61–70 of 164 posts
Pointless superficial review, standard for Wired, Verge etc - no brightness uniformity check, no color uniformity check, no color accuracy check, no coating grain check. Meanwhile a good number of reports mention terrible uniformity issues with that model.
This publications are entertainment pretending (sometimes) they are more than that.
It amazes me it’s so hard to find monitors around 210+ PPI. Glad this is one. That said I would be scared to buy this. I’ve heard so many horror stories about the LG UltraFine 5k and the ports breaking and then having to send it in for repair for a long time. At this point I don’t trust their build quality for monitors. In general though, I am so glad to see big high DPI monitors have more than one or two options fin…
For example, I've settled on ~160 PPI viewed at 100cm as my optimal desktop solution. It has an identical perceived pixel density as ~220 PPI viewed at 75cm.
Use a PPD (pixel per degree) calculator to find a setup that suits your needs: https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anecdata but I played games at 4K on a 4GHz Haswell (2013) + 1080 Ti (2017). Definitely faster at 2K but 4K was servicable. It's probably less true now that I'm 1+ years away from the hardware, but 4K gameplay is surprisingly accessible for modest hardware IMO.
I currently have a 4k monitor (+nv4070-super) and it does handle some games fine at 4k but for others I need to use 2k w/ upscaling. Depends on the game.
It amazes me it’s so hard to find monitors around 210+ PPI. Glad this is one. That said I would be scared to buy this. I’ve heard so many horror stories about the LG UltraFine 5k and the ports breaking and then having to send it in for repair for a long time. At this point I don’t trust their build quality for monitors. In general though, I am so glad to see big high DPI monitors have more than one or two options fin…
For a long time, the only very high (>200) DPI monitors on the market were Apple's first-party ones and the LG UltraFine, the former being stupidly overpriced and the latter having, as you say, reliability horror stories. I assume the dearth of other options was because macOS doesn't do fractional scaling, only 2x, so only Apple users really needed 5K-at-27" or 6K-at-32" whereas Windows/Linux users can be ok with 150…
For much more than a decade, I have not used any monitor with a resolution less than 4k with Linux. I have never used any kind of "scaling" and I would not want to use any kind of "scaling", because that by definition means a lower image quality than it should be.
In X Window System, and in any other decent graphic interface system, the sizes of graphic elements, e.g. the size of fonts or of document pages, should be specified in length units, e.g. typographic points, millimeters or inches.
The graphic system knows the dots-per-inch value of the monitor (using either a value configured by the user or the value read from the monitor EDID when the monitor is initialized). When the graphic elements, such as letters are rasterized, the algorithm uses the dimensions in length units and the DPI value to generate the corresponding bitmap.
"Scaling" normally refers to the scaling of a bitmap into another bitmap with a greater resolution, which can be done either by pixel interpolation or by pixel duplication. This is the wrong place for increasing the size of an image that has been generated by the rasterization of fonts and of vector graphics. The right place for dimension control is during the rasterization process, because only there this can be done without image quality loss.
Thus there should be no "scaling", one should just take care that the monitor DPI is configured correctly, in which case the size of the graphic elements on the screen will be independent of the resolution of the connected monitor. Using a monitor with a higher resolution must result in more beautiful letters, not in smaller letters.
Windows got this wrong, with its scaling factor for fonts, but at least in Linux XFCE this is done right, so I can set whatever DPI value I want, e.g. 137 dpi, 179 dpi, or any other value.
If you configure the exact DPI value of your monitor, then the dimensions of a text or picture on the screen will be equal to those of the same text or picture when printed on paper.
One may want to have a bigger text on screen than on paper, because you normally stay at a greater distance from the monitor than the distance at which you would hold a sheet of paper or a book in your hand.
For this, you must set a bigger DPI value than the real one, so that the rasterizer will believe that your screen is smaller and it will draw bigger letters to compensate for that.
For instance, I set 216 dpi for a Dell 27 inch 4k monitor, which will magnify the images on screen by about 4/3 in comparison with their printed size. This has nothing to do with a "scaling". The rasterizer just uses the 216 dpi value, for example when rasterizing a 12 point font, in such a way that the computed bitmap will have the desired size, which is greater than its printed size by the factor chosen by me.
It amazes me it’s so hard to find monitors around 210+ PPI. Glad this is one. That said I would be scared to buy this. I’ve heard so many horror stories about the LG UltraFine 5k and the ports breaking and then having to send it in for repair for a long time. At this point I don’t trust their build quality for monitors. In general though, I am so glad to see big high DPI monitors have more than one or two options fin…
I bought a launch LG UltraFine 5K that was in the batch of defective units but I was too lazy to return it. Somehow, it's held up just fine a decade later; only color bleeding is an issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think people care all that much about phones. It's just that phones are power-constrained, so manufacturers wanted to move to OLEDs to save on backlight; and because the displays are small, the tech was easier to roll out there than on 6k 32-inch monitors. But premium displays exist. IPS displays on higher-end laptops, such as ThinkPads, are great - we're talking stuff like 14" 3840x2160, 100% Adobe RGB. The…
Outside Thinkpads IPS is basically the cheap/default option on laptops, with OLED being the premium choice. With Thinkpads TN without sRGB coverage is the cheap/default option, with IPS being the premium choice.
I really wish more people wanted screens that looked as good as their cellphone. Bright, sharp text, great color. We've had the great Apple Studio Display for years now, it's about time others came to fix some of it's short-comings like 27" size, 60hz and lack of HDMI ports for use with other systems. So many of us have to stare at a screen for hours every day and having one that reduces strain on my eyes is well wor…
The company I work at gives all new developers a pair of 1080p displays that could have come right out of 2010. It amazes me, and it’s so sad. They have no idea what they’re missing. I’m sure high PPI would pay off fast in eye strain. And it’s not like monitors need replacement yearly. Tons of time to recoup that small cost. I’m not arguing for $2k 37” monitors, just better than $200 ones.
I really wish more people wanted screens that looked as good as their cellphone. Bright, sharp text, great color. We've had the great Apple Studio Display for years now, it's about time others came to fix some of it's short-comings like 27" size, 60hz and lack of HDMI ports for use with other systems. So many of us have to stare at a screen for hours every day and having one that reduces strain on my eyes is well wor…
I don't think people care all that much about phones. It's just that phones are power-constrained, so manufacturers wanted to move to OLEDs to save on backlight; and because the displays are small, the tech was easier to roll out there than on 6k 32-inch monitors. But premium displays exist. IPS displays on higher-end laptops, such as ThinkPads, are great - we're talking stuff like 14" 3840x2160, 100% Adobe RGB. The…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think people care all that much about phones. It's just that phones are power-constrained, so manufacturers wanted to move to OLEDs to save on backlight; and because the displays are small, the tech was easier to roll out there than on 6k 32-inch monitors. But premium displays exist. IPS displays on higher-end laptops, such as ThinkPads, are great - we're talking stuff like 14" 3840x2160, 100% Adobe RGB. The…
Outside Thinkpads IPS is basically the cheap/default option on laptops, with OLED being the premium choice. With Thinkpads TN without sRGB coverage is the cheap/default option, with IPS being the premium choice.
But yes, you are right, they are conservative on new tech in the ThinkPad lineage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a long time, the only very high (>200) DPI monitors on the market were Apple's first-party ones and the LG UltraFine, the former being stupidly overpriced and the latter having, as you say, reliability horror stories. I assume the dearth of other options was because macOS doesn't do fractional scaling, only 2x, so only Apple users really needed 5K-at-27" or 6K-at-32" whereas Windows/Linux users can be ok with 150…
As a Linux user, I am confused when I hear other people talking about "scaling" and even more when they talk about being able to use only a restricted set of values for "scaling". For much more than a decade, I have not used any monitor with a resolution less than 4k with Linux. I have never used any kind of "scaling" and I would not want to use any kind of "scaling", because that by definition means a lower image qu…
For example macOS just renders at 200% and then scales down to the desired level.
Linux is indeed way better at this.