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

361–370 of 438 posts

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#361

Post by xxpor »

adam_arthur wrote: post #148
jimrandomh wrote: post #110

It's kind of ridiculous how slow the progress in screen resolutions has been. It's disappointing that Apple is only going for 5k, not 8k; they're well positioned to fix the ecosystem and bring high-resolution large displays to everyone, if only they tried. I'm finally sitting in front of an 8k 65" screen. This gives me a nice combination of decent picel density in the center and lots of peripheral vision in which to…

I'm more annoyed by slow progress in refresh rates. Resolutions have progressed pretty nicely IMO, but the top end monitors from Dell, Apple etc still all running at 60hz. Also feel like 27 inches is pretty small these days, for high productivity type of work. Wish Apple went for a 34 inch

We're at the limits of cables and transcivers for reasonable prices. DP 2.0 is already 80 gbps.

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#362

Post by jdlshore »

pedrocr wrote: post #161
jdlshore wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as someone who's in the market for a new display, I haven't been able to find a quality 27" 5K screen. LG has one, but it gets poor reviews. Everybody else is selling 4Ks, which is lower effective resolution than what I'm using now (a 23" 1920x1200 Apple Cinema display). So this is definitely appealing to me.

The effective resolution of 4K is 2x in both directions because to match the size you just set the 27" screen a bit farther away so it fills the same field of view. The jump in resolution from going 4K will be very noticeable and a 27" 4K IPS screen is less than 300€. Well worth the upgrade.

Because I’m on a Mac, everything will be rendered at 2x resolution, giving me the same usable area as a 1920x1080 display, even though the physical area is larger. That’s a step backwards—I’m not willing compromise on usable area or 2x resolution, so a 4K display isn’t good enough.

(Edit: my Cinema Display is something like 15 years old, so I’m confident I’ll get my money’s worth out of a new purchase.)

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#363

Post by astrange »

aseipp wrote: post #340
maximus-decimus wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

TVs have techniques to deal with this, either motion smoothing[1] or black frame insertion. PC displays can't do the first for latency reasons but I think BFI is just down to expense, or because we don't have OLED/mini-LED displays yet.

[1] it's not as bad as you think

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#364

Post by dmitrygr »

GoOnThenDoTell wrote: post #359
jimrandomh wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key feature is "HDMI 2.1 display stream compression", which is only present in very recent GPUs, and without which a computer can't output 8k at all. If it's new enough to have that feature, it's fast enough to handle 8k no problem. I don't typically run videogames at 8k, but I'm sitting close enough that I want them centered in a ~4k window anyways rather than filling my peripheral vision.

What does it do if the image is too complex to compress in the available bandwidth?

it is a lossy compression. it'll just lose more detail/color/etc until it does fit

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#365

Post by Dracophoenix »

raydev wrote: post #184
mrtksn wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The PC market seems to be driven by the gamers and the word on the gamers street is that it's all about latency. I actually like extra wide displays. There are few interesting options like that but the rest seems to be dominated by low color, low resolution, low latency stuff.

> it's all about latency. Not just latency, but framerate too. I wanted to build a gaming PC that would double as a Windows dev machine, so I wanted more pixels than 1080p. Even with my 3090, I can only reasonably do 1440p @ 240Hz, and even then I lose some frames on Fortnite with graphics settings turned down. 4k was out. Thankfully Alienware makes a very nice 1440p 240Hz monitor.

Do you mean the AW2721D from 2020? If so, I was looking to purchase one myself.

How color accurate is the screen? How well does it handle HDR? Does it ever get blurry? If you've ever tried run Linux, either bare or VM, did it handle dpi correctly?

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#366

Post by esyir »

alanbernstein wrote: post #344
goosedragons wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Apple still hasn't shipped a laptop with a higher refresh rate than 120hz when competitors have been shipping 144 or even 240hz for years (A 100% bigger value than 120hz!).

Is there any evidence that such high refresh rates provide any value, or are even detectable by human eyes?

Yes, blind tests have shown that users are easily able to discern between 60 vs 144hz.

This isn't really contested anywhere.

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#367

Post by pedrocr »

jdlshore wrote: post #362
pedrocr wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effective resolution of 4K is 2x in both directions because to match the size you just set the 27" screen a bit farther away so it fills the same field of view. The jump in resolution from going 4K will be very noticeable and a 27" 4K IPS screen is less than 300€. Well worth the upgrade.

Because I’m on a Mac, everything will be rendered at 2x resolution, giving me the same usable area as a 1920x1080 display, even though the physical area is larger. That’s a step backwards—I’m not willing compromise on usable area or 2x resolution, so a 4K display isn’t good enough. (Edit: my Cinema Display is something like 15 years old, so I’m confident I’ll get my money’s worth out of a new purchase.)

OSX does have intermediate steps so you can use those instead. It's not true fractional scaling but as the resolution increases the artifacts are less noticeable. Don't know if there are any 2400px tall 4K screens if you want to go for exactly the same dimensions.

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#368

Post by [deleted] »

danaris wrote: post #292
deergomoo wrote: post #271

I wish they would just make a normal display. I’m currently using a 27” 1440p display which has some nice features, USB power delivery for single-cable video/charging/data, and really excellent colour accuracy, but the pixel density is just garbage compared to my MacBook. Using them both at the same time is jarring (especially since macOS dropped subpixel antialiasing. Text looks noticeably less blocky when hooked up…

> I wish they would just make a normal display. You're in company with all the people who've said "I wish they would just make a netbook" "I wish they would just make a budget desktop" "I wish they would just make a " over the past 30 years.

[deleted]

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#369

Post by pedrocr »

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…

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

It's not a caveat, it's the whole point. To not have your eyes straining to focus closely the screen needs to be far away, can't have one without the other. The people that value that start at that point of figuring out how to be able to have the screen far away enough. For them it's not a caveat, it's a requirement. So for them when they go shopping for screens the 8K 65" option totally dominates the 5K 27" and is a strictly better option.

> 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

The cases I'm referring do put it far enough away, that's the point, it's how you get a 65" image down to 27" on a desk equivalent. That suggestion shows up once in a while on HN when people discuss eye strain. You've now gotten another answer from someone that does something completely different and uses the 8K TV as a multi-screen setup on a single screen. That's the problem with these discussions. A TV or projector used 5+ meters away, an external screen on your desk, and a 14" laptop at keyboard distance are completely different use cases. Yet often these discussions end up on ">X DPI is essential" without considering this factor. It seems no one can imagine that other people use their screens very differently from them and it turns into a religious war.

Re: Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display

#370

Post by porker »

kalleboo wrote: post #354
arvinsim wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Looking at the uproar over at Reddit, it seems like people care far more about refresh rate than resolution or color depth. This also seems to be borne out by the current monitor market - most monitors seem to be 1440p high-refresh rate monitors.

Gamers. Reddit is not a good measure for what workers who use computers want. Or need.
Post reply on HN