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

4K is for programmers

tiamat.tsotech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 342 posts

Re: 4K is for programmers

#261

Post by cma »

josephlord wrote: post #225
bhauer wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for posting this. It's good to finally have a rationale for why glossy has dominated matte in recent years beyond the one I've heard over and over ("glossy looks better at first glance in a Best Buy"). If it's truly a matter of price, I suppose it's fair that only professional monitors use matte screens. I for one be willing to pay a modest premium for matte.

It isn't the only reason, contrast ratio is higher too so it is needed to be competitive on specification too. If you can control the lighting so that it doesn't reflect to you it can be better as matte will scatter light in all directions. The intrinsic cost difference would be pretty small without the economies of scale I think. Matte would have to be special order panels and you wouldn't be able to pick them up on…

"matte will scatter light in all directions."

Unless you are saying one pixel smears into another, doesn't scattering light in all directions end up giving better viewing angles with good brightness uniformity?

I always thought the reason a matte screen hurt contrast was because of scattered light from the room raising the black level.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#262

Post by larve »

lsaferite wrote: post #238
larve wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use 6 19" monitors (using a combination of display port, HDMI, display link adapters). It's a bit of a mess to set up, but I like the actual physical splitting of the monitors (I have the logfile monitor, the google chrome monitor, the firefox monitor, the jira monitor, the editor monitor, etc...). Also, it plays in very well with a tiling window manager where I can just switch windows from one monitor to the next…

But, given a single large very high resolution monitor and a tiling WM, don't you get the same in the end but with vastly simpler hardware setups? If you are so keen on the 'physical separation' then perhaps a WM that includes some synthetic black bars to give defined visual separation of tiles? You didn't specify what resolutions your monitors are running. Out of curiosity, what are they?

i have 2880x1800 on the mbp, and 4-6x 1440x900/1280x0124 or whatever on the others (depending on which i find).

Re: 4K is for programmers

#263

Post by kudu »

MetaCosm wrote: post #230
bhauer wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the reality-check. I really do appreciate it and hope anyone reading my words reads yours as counterpoint. I had tried to be fair-handed with my judgment of the Seiki but I admit that my desire for large form-factor displays coupled with Seiki delivering one that I can actually afford clouds my judgment some. I want high-quality large displays and the incumbent manufacturers have left me in the cold for…

First of all, you can get the U3014 for around $1100, less on sale. http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00C2RPW8O/ref=dp_olp... ... additionally, it is a "professional" monitor (X-Rite tie in, factory calibrated, etc) and will likely maintain a premium price as corporations are the target customers. Secondly, the Seiki is not a "good" monitor. It isn't even a "good" TV. The only thing Seiki has is pixel density a…

> They go as cheap as $350 now, but you can get GREAT ones (really great, not just pixel density) for around $500.

Are there any for $500 that are better than the $300 ones?

Re: 4K is for programmers

#264

Post by largote »

Torn wrote: post #169
MetaCosm wrote: post #104

> Today, you can still buy a 30-inch 2560x1600 display for over $1,000. Or you can get a 39-inch 3840x2160 display for $500. This choice is not even fair. Yes, you can buy a wonderful, physically adjustable, mountable, color calibrated, blissful contrast, delightful brightness control monitor with a great matte finish like the Dell 3014... or you can buy an absolutely awful 30hz, locked in place, blue tinted, horribl…

Thanks for pointing this out -- the article seemed to completely overlooked the panel quality and configurability. I'm personally really looking forward to a proper UHD/4K over 30" that does 144hz with GSync, which I can use as my main desktop monitor. It'll finally be a reason to upgrade from my old Dell Ultrasharp. The Asus PQ321Q is almost there, it's just limited to 60hz.

There's absolutely no difference from 60Hz to anything above it.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#265

Post by largote »

sentenza wrote: post #98
r0h1n wrote: post #82

The article lists the "ideal size" for monitors at 50 inches, and the one for TVs at 100+ inches! While I'm sure it's great to have such massive screen real estate (I wanna get a 4K in 2014 too), I can't but help think this is the programmer equivalent of consumers buying needlessly large TVs. I work on a 24" desktop monitor and a 14" laptop one. How is 50" the "ideal size"? Even 39"? At what point does the law of di…

I don't really understand how a TV can be needlessly large. Also, I don't understand why people still buy TVs in 2014. When I replaced my TV about 4-5 years ago, I bought a 500€ beamer and a 100€ retractable canvas. Sure, that beamer only has 1024x768, but today you'll certainly be able to buy something significantly better in a similar price range. With my living room PC connected to the beamer, my "screen" is 1.7 m…

Because projectors in a given price range have much lower image quality (contrast in particular) than TVs in the same price range.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#267

Post by brownbat »

> This blog uses a little JavaScript. Nothing dodgy, though, and nothing hosted at third-party sites. Just some jQuery and animation bits. So please, if you'd be so kind, ask Noscript to call off the hounds. ... That said, if you insist on leaving script off, you can just scroll down a bit to read the content.

This site is my hero. Write a "no javascript detected" message as if blocking javascript is perfectly understandable (even if you secretly believe we're all hatted in tin). You know your audience with these, what does it hurt to throw them a bone.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#268

Post by brownbat »

brownbat wrote: post #267

> This blog uses a little JavaScript. Nothing dodgy, though, and nothing hosted at third-party sites. Just some jQuery and animation bits. So please, if you'd be so kind, ask Noscript to call off the hounds. ... That said, if you insist on leaving script off, you can just scroll down a bit to read the content. This site is my hero. Write a "no javascript detected" message as if blocking javascript is perfectly unders…

(That said, I don't block javascript to keep content providers from doing dodgy things quite so much as I do it to avoid fallout when someone breaks into your server, or slips something into your page in transit.)

Re: 4K is for programmers

#269

Post by cs02rm0 »

jheriko wrote: post #231
knightni wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An extremely large number of programmers use Mac and Linux machines. Linux on the desktop is sustained to a substantial extent by a programmer audience - and you only have to look at the availability of software for it to see that it's popular among that group. Personally, when I'm not using a unix-y environment, it's because I've been forced. Using windows as a programmer feels like having one of my hands chopped of…

sure it is a large number, but large != most. every programmer i know works in a windows dominated environment. this is a small sample though. i believe that in back-end only environments linux has some serious popularity but i can't comment on how many studios use it as their development platform because i have no great experience there (actually i work in office where they develop such things, but they use windows…

every programmer i know works in a windows dominated environment. this is a small sample though.

Indeed, every programmer I know works in a Linux or Mac dominated environment!

Re: 4K is for programmers

#270

Post by josephlord »

cma wrote: post #261
josephlord wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't the only reason, contrast ratio is higher too so it is needed to be competitive on specification too. If you can control the lighting so that it doesn't reflect to you it can be better as matte will scatter light in all directions. The intrinsic cost difference would be pretty small without the economies of scale I think. Matte would have to be special order panels and you wouldn't be able to pick them up on…

"matte will scatter light in all directions." Unless you are saying one pixel smears into another, doesn't scattering light in all directions end up giving better viewing angles with good brightness uniformity? I always thought the reason a matte screen hurt contrast was because of scattered light from the room raising the black level.

Mostly I'm talking about ambient light, hence worse blacks and lower contrast ratios. It may also scatter outgoing light reducing sharpness and brightness (some may be scattered back in to the panel) a little but that is pretty minor.
Post reply on HN