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

301–310 of 470 posts

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

#301

Post by Toutouxc »

111111IIIIIII wrote: post #272
aftbit wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it support DDC over i2c? I want at least sleep mode, input, and brightness control.

Sorry, I am not quite sure what that is. Sleep works great with my PC (motherboard is ASRock WRX80 Creator) and M1 MBP, but I can only adjust brightness through the OSD.

There’s a Mac app called Lunar that uses DDC (a protocol for sending commands to a screen) to allow you to adjust the brightness and volume of an external monitor with the usual keys on your MacBook keyboard (in clamshell mode at least) or with a slider. Very convenient, can’t recommend enough.

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

#302

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

kimburgess wrote: post #290
LoganDark wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The display is 223 ppi, which is the same or slightly higher than Apple displays. For context, my MacBook from 2015 had a PPI of 220, so this comment is extremely accurate.

Forget 4K, 6K, or 8K. Pixel density is the spec when considering any display. It doesn't matter if it's a wearable, phone, laptop, monitor, TV, or stadium wrapping LED surface, the only important factors for resolution are the distance to the viewer's eyes and the distance between the pixels. For context, 20/20 vision is the ability to perceive 1 arcminute of angular resolution. Beyond that point there are diminishin…

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

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

#303

Post by 111111IIIIIII »

masklinn wrote: post #278
alanbernstein wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on the kvm/switching feature? My current monitor is awful for that, I really just want a dedicated "cycle input" button. Or ideally, an N-position slider switch, but I can't imagine anyone would ever build such a thing.

If it works like the 3419W you have one button press to wake the OSD and then a press on the input you want to switch to. Not terrible, not great either because on the 3419 the OSD is a bit slow and the button are below the screen so you can’t reliable double click to switch.

This is more or less how it works. If you want to install software then you can control it with keyboard shortcuts, but the shortcuts respond much slower than just pressing the button so I doubt anybody actually uses them after trying them once.

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

#304

Post by kimburgess »

Nition wrote: post #295
kimburgess wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget 4K, 6K, or 8K. Pixel density is the spec when considering any display. It doesn't matter if it's a wearable, phone, laptop, monitor, TV, or stadium wrapping LED surface, the only important factors for resolution are the distance to the viewer's eyes and the distance between the pixels. For context, 20/20 vision is the ability to perceive 1 arcminute of angular resolution. Beyond that point there are diminishin…

So viewing from 40cm away is about the point where 220PPI crosses the point where you can tell any difference? That makes me think 220 is quite a well picked number, as that's about how far away someone might typically be viewing.

There's no sudden switch. All perception is a little squishy and dependant on the individual. For most people though, once you're creating an image that's 220PPI and viewed from 400mm or so it's probably better to dedicate bandwidth to better temporal resolution, colour depth, or lessening the compression/compute/power/cost needed to balance those three.

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

#305

Post by SomeRndName11 »

steveBK123 wrote: post #218
photonbeam wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do friends let friends buy?

Eizo, Apple, LG, maybe a Viewsonic or Samsung.. Basically go read rtings.com for whatever size/resolution/price class you are looking for, and look at the in depth reviews for the things that matter to you. In my case I have a bright office, so glare/reflection and backlight brightness are extremely important. A good monitor can last you 2-3x as long as the compute you hook up to it, and your eyes are important.. I t…

Have you tried LG or Samsung service? Not better. Generally my observation is that outside of warranty problems HP and Dell monitors have better calibration and balanced feature set in OSD compared to Asian ones, when they have all kind of unnecessary things in settings and lack what I want (unlocked sRGB for example).

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

#307

Post by kurthr »

111111IIIIIII wrote: post #174
kurthr wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your point is that 1/1000 frames would need to be 6:5 at 120Hz? I'd be more concerned with the automatic black frame insertion most LCDs do to increase contrast.

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 they're specifically tested.

Note that 1/1000 is glitch every 40 seconds so it's quite visible to an "eagle eye". I'll ask.

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

#308

Post by bernawil »

hilbert42 wrote: post #298

"Is a matte screen the better option compared to the 8K monitor’s glossy finish? Surprisingly, I found that I don’t like the matte screen better! It’s hard to describe, but somehow the picture seems more “dull”, or less bright (independent of the actual brightness of the monitor), or more toned down. The colors don’t pop as much." A useful post. Whilst I've not yet had the luxury of owning a 6k or 8k monitor his comm…

Matte never made sense at all. I have no idea how matte ever made it into PC monitors. I mean, before lcd screens all screen surfaces where smooth glass. Then came LCD in plastic. Did the early LCD tech necessitate that the outside layer be not as smooth for some reason? Maybe it was just a coincidence that was later cargo-culted? Anyway, there's a reason macbooks, and almost every TV uses a glossy surface.

Their main supposed advantage, that they mitigate glare, is just false. With a glossy screen you get a small point of reflection. Matte attenuates it just a tiny bit, but never enough so that is not bothersome. You can usually tilt/angle your screen to fight glare, but matte makes it harder because the glaring spot is bigger/more diffuse. Also, higher brightness is one of the things that fight glare the most and matte reduce it a lot!

Mobile phones, the devices we carry outside the most and should be most susceptible to glare issues never ever come with matte screens! How is matte even still a thing?

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

#309

Post by hollerith »

bernawil wrote: post #308
hilbert42 wrote: post #298

"Is a matte screen the better option compared to the 8K monitor’s glossy finish? Surprisingly, I found that I don’t like the matte screen better! It’s hard to describe, but somehow the picture seems more “dull”, or less bright (independent of the actual brightness of the monitor), or more toned down. The colors don’t pop as much." A useful post. Whilst I've not yet had the luxury of owning a 6k or 8k monitor his comm…

Matte never made sense at all. I have no idea how matte ever made it into PC monitors. I mean, before lcd screens all screen surfaces where smooth glass. Then came LCD in plastic. Did the early LCD tech necessitate that the outside layer be not as smooth for some reason? Maybe it was just a coincidence that was later cargo-culted? Anyway, there's a reason macbooks, and almost every TV uses a glossy surface. Their mai…

I prefer matte monitors although it is not that important to me.

>You can usually tilt/angle your screen to fight glare, but matte makes it harder because the glaring spot is bigger/more diffuse.

I would need to be able to switch quickly between a matte monitor and a glossy one to be sure, but IIRC the main advantage of matte is a many-fold reduction in how often I have to swivel my attention to the issue of glare. In other words, it is the need to "tilt/angle the screen" that is the main cost of glossy for me because I cannot do that without taking some of my attention away from the task at hand. In contrast, if I am already constantly holding the screen in my hand a la a smartphone then I can adjust the angle with very little conscious attention, so IIUC I have no preference for matte screens on smartphones, which if my preferences are common, would explain the absence of matte screens in smartphones.

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

#310

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

p1necone wrote: post #226
jiggawatts wrote: post #180

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…

I've got the opposite request. I'd love a native 720p oled of a decent size for playing Switch (and PS3/360, I've got a bit of collection) games on. It's probably a niche market, but most games on the switch run natively at somewhere between 720 and 1080p and look awful scaled up to 4k.

Or maybe Nintendo should upgrade the 2014 Android SoC of the Switch so games could run on modern resolutions.

There must be TVs or scalers out there you can buy that are used by retro gamers and let you runt 1:1 scaling on modern TVs. Or you can emulate the Switch games and run them at natively higher res.

Either way, I'm sure there are solutions for you out there instead of display manufacturers having to go back 20 years in time to serve an outdated gaming console. Just a thought.

Post reply on HN