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

Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

press.asus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 282 posts

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#191

Post by alsetmusic »

qqxufo wrote: post #184

[flagged]

> preview at 100% OS scaling on a non-retina display.

Yeah, I feel like anyone who is serious enough to purchase a display like this ought to have a secondary display connected just for previewing their work on a "cheap" consumer device. It should be always available so that it only takes a few seconds to preview changes in the "worst-case" scenario by dragging a window over. It's why (good) phone devs test their apps on multi-year old devices.

This is why people working in pro-audio test mixes in lots of environments. Sure, it sounds great in a treated studio. How does it sound in the car? How about on headphones? What about on the built-in speaker on your phone? You want to hear the mix in the widest and most compromising scenarios to truly understand how well it holds up. Very few people have top-of-the-line hardware and most of your audience presumably don't.

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#192

Post by ak217 »

swiftcoder wrote: post #185
ak217 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pixels are very noticeable at 32" 4K. If you don't notice them, your eyes still do - they try to focus on blurry lines, causing eye strain. You might not notice, but it adds up over the years. It's simple math. A 32" 4K monitor is about 130 PPI. Retina displays (where you could reasonably say the pixels are not noticeable, and the text is sharp enough to not strain the eyes) start at 210 PPI. Subjectively, the other…

> It's simple math. A 32" 4K monitor is about 130 PPI. Retina displays (where you could reasonably say the pixels are not noticeable, and the text is sharp enough to not strain the eyes) start at 210 PPI. It's also incorrectly applied math. You need to take into account the viewing distance - the 210 PPI figure often quoted is for smartphone displays (at the distance one typically holds a smartphone). For a 32" monit…

Take a look at this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64679-2 - the limits at "normal visual acuity" (18 observers ~25 years old) are far beyond what you imply. You need over 95 ppd to exhaust normal visual acuity.

> For a 32" monitor, if your eyeballs are 36" away from the monitor's surface

Why are you assuming 36"? Nobody I know uses 32" monitors at 36" away. Most people use less than half that distance for their laptops, and just over half for desktops.

> the 210 PPI figure often quoted is for smartphone displays

The 210 PPI figure is a minimum, it was used as marketing when Apple first started offering Retina displays. Apple's modern iPhone displays have far higher PPI. Apple's own marketing was challenged by critics who noted that visual acuity may top out closer to 200 ppd.

Perhaps Retina doesn't matter to you - that's OK. But for most of us, 32" 4K is nowhere near the limit of our vision, and by staring at these monitors all day, we are slowly degrading it.

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#193

Post by jsheard »

layer8 wrote: post #190
Aurornis wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most modern games already have built-in scaling options. You can set the game to run at your screen’s native resolution but have it do the rendering at a different scale factor. Good games can even render the HUD at native resolution and the graphics at a scaled resolution. Modern OSes also scale fine. It’s really not an issue.

Games are not what I had in mind. Last time I checked, most graphics drivers didn’t support true integer scaling (i.e. nearest-neighbor, no interpolation).

> most graphics drivers didn’t support true integer scaling

https://www.nvidia.com/content/Control-Panel-Help/vLatest/en...

https://www.amd.com/en/resources/support-articles/faqs/DH3-0...

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000...

I don't know what the situation is on Mac and Linux, but all of the Windows drivers offer it.

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#194

Post by simoncion »

4ggr0 wrote: post #163
Aurornis wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you get into the high pixel densities you stop running everything at native resolution. You have enough pixel density that scaling the output doesn’t produce significant visible artifacts. With 8K small pixels you could pick a number of resolutions up to 4K or higher and you wouldn’t even notice that the final product was scaled on your monitor. People with Macs with retina displays have been doing this for year…

i'm actually going to do the reverse move, was gaming on a 4K display, but going to downgrade to 3440x1440 to get more performance. but of course the gaming displays i find apparently aren't ideal for working, because text looks worse. add to that that the internet seems to be split if wide-monitors are the best thing ever or actually horrible. why is it all so complicated, man.

If the game offers it [0], set the output resolution to 4K, and the render resolution to something smaller. A multiplier of ~0.66 is roughly 1440p output, and 0.5 is 1080p.

If the game doesn't offer that, then I've found that the HUD/UI uglification isn't too bad when one sets the output resolution to 1440p.

If Windows is getting in the way of doing this, and most or all of your games have been purchased through Steam, give Linux a try. I've heard good things about the Fedora variant known as Bazzite, but have never, ever tried it myself. [1]

[0] And shockingly few do! There's all sorts of automagic "AI" upscaling shit with mystery-meat knobs to turn, but precious few bog-standard "render everything but the HUD and UI with this many fewer pixels" options.

[1] I've been using Gentoo for decades and (sadly) see no reason to switch. I strongly disrecommend Gentoo as a first Linux distro for most folks, and especially for folks who primarily want to try out Linux for video gaming.

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#195

Post by simoncion »

ak217 wrote: post #192
swiftcoder wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's simple math. A 32" 4K monitor is about 130 PPI. Retina displays (where you could reasonably say the pixels are not noticeable, and the text is sharp enough to not strain the eyes) start at 210 PPI. It's also incorrectly applied math. You need to take into account the viewing distance - the 210 PPI figure often quoted is for smartphone displays (at the distance one typically holds a smartphone). For a 32" monit…

Take a look at this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64679-2 - the limits at "normal visual acuity" (18 observers ~25 years old) are far beyond what you imply. You need over 95 ppd to exhaust normal visual acuity. > For a 32" monitor, if your eyeballs are 36" away from the monitor's surface Why are you assuming 36"? Nobody I know uses 32" monitors at 36" away. Most people use less than half that di…

> Nobody I know uses 32" monitors at 36" away.

I suppose it's still true that nobody you know uses monitors of that size three feet away, but I'm very definitely one of those people.

Why on earth would you put the monitor so close to your face that you have to turn your head to see all of it? That'd be obnoxious as all hell.

> ...by staring at these monitors all day, we are slowly degrading it.

No, that's age. As you age, the tissues that make up your eye and the muscles that control it fail more and more to get rebuilt correctly. I think the colloquial term for this is that they "wear out". It sucks shit, but we're currently too bad at bioengineering to really stop it.

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#196

Post by Flockster »

omnibrain wrote: post #155

Sadly it's just 16:9. Not even 16:10. I now run 2 3:2 Displays (BenQ RD280U) at home (more in the office, but I never go there) and love my vertical real estate. (No, portrait mode won't work out)

Thank you for this suggestion!

For Laptops 16:10 (and with the framework and surface even 15:10/3:2) is already quite common, while in the desktop market 16:9 and these ultrawides are dominant.

With 16:9 the whitespace on websites even with Tabs on the side is simply to high ;)

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#197

Post by simoncion »

Aurornis wrote: post #167
zamadatix wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~half of these reasons state sub $2000 8k TVs shouldn't exist, but they do.

The individual pixels on a 60 inch 8K TV are the same size as the pixels on a 30 inch 4K computer monitor. Most 8K TVs are even bigger than that, so their individual pixels are already easier to manufacture than your average 4K monitor or laptop screen. You can’t compare large TVs to medium size computer monitors.

> You can’t compare large TVs to medium size computer monitors.

When half of those four reasons don't require having a PC attached to the display, and three fourths of the four have nothing to do about the panel manufacturing process, you totally can.

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#198

Post by swiftcoder »

ak217 wrote: post #192
swiftcoder wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's simple math. A 32" 4K monitor is about 130 PPI. Retina displays (where you could reasonably say the pixels are not noticeable, and the text is sharp enough to not strain the eyes) start at 210 PPI. It's also incorrectly applied math. You need to take into account the viewing distance - the 210 PPI figure often quoted is for smartphone displays (at the distance one typically holds a smartphone). For a 32" monit…

Take a look at this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64679-2 - the limits at "normal visual acuity" (18 observers ~25 years old) are far beyond what you imply. You need over 95 ppd to exhaust normal visual acuity. > For a 32" monitor, if your eyeballs are 36" away from the monitor's surface Why are you assuming 36"? Nobody I know uses 32" monitors at 36" away. Most people use less than half that di…

> You need over 95 ppd to exhaust normal visual acuity

32" 4K at 36" is 91 ppd. Which I guess is good enough, seeing as I'm well the far side of 25 year old.

> Why are you assuming 36"? Nobody I know uses 32" monitors at 36" away.

36" is the point where I can see all 4 corners of the monitor at the same time (and significantly too close to focus on one corner and have the other 3 corners in view at the same time).

40 degrees of FoV is massive for a single monitor! I'm sitting here wondering how much you have to turn your head to use this size monitor up close

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#199

Post by tombert »

8cvor6j844qw_d6 wrote: post #51
tombert wrote: post #16

I swore a blood oath that I would never buy an Asus product ever again, after three terrible laptops from them in a row, but holy hell do I kind of want this monitor. My main "monitor" right now is an 85" 8K TV, that I absolutely love, but it would be nice to have something smaller for my upstairs desk.

What would you pick for your next laptop if you had to buy one? I had an Asus laptop, but the frequent security firmware updates for one of the Dell laptop that I had makes me think it might make a good candidate in terms of keeping up with security updates. Not sure for the current latest models for Asus/Dell/HP/etc., but I liked the fact that disassembly manuals are provided for older Dell and HP. I can hardly find…

I am a pretty huge fan of Thinkpads. I bought mine a year ago and love it.

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#200

Post by ak217 »

swiftcoder wrote: post #198
ak217 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a look at this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64679-2 - the limits at "normal visual acuity" (18 observers ~25 years old) are far beyond what you imply. You need over 95 ppd to exhaust normal visual acuity. > For a 32" monitor, if your eyeballs are 36" away from the monitor's surface Why are you assuming 36"? Nobody I know uses 32" monitors at 36" away. Most people use less than half that di…

> You need over 95 ppd to exhaust normal visual acuity 32" 4K at 36" is 91 ppd. Which I guess is good enough, seeing as I'm well the far side of 25 year old. > Why are you assuming 36"? Nobody I know uses 32" monitors at 36" away. 36" is the point where I can see all 4 corners of the monitor at the same time (and significantly too close to focus on one corner and have the other 3 corners in view at the same time). 40…

I actually have two more monitors, one on each side of my main one, in portrait mode :) And yes, I turn my head when I want to see them.

I'm glad the low resolution monitors work for you. I just don't want people to proclaim that everything about displays is solved - it's not. There are meaningful, physiologically relevant improvements to be made. It's been over a decade since 4k60 became the standard. A lot of younger people would really benefit from mass produced 6k120 monitors.

Post reply on HN