220PPI crosses the point where you can tell any difference? That makes me think 220 is quite a well picked number, as that's about how far away someone might typically be viewing.

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

#296

Post by dylan604 » Tue, Jul 04, 2023, 4:54 AM UTC

111111IIIIIII wrote: post #249

dylan604 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with 3:2 pulldown. It is all about refresh rates of the monitor. I've shot for years on global shutter (specifically Sony F55), so it absolutely 100% was not a rolling shutter issue either. The same footage can be viewed on another monitor and the tearing issue is not present. Edit to match your edit: "The book suggests editors prioritize emotion over the pure technicalities of editing." This tot…

> The same footage can be viewed on another monitor and the tearing issue is not present. This is what I was hoping someone would chime in about. I have never looked into whether it would be handled differently, but I would not trade a higher resolution display regardless. Maybe it could potentially influence where I cut in certain rare situations, but sounds unlikely.

Basing edits because of how footage looks on a monitor with a non-compatible refresh rate just sounds like one of those problems that strikes me at my core especially when someone acknowledges it but does it anyways. Does it matter in the end, probably not, but it still goes against everything. It’s one of those things of seeing people “get away” with things in life blissfully unawares while someone that is well versed and well studied can’t catch a break.

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

#297

Post by manmal » Tue, Jul 04, 2023, 5:00 AM UTC

bluedino wrote: post #115

You'll never pry my Retina MacBook from my hands, and I love my original USB-C LG 4K, but I've really started to like my 42" 4K TV that I have been hah g the last two years. It was $300, the color isn't perfect, it has a little glare, it can be choosy when it comes to ports and cables, but having such a large desktop is great. It's a large enough screen to run at native resolution. I'm interested in things like Apple…

Is the TV wall mounted? I‘d be interested how this could be done in an ergonomic way (eyes in line with top of the screen).

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

#298

Post by hilbert42 » Tue, Jul 04, 2023, 5:01 AM UTC

"Is a matte screen the better option compared to the 8K monitor’s glossy finish?
Surprisingly, I found that I don’t like the matte screen better!

It’s hard to describe, but somehow the picture seems more “dull”, or less bright (independent of the actual brightness of the monitor), or more toned down. The colors don’t pop as much."

A useful post. Whilst I've not yet had the luxury of owning a 6k or 8k monitor his comment about matte and glossy screens is very useful (also I'm more likely to trust his opinion than many others because his discerning experience is backed by the fact that he's actually using an 8k monitor—and that takes money and commitment).

Over the years I've made many comparisons between matte and glossy screens and I have to agree with him for the same reasons. Despite being more susceptible to reflections, glossy screens always seem brighter and somehow sharper than matte ones of the same resolution and brightness. I've never investigated the reason in depth but I suspect the matte finish disperses the light from the screen and the net visual effect is a 'rounding' of transients resulting in lower contrast somewhat like offset printing which never looks as sharp as letterpress (where the ink dries thicker and looks blacker at the edges of the imprinting, this increases visual contrast even though the resolution may not be much different).

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

#299

Post by microtonal » Tue, Jul 04, 2023, 5:11 AM UTC

hilbert42 wrote: post #298

"Is a matte screen the better option compared to the 8K monitor’s glossy finish? Surprisingly, I found that I don’t like the matte screen better! It’s hard to describe, but somehow the picture seems more “dull”, or less bright (independent of the actual brightness of the monitor), or more toned down. The colors don’t pop as much." A useful post. Whilst I've not yet had the luxury of owning a 6k or 8k monitor his comm…

I agree. I thought I generally prefer matte for office displays. But even since purchasing a Studio Display, matte display just look dull. Also the Studio Display seems to avoid reflections by auto adjusting the brightness when the room is well-lighted.

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

#300

Post by jonhohle » Tue, Jul 04, 2023, 5:18 AM UTC

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?

3:2 pull-down works for converting 24fps to 60fps. It doesn’t matter if the target f is fields or frames.