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

Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 438 posts

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#331

Post by BoorishBears »

pedrocr wrote: post #247
BoorishBears wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not, which is why people take $2,000 1440p monitors still. The "if you can manage it" part is an awkward setup usually with terrible ergonomics (a monitor too far away is worse for posture because you subconsciously tilt forward), it takes a ton of space, it looks hideous - Forgive my for my bluntness, but I am soooo tired of every conversation about improving monitors being sidetracked by people act like usi…

You may not like it yourself but other people have the opposite experience. Setting the screen farther away and having your eyes focus at that distance is more comfortable for them. That other people choose other solutions doesn't invalidate that this solution exists and is valued by people. And I used the term strictly precisely. If you can manage that setup physically you get the same angle of view, more resolution…

You're using strictly in a way that's the opposite of precise when you need to preface it with a barn sized caveat.

In fact your suggestion is worse than standard, most people accept you'll never sit far enough away from a 65" TV to have the same apparent size as a 27" monitor and settle for "small enough" apparent size

-

I can't be bothered to do the exact math here but even at normal TV viewing distanced meant to fill your entire view the recommended distance is 5.5ft to 8ft.

Getting it down to the same apparent size of a 27" monitor would mean sitting across a very large room...

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#332

Post by icedchai »

Koshkin wrote: post #283
icedchai wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. My 27" iMac has been my longest running and best desktop computer. It still feels pretty fast!

In comparison, my "late 2014" Mac Mini feels slow (after an OS upgrade).

OS upgrade might be the problem. I'm still running Mojave!

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#333

Post by arvinsim »

zuwvcfxanh wrote: post #318
DCKing wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Graphics cards that can output 5K60 over a single DisplayPort cable out of the box have been available since mid 2016. If anything, availability of HiDPI PC monitors has gone down since then.

That's only true at 8 bits per channel though, which is not what this monitor is. Otherwise yes, you're right

But would the average consumer care enough for 10bit to disregard 5k resolution?

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#334

Post by danielvf »

newaccount74 wrote: post #155
danielvf wrote: post #137

I've worked off Apple Cinema displays since the '90s and Apple Studio displays before that. I am a monitor snob. I care deeply how things look. I currently have an Apple XDR Pro monitor. It's not a great monitor - it is indeed big, the outside is as cool as anything ever made, and the USB-C hub is nice. But in EVERY other way it is badly inferior to the stock 5K monitor that comes with even the cheapest 27" iMac from…

What's bad about the XDR?

Just to be clear, the XDR is not a _terrible_ monitor. It's certainly better than a random $200 monitor. Most people in the world wouldn't notice the following issues.

- There is a noticeable (to me) brightness shift with viewing angle changes. When the monitor is on the back of my desk and displaying a flat color across the monitor, I see a noticeable gradient instead of a flat color because of different viewing angles between looking head at the center pixels vs being off axis to the side pixels.

- The adaptive brightness backlighting doesn't do a very good job. Full bright white pixels in a dark areas will be noticeable dark compared to full bright white pixels surrounded by other brighter pixels.

- If you have some bright pixels in an otherwise dark area, the backlight cell built into the monitor there noticeable brightens, putting an approximately once inch by one in halo around the bright pixels. For example, this halo shows up around the mouse cursor when moving across a black area.

- I tend to work with light text on a dark background. The monitor makes the darks too bright (from the backlight bleeding through) and the brights too dark (because the backlight around there isn't on all the way). Everything is muted. It's noticeably less contrasty, colorful and alive when used with light on light than two iMac 27"s I have had.

- Although the PPI specs are the same, there's something about the pixels on the XDR that makes them more visible and less smooth to me than on the 27.

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#335

Post by danielvf »

hultner wrote: post #275
danielvf wrote: post #137

I've worked off Apple Cinema displays since the '90s and Apple Studio displays before that. I am a monitor snob. I care deeply how things look. I currently have an Apple XDR Pro monitor. It's not a great monitor - it is indeed big, the outside is as cool as anything ever made, and the USB-C hub is nice. But in EVERY other way it is badly inferior to the stock 5K monitor that comes with even the cheapest 27" iMac from…

I’ve been tempted to buy the XDR, would love to hear your opinions. Rocking a couple of LG UF 27” 5k’s today.

Replied in a sibling comment.

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#336

Post by arvinsim »

dnissley wrote: post #208
oceanplexian wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I don’t know what it is with everyone prioritizing pixels over refresh rate.. once you start using 100+hz 60hz starts to feel like a slide show. You can see mouse trails and scrolling is jerky and uncoordinated, it’s painful and insanely distracting.

I mainly just look at text all day, so the "slow" transitions between different bits of text just don't matter all that much to me. Resolution helps that text look nice and crisp though, which I really do appreciate.

That's why I will be sticking to my 4k 144hz monitor. Yes, it's less than 5k but I get crisp fonts and smooth transitions.

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#337

Post by fotta »

mistersquid wrote: post #326
fotta wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TB4 has the same bandwidth as TB3 so you wouldn't be able to daisy chain 5k monitors anyway. Also as the other commentator mentioned, TB doesn't have enough bandwidth for 120hz (53Gbps vs 40Gbps)

> TB4 has the same bandwidth as TB3 so you wouldn't be able to daisy chain 5k monitors anyway. So this each Studio Display will require a direct connection to the laptop/desktop in order to work? That's definitely not great.

Yep. The LG 5Ks are the same way too. Moreover, if you have an Intel MacBook Pro you have to use ports on opposite sides of the laptop if you have 2 displays. You can’t plug them in on the same side.

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#338

Post by arvinsim »

tshaddox wrote: post #211
aldanor wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea. Sad about the lack of ultrawide option, too. Once you get used to it, there's no way back. Two 27'' displays is not an option since you can't center anything, so... three Studio displays side-to-side?

I've been running an LG non-curved 3440x1440 ultrawide monitor as my main work monitor for several years now. It's a great form factor, but the resolution is really sad. It's essentially a wider version of the Dell 1440p monitor that I had ten years ago . My ideal monitor now would be a pixel-doubled version of this ultrawide monitor, but I'm still tempted to lose the extra width and upgrade to this 5k display.

I would really love an ultrawide for the extra space and immersive gaming option. But Retina display has spoiled me a lot. I regret getting used to a 4K configuration scaled to 150% which is effectively 2560x1440 display with higher PPI.

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#339

Post by jimrandomh »

BoorishBears wrote: post #331
pedrocr wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not like it yourself but other people have the opposite experience. Setting the screen farther away and having your eyes focus at that distance is more comfortable for them. That other people choose other solutions doesn't invalidate that this solution exists and is valued by people. And I used the term strictly precisely. If you can manage that setup physically you get the same angle of view, more resolution…

You're using strictly in a way that's the opposite of precise when you need to preface it with a barn sized caveat. In fact your suggestion is worse than standard, most people accept you'll never sit far enough away from a 65" TV to have the same apparent size as a 27" monitor and settle for "small enough" apparent size - I can't be bothered to do the exact math here but even at normal TV viewing distanced meant to f…

That's the wrong approach. When I want a centered 27" rectangle, I use software to put a 27" rectangle in the spot where I want it. I never fullscreen anything, and put secondary things around the edges, the way one would use extra monitors. There are some minor software issues to work through, it definitely requires some customization in the window manager department, but it's worth it imo.

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#340

Post by aseipp »

maximus-decimus wrote: post #330
oceanplexian wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I don’t know what it is with everyone prioritizing pixels over refresh rate.. once you start using 100+hz 60hz starts to feel like a slide show. You can see mouse trails and scrolling is jerky and uncoordinated, it’s painful and insanely distracting.

I don't know what it is with everyone claiming a 60 HZ panel is unusable. Movies are in 24Hz and people panic if you make them 60Hz because it's too smooth for them, but somehow 60Hz isn't enough to browse the web? Being able to see my screen's pixels annoys me a lot more than moving my mouse at 60 Hz.

Meaningless comparison. You also can't run most VR games at anything less than 90-120fps without introducing motion sickness in the user. So what does that say about "usability" of 60fps on a monitor? Nothing. You can't compare two visual mediums directly by the number of "frames per second".

Camera lenses introduce blur through the use of the shudder, which acts as a form of "interpolation" and smooths out the image. Displays do no such thing; image strobing is extremely noticeable at different framerates. The difference in Destiny 2 between 60FPS and 100FPS is quite literally shocking to the point I can't go back.

Post reply on HN