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

461–470 of 470 posts

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

#461

Post by creato »

jonhohle wrote: post #300
creato wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, it does. 3:2 pulldown produces interlaced 60 fields/s. On a digital display, it must be deinterlaced, and the only "correct" way to do that is to remove the pulldown, producing 24 fps. If you just deinterlace it as if it were originally 60i, you'll just end up with something similar to 24p converted to 30p by repeating 1 of every 4 frames (with a loss in resolution to boot). So for digital displays, 3:2 pulldown is pointless at best, destructive at worst.

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

#462

Post by LoganDark »

Tagbert wrote: post #456
LoganDark wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Apple does not use a one-size-fits-all in ppi. 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.

And none of those devices have a PPI that you can customize when you purchase the device, in contrast to many PC laptops that generally offer multiple options (say, either 1080p or 4K on the same device), meaning each device indeed has a one-size-fits-all PPI. I never said Apple uses the same PPI for all their devices.

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

#463

Post by kuschku »

j45 wrote: post #455
kuschku wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you conflating 2K (2048x1080/1920x1080) and 1440p (2560x1440)? They're not even close to the same resolution.

1440p monitors can be referred to as 2k monitors and I did clarify the resolution. Confused, not conflated. Same comment and question about 1440p then, please :)

> 1440p monitors can be referred to as 2k monitors and I did clarify the resolution.

By whom? The only reference to 1440p being called "2K" I can find are cheap rebranded monitor sellers that defraud their customers with all other specs anyway.

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

#464

Post by debug-desperado »

veidr wrote: post #441
debug-desperado wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, HDMI 2.1 doesn't matter (yet) because there are no 8K desktop monitors (meaning 32-inch size or similar) on the market that use HDMI. The only 8K monitor has for years been the Dell UP3218K, which uses DisplayPort -- and requires two DisplayPort cables, actually, to get 7680 × 4320 at 60Hz. Apple has never supported this on any of their machines -- they just couldn't drive the monitor. (It worked, but only in 4K…

Very awesome. Thanks for sharing these little known M2 updates!

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

#465

Post by ksec »

Joeri wrote: post #319
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if 25 cm is an optimal viewing distance, 350 ppi is maximum phone screen density required?

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.

The iPhone is still pretty much the same ~330PPi as before, only the OLED number are inflated. If you only count the smallest PPI within the sub pixel of OLED they are still, magical ~330 ppl on newer iPhone.

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

#466

Post by j45 »

kuschku wrote: post #463
j45 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1440p monitors can be referred to as 2k monitors and I did clarify the resolution. Confused, not conflated. Same comment and question about 1440p then, please :)

> 1440p monitors can be referred to as 2k monitors and I did clarify the resolution. By whom? The only reference to 1440p being called "2K" I can find are cheap rebranded monitor sellers that defraud their customers with all other specs anyway.

This seems to really be upsetting to you. I like monitors too.

“2K” monitors are widths that fall around the 2000 pixel range. It’s a resolution category, not a specification.

2K monitor categorization emerged when 4K started to be used as a rough mid point.

2560x1440 is often shortened to 1440p, but 2K is often easier to remember. Still, officially it’s called Quad HD (QHD) or even WQHD. With slight variations beyond it.

Since we’re trying to be precise the category for this res can also be called 2.5K.

But like you said, we won’t always be able to search for that.

Finding the spot between FHD and 4K has this fuzzy category. Every retailer Amy display it different depending on how and when their sites were built and evolved.

The newer ultra wide monitors can do a lot of sleight of hand to stretch a lot more pixels horizontally to make the screen seem bigger.

“5K” monitors might give as many pixels as four 2560x1440, but it won’t be 4 monitors worth of work space.

All I know is my wife won’t give me back my QHD screens since she started using them because she can fit more on 2 monitors.

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

#467

Post by j45 »

wkat4242 wrote: post #193
j45 wrote: post #123

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…

In a Desktop or plugged in laptop, does the extra power really matter? I greatly prefer the sharper text and images.

Oh, I meant the horsepower it takes to drive 3-4 separate monitors consisting of all those pixels can a single or maybe two 4/5/6K displays.

You’re absolutely right about clarity - if I was running two screens I’d probably get what you’re referring to. But having a workable third monitor at QHD proves priceless quite regularly for my work and most of it can be text specific.

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

#468

Post by kuschku »

j45 wrote: post #466
kuschku wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1440p monitors can be referred to as 2k monitors and I did clarify the resolution. By whom? The only reference to 1440p being called "2K" I can find are cheap rebranded monitor sellers that defraud their customers with all other specs anyway.

This seems to really be upsetting to you. I like monitors too. “2K” monitors are widths that fall around the 2000 pixel range. It’s a resolution category, not a specification. 2K monitor categorization emerged when 4K started to be used as a rough mid point. 2560x1440 is often shortened to 1440p, but 2K is often easier to remember. Still, officially it’s called Quad HD (QHD) or even WQHD. With slight variations beyon…

> It’s a resolution category, not a specification

That's where you're wrong, 2K as a term (just like 4K) originated in the cinema industry, and it's absolutely a specification.

DCI Digital Cinema System Specification v1.4.2, Section 4.3.1.

A 2K distribution – the resolution of the DCDM[3] container is 2048x1080

A 4K distribution – the resolution of the DCDM[3] container is 4096x2160

UHD was already stretching it with "4K", but 1440p is absolutely not a spec-compliant 2K resolution.

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

#469

Post by kurthr »

kurthr wrote: post #307
111111IIIIIII wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I worked on display drivers and TCONs, but mostly for mobile/laptop rather than TVs/Monitors. I'd be fairly shocked to see the defects you're describing coming directly from within a device, but going through multiple translations PCIe>eDP>TB/DP/HDMI... especially if they're not well tested or badly negotiated is certainly a possibility. I wouldn't trust most external connections or monitors for video editing, unless…

The answer from a Pro was Genlock so you match the 23.97. "It doesn't matter if you drop a frame every once in a while, you're going to see it a dozen times... as long as it's not the same dropped frame!"

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

#470

Post by j45 »

kuschku wrote: post #468
j45 wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to really be upsetting to you. I like monitors too. “2K” monitors are widths that fall around the 2000 pixel range. It’s a resolution category, not a specification. 2K monitor categorization emerged when 4K started to be used as a rough mid point. 2560x1440 is often shortened to 1440p, but 2K is often easier to remember. Still, officially it’s called Quad HD (QHD) or even WQHD. With slight variations beyon…

> It’s a resolution category, not a specification That's where you're wrong, 2K as a term (just like 4K) originated in the cinema industry, and it's absolutely a specification. DCI Digital Cinema System Specification v1.4.2, Section 4.3.1. A 2K distribution – the resolution of the DCDM[3] container is 2048x1080 A 4K distribution – the resolution of the DCDM[3] container is 4096x2160 UHD was already stretching it with…

Ok, I’m wrong.

Benq lists their monitors as 2k. They’re wrong too.

https://www.benq.com/en-us/monitor/professional/bl2420pt.htm...

Post reply on HN