451–460 of 470 posts
We've had the technology for a while now to make an 8K HDR 120 Hz OLED monitor. The panel tech exists, the scalers exist, the ports and cables also both exist. We'll have this available for purchase any decade now... any decade. Soon, perhaps as early as the 2030s, 2040s tops! All joking aside, I'm tempted to create a GoFundMe page for this and see if there's other people out there interested in convincing a panel ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 I don't even understand all this ppi hype, nor even dual displays anymore. I always used dual-triple displays in the past but nowaways I just bought a single table-size (49-inch or something like that) 4k display and put it right in…
If I were just using text editors, I would do something similar. However, many people do other things with computers besides edit text. DCC applications are obnoxious on displays larger than 32" and reducing the window size just leaves you with little border areas for multitasking. It's just sloppy. So 2x 32" is a pretty obvious choice here.
By the way, I once noticed that vertical stacking of 2 monitors feels much better for me that when I place them side by side horizontally. This is why a single big (big in both ways, also vertically) display works much better than fancy ultra-wide monitors for me.
What is DCC?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
maybe I wasn't very clear in my point. I'm not saying matte doesn't attenuate glare. I'm saying that it does some, mainly by diffusing it and spreading it around and I personally can't stand any amount of it. It's binary for me: If I get any amount of glare I tilt my screen away until there's none. Another issue is the nature of the reflection. In a glossy screen, the reflection often is a mirror effect that, at leas…
That's just like, your opinion, man. It is clear that you don't like matte screens, but it is a far road from your preferences to universal statements like "Matte never made sense at all." Also, screen protectors? Last time I saw one was ~1994.
> Also, screen protectors? Last time I saw one was ~1994.
Ugh, I think you're thinking of those tinted glass things you'd hang on old CRT monitors? Never heard of those being called "screen protectors" though. By screen protector I mean replaceable covers for flat screens:
https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256805177079468.html?spm=a2g...
My proposal for the industry: ship screens as glossy and add the matte as an optional screen protector. Note that before around 2010 this was already how they shipped displays: the matte was a plastic layers that you could frequently peel off. Nowadays, most matte displays have the surface finish done right on the polarizer layer.
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…
It's like having a small ache in your back - not really an issue, no problem to live 100 years with it. But then one day...it's gone. Do you really want to go back now?
I find a 2Kish (2560x1440or1600) resolution on a 24-27" Monitor to be the most usable for text. I understand things like fonts render smoother on a 4-6-8K monitor but it also draws more power usually to power all those pixels. The use of a Chroma 4:4:4 capable 4K tv is also often really helpful because one 4K screen at large enough size gives four 1920x1080 working surfaces. 4K seems to become useful at 38" Or so in…
Why are you conflating 2K (2048x1080/1920x1080) and 1440p (2560x1440)? They're not even close to the same resolution.
Confused, not conflated.
Same comment and question about 1440p then, please :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally apple picks the optimal ppi and they don’t market the ppi value, only that it’s “retina”. They will prefer odd resolutions over suboptimal ppi. For example, the m2 macbook air is 2560 by 1664 at 224 ppi. The maximum ppi you can get on an iphone is 460 ppi, so I assume in their testing they found that even people with perfect vision holding it really close had no use for sharper screens than that.
> Generally apple picks the optimal ppi and they don’t market the ppi value, only that it’s “retina”. First world problem, but I hate when companies choose a one-size-fits-all value that is allegedly supposed to reach the limits of human perception, but that value still turns out not to be enough for me because (surprise) some people are naturally slightly better than average. For example, the new Apple VR headset, d…
The phones are assumed to be held close to your eye and have a 460ppi.
The MacBooks are assumed to be seen from a medium distance and use around 225ppi.
The Studio display and Prod Display distance is a little longer and use 218ppi.
Retina is a property based on subtended angle from the viewer's perspective, not on a physical property of the device.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain this a bit more, I tried googling but I can't quite understand what you mean here by pixel fill factor and how it would differ between the resolutions?
The gaps between the pixels tend to be smaller the higher the resolution - so even if you drive the display at a lower resolution, it can look better the same lower res display that has larger spacing between each subpixel.
I’m at 16:9 (nearly impossible to get 16:10 today :/) 4k 32” and honestly this is freaking small. What’s the point of all the space if it all looks really good without zooming at maybe 2500-ish pixels wide. I’d gladly get a good 42” display at 4k, would be perfect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The best option I've found is to hook both computers up to a USB-only KVM, and plug them in via separate video cables to the monitor. Then set up the computers to tell the monitor to change inputs (via DDC commands, which most but not all monitors support) when you change devices on the KVM There's software to help do this automatically ( https://github.com/haimgel/display-switch )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the opposite for me; I have to move small things away in order to focus on them. I always joke that if it gets much more worse my arms won't be long enough to hold my phone :-)
So too close and they're out of focus / blurry? Does VR work for you?