141–150 of 353 posts
Still running 2x 30” Apple Cinema Displays because I prefer the 1600px height.
They are awful displays by modern standards. But what I’d give to have a panel that is 5120 x 3200.
If you care about HDR, ironically enough there are only 4 options for a decent monitor as well- And almost all of them are nearly impossible to buy new. Some of these monitors are also years old https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCcSK3R8HcM * 27" 3840x2160 ASUS PG27UQ / ACER PREDATOR X27 (same panel in both monitors) 32" 3840x2160 ASUS PG32UQX 35" 3440x1440 ASUS PG35VQ 49" 5120x1440 Samsung Neo G9
> Ridiculous Option: Apple Pro Display XDR I'll admit, a monitor that costs more than my first car is beyond affordable for 99% of the population. But saying that, many of the people reading this are pulling truly exotic salaries right now. After devoting untold hours to reaching the top of their profession. Let's say you're a professional earning $300k plus in software. You're often working 100% remote, using your m…
Don't even get me started on brightness... good luck finding anything that's higher than 350 nits.
Why do you need so much brightness in an indoor environment? Personally I've more frequently had the opposite problem, i.e. minimum brightness only going down to the 30-50 nits level, which is quite bright in dark-ish environments.
Additionally I’ve anecdotally observed that the dimmer the screen is relative to the background, the more disconnected I feel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're on macOS, your choice for a 27" 4K is realistically either the 'looks like 1080p' high DPI mode, or the 'looks like 1440p' high DPI mode. The 'looks like 1080p' mode makes all of the UI elements huge. The 'looks like 1440p' mode makes text slightly fuzzy as it's being downscaled from 5120x2880 to 3840x2160. It's not terrible , but it's nowhere near as nice as the 27" 5K.
I'm using a 28" 4K (with Wayland, which does scaling exactly like macOS) — used to use 1.5x with downscaling but switched to 2x "huge UI" for perfect crispness and honestly? It's not bad. It's actually good. Don't fear the big buttons :)
There's always a balance and trade-off here.
2x scaling with 4k really means you end up with the same screen real estate as 1080p.
In my opinion I would very much prefer 24" or 25" at 1440p with native scaling which is ~120 PPI. I personally run both a 25" 1440p display and another 24" 1440p display at 1x. I still consider going from 1080p to 1440p one of the biggest quality of life upgrades I've encountered when I made the switch 7 years ago. It's the same level of "wow this is great" as going from a HDD to SSD.
Before there were shortages you could get a high quality IPS panel monitor from a reputable brand (Dell, ViewSonic) with low input latency for around $300. 4k at 1.5x also gives you the same real estate as 1440p but with higher PPI but I don't know how crisp that will be given the scaling ratio.
I bought two LG Ultrafine 5K displays in 2016 and they're still going strong. They're good — probably the best affordable retina monitor option available, but not perfect. For example, I wish I could daisy chain, and there are occasional ghosting when changing from a contrasty/bright screen to a dark screen. I also ran into problems this year with my MBP maxing out CPU when running both displays at once — after 5 yea…
Could you link out to the specific model? Thx
I bought two LG Ultrafine 5K displays in 2016 and they're still going strong. They're good — probably the best affordable retina monitor option available, but not perfect. For example, I wish I could daisy chain, and there are occasional ghosting when changing from a contrasty/bright screen to a dark screen. I also ran into problems this year with my MBP maxing out CPU when running both displays at once — after 5 yea…
I have been waiting for good external Retina displays for years . That the situation has not improved after all this time is incredibly frustrating. Why is no display manufacturer [0] interested in setting itself apart by producing and marketing a lineup of reasonably priced external pixel-doubled (~200 ppi) displays? For some reason everything must be 16:9 and 4K with no regards to display size, resulting in some ve…
it's a matter of connectors and display bandwidth. Apple's extra-expensive display doesn't use HDMI or DisplayPort connectors, it uses a proprietary connector. edit: I'm wrong on that. oops. apparently that invalidates my entire point. (it doesn't) display bandwidth matters, and connectors are where display bandwidth goes to die. apple had to design a special one for the bandwidth requirements of that display. it's n…
A bit of offtopic: Mini LED screens honestly are disappointing for me to some degree. The blooming is a real thing and I can see it every time there is bright content on dark background. I do accept it because there is no other better option really. I can see this blooming both on MacBook Pro 16 M1 Max and on iPad Pro 12.9. It looks especially bad when bright contents moves slowly, you can see those backlight zones e…
Problem with OLED is the 240hz PWM, which is present in the AERO as well. For instance, on my iPhone 13 Pro, I can see the on-off-on-off clearly once I’m below 20% brightness. The eye strain of oled is terribly annoying. I agree with you on the blooming, but there are no options today that scratch all itches.
Some amoled phones are using dc dimming...
By defining Retina as 220PPI most options are excluded as 4K at 27" or 32" is common but more isn't. A look at what Apple calls Retina though shows that angular density is a much better definition. The initial presentation by Jobs was about angular resolution and the actual screens follow it. PPI ranges from 218 to 476 but angular density only between 57 to 92. So if you set a 27" or 32" screen at a decent distance y…
Yep, trying to find PPI based rules of thumb is silly. The better definition of "retina" is far simpler: you render UI at >1x scale on it.