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

411–420 of 470 posts

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

#411

Post by jwells89 »

microtonal wrote: post #299
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.

Also helping reflections on the Studio Display is its antiglare coating which is unusually good for a glossy display, at least when looking at it head-on. It’s one of the parts of the monitor where Apple went the extra mile.

Previous Apple displays have been decent in this category too, though. The 5k 27” iMac’s coating was also pretty good and what they use on MacBook Pro 14/16” is only a little worse than what’s on the Studio Display.

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

#412

Post by 111111IIIIIII »

dylan604 wrote: post #296
111111IIIIIII wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 vers…

I hope you get sleep at night. When I worked as a video editor years ago, I unfortunately had a boss who I needed to please and this kind of rabbit hole obsession would have added a significant barrier to doing so. More resolution, on the other hand, made me straightforwardly much more productive.

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

#413

Post by dizhn »

simooooo wrote: post #122
dizhn wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have 60, 144 and 165hz displays. I have to say I don't really see much of a difference. Around 30 hz yes. But not over 60. It's probably some sort of genetic vision difference thing.

Even moving the mouse quickly should be a very different experience between 60 and 165

I appreciate that. I can't discern the difference like most people for some reason, unless I am really looking for it.

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

#414

Post by 111111IIIIIII »

xps wrote: post #349
111111IIIIIII wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The built-in kvm feature is very basic and I don't even setup the keyboard shortcuts because that requires software to be installed on the computers. Basically it just lets me switch between computers with 2 quick button presses on each monitor. I use an additional usb 3.0 switch from CableMatters so my peripherals can be switched between each display incase I want to have both computers up side by side. If you only…

Does this KVM work with a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse? Do you have to reconnect the devices every time you switch?

If you want unified switching, you need to go through USB ports AFAIK.

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

#415

Post by 111111IIIIIII »

lrem wrote: post #333
111111IIIIIII wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The built-in kvm feature is very basic and I don't even setup the keyboard shortcuts because that requires software to be installed on the computers. Basically it just lets me switch between computers with 2 quick button presses on each monitor. I use an additional usb 3.0 switch from CableMatters so my peripherals can be switched between each display incase I want to have both computers up side by side. If you only…

Extremely badass but still 60Hz :( I wonder if I’ll ever find a way to drive 4k@144Hz and switch inputs without the current cable replugging ritual.

I think displays with built-in KVM switching is your only option right now.

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

#416

Post by ericd »

Retric wrote: post #212
kelvie wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, pretty sure the mouse trails will kill any ability, that’s by far the most noticeable thing about the higher refresh rate in my experience.

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

#417

Post by debug-desperado »

veidr wrote: post #170

Absolutely, hell no, if you are talking about the screen itself. The difference in crispness between the Dell UP321K (~280ppi at 7680x64280 at 31.5 inches) and this new U3224KBA (~220ppi at 6144 x 3456 at 32") is dramatic . The new Dell 6K is about the same as the Apple 6K (the XDR Pro Display). I had that 6K Apple and the 8K Dell side-by-side on my desk for a few months (until I could find a buyer for the dramatical…

Did Apple slip some better scaling in with the M2 chips? Or maybe with the OS update?

Or perhaps you're referring to HDMI 2.1 support?

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

#418

Post by copperx »

dontlaugh wrote: post #383
zamadatix wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's quite popular, but I personally don't get it. It's too low density for text to look good on it, 24-27" is around the maximum. It's too small to be a single monitor, while being too big to comfortably fit in multi-monitor setups. I guess it's popular because 32" 4k TVs make the panels cheaper?

I've found 28" 4k is the sweet spot if you are of the age that requires you to use reader glasses.

At 2x things don't look too big, just comfortably big, and the PPI is still Retina-like.

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

#419

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#420

Post by [deleted] »

copperx wrote: post #418
dontlaugh wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite popular, but I personally don't get it. It's too low density for text to look good on it, 24-27" is around the maximum. It's too small to be a single monitor, while being too big to comfortably fit in multi-monitor setups. I guess it's popular because 32" 4k TVs make the panels cheaper?

I've found 28" 4k is the sweet spot if you are of the age that requires you to use reader glasses. At 2x things don't look too big, just comfortably big, and the PPI is still Retina-like.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN