81–90 of 322 posts
I don't know why anyone would buy this goofy monitor, the LG 27GN950-B has a gorgeous 4K@144Hz HDR screen, works great for gaming and for reading text / coding, and is cheaper too. You could get this monitor, a pair of great AudioEngine A2 speakers and a webcam, and still have money left over
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 5K display offers about 1,000 extra horizontal and 700 extra vertical pixels. When you're working with 4K images and video, that’s enough space for video editing tools on the side and timelines at the bottom, all while viewing "UltraHD" in its full, unscaled beauty. Until you've experienced what it's like to use a 5K (or even 6K, which will really spoil you), it's hard to appreciate why 4K is insufficient for many…
I've had the 5K LG 27" monitor for about 5 years now and 4K monitors just look blurry now. Feels like you can count the pixels even though you can't. Reading VSCode off this monitor feels like reading analog text on paper. It's amazing for eye strain. Really doesn't feel like you're staring at a screen all day.
I don't know why anyone would buy this goofy monitor, the LG 27GN950-B has a gorgeous 4K@144Hz HDR screen, works great for gaming and for reading text / coding, and is cheaper too. You could get this monitor, a pair of great AudioEngine A2 speakers and a webcam, and still have money left over
Don't forget that the Apple Studio Display has a hard-wired power cord. Seriously. The last monitor I owned with a non-removable power cord was a CRT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a weird one. 60hz is pretty low refresh rate. Definitely not a gaming monitor. But it's resolution is quite high. At this resolution, I think there's only one other monitor, the LG Ultra Fine 5k is which is like only $200 cheaper. I think for people that care about resolution/pixel density, this monitor has basically zero competition? There's plenty of lower resolution monitors with higher refresh rates.
> the LG Ultra Fine 5k is which is like only $200 cheaper. $300 cheaper and 8 years old now, so likely can find used examples if you wanted. It's pretty clear that 5k / 218ppi just has no significant market appeal at this point outside of the Apple ecosystem. There were a few other 5k displays, but they've all packed up since (including LG, they don't make that 5k Ultrafine anymore afaict) Although arguably since the…
I would not expect any Windows users to chose this display unless they are the few who would make the same quality vs price choice that an Apple customer might.
Plugging a Macbook into a normal high-end monitor requires a USB-C to DisplayPort cable. Doing the opposite requires...the exact same type of cable. The only weird part here is that it's 5K. You should be able to send audio over DisplayPort too, but I wouldn't be surprised if Apple doesn't support that.
It's not a great experience having to plug multiple USB-C devices into my machine, especially in a WfH world. I'm going to end up damaging a laptop shuffling things around at some point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
5K resolution is perfect since it can drive retina level at 1440p, the best pixel density at 27 inches. (Personal preference obv)
IMHO 4k was the worst thing to ever happen to monitors. Now we have screens ranging from 24" to 43+" all using the same physical resoluton. This means that at all the most popular screen sizes you need to use some weird 1.5 or 1.25 scaling factor which results in all sorts of weird rendering quirks, like 1px gaps when rendering engines try to fit elements to pixel boundaries. Plus SVGs often rasterize to a blurry mes…
I'm starting to wonder if vector formats and layout engines need pixel hinting capabilities, like font formats already do. As far as I'm aware browser engines already have to hack in these sorts of layout tweaks to avoid, say, float-based layouts collapsing into multiple lines at odd zoom percentages. Apple's insistence on integer scaling ratios is noble, but it also renders the display part of their hardware ecosystem an island.
User connects a premium low market share monitor not designed for gaming or for a PC really, despite some software supplied to the vendor, to a gaming PC and then complains about how difficult it is even though it eventually all works anyway. I don't get these articles or why you'd even buy one of these monitors for this case, even though I own one. I'd grab a random 144Hz 4k jobby instead. But I'm not a fan of punch…
When all was said and done, the monitor I found turned out to have similar specs to the Thunderbolt display. Color reproduction, pixel response rates. Basically the same panel and driver. It was $100 cheaper than the Thunderbolt display, at the outside. But made of plastic. So I said fuck it, $100 for an aluminum exterior isn't that crazy, and I can pick it up today instead of dealing with UPS.
I just unplugged that monitor a couple months ago, and I keep trying to figure out if I can squeeze it back on my desk by rearranging some things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the LG Ultra Fine 5k is which is like only $200 cheaper. $300 cheaper and 8 years old now, so likely can find used examples if you wanted. It's pretty clear that 5k / 218ppi just has no significant market appeal at this point outside of the Apple ecosystem. There were a few other 5k displays, but they've all packed up since (including LG, they don't make that 5k Ultrafine anymore afaict) Although arguably since the…
That is largely due to the manufacturers focusing on price and display size for their volume business. 4K displays are produced in high volume and can be a lot cheaper and can be larger in absolute display size terms. That means that 5K will be more expensive. For some people that additional resolution and sharpness matter more than a few hundred dollars in cost. I would not expect any Windows users to chose this dis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
5K resolution is perfect since it can drive retina level at 1440p, the best pixel density at 27 inches. (Personal preference obv)
IMHO 4k was the worst thing to ever happen to monitors. Now we have screens ranging from 24" to 43+" all using the same physical resoluton. This means that at all the most popular screen sizes you need to use some weird 1.5 or 1.25 scaling factor which results in all sorts of weird rendering quirks, like 1px gaps when rendering engines try to fit elements to pixel boundaries. Plus SVGs often rasterize to a blurry mes…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pixels are nothing without the corresponding physical real estate imo
This is why I have a comically large 43” 4k which I operate at 1x. It’s roughly the same density as a 27” at 1440. High DPI is nice and all, but I’ll take more space to work over pixel density any day.
It is just 60Hz, so you might not want to use it for gaming, though there are higher refresh TVs out there these days. Of course you have to dig through the marketing fluff to see if they are a true 120Hz panel or not.