Whats the best size for a 4k display? Are larger sizes better or smaller due to pixel density and the supposed retina display effect?
 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
Whats the best size for a 4k display? Are larger sizes better or smaller due to pixel density and the supposed retina display effect?
Hi
Good question.
I have a 32" 4K display and I would take a 32" over a 27" any day of the week. The size is worth more than the extra sharpness for me, and a 4K 32" looks way better than some plebian 1440p 27" or 1080p 24" monitor.
Still excited for 8K 32" monitors
43"
32" is the minimum if you want to run windows unscaled, which you want for the screen real estate and not dealing with windows' shitty scaling
Some people prefer 2 smaller monitors than single large one though.
2 x 27" 4K is reasonable still.
"You won't profit that resolution" is a meme.
Everyone is pushing high res as long it's cheap, you don't need to see individual pixels, but you benefit from real life anti-aliasing due to LACK of your eye precision, you still profit.
Apple is already pushing 6K screen on 32" because UI looks smoother.
24", so you can get 2x scaling.
At 27", it should be 5K so you can get 2x for 1440p.
24" for gaming, 27" for work. Any larger is moronic.
27 is a stupid size. too small to be productive or immersive and right in the spot where 4k requires fractional scaling.
the truth is, there are no decently sized 4k displays out there. 24 is okay-ish, because it allows you to scale to 200%, meaning you get crisp text and the space equivalent of 1080p. on the other hand it’s tiny and a pain in the ass to use for that reason.
A good productivity size is 32, but then you run into the same problem that 27 gives you; fractional scaling. And if you go any larger, you would be running at 100%. Lots of space, but the benefits of high resolutions are otherwise lost.
The ideal display would be something that gives you the equivalent space of 1440p but at 200% scaling. So 5120x2880. In other words 5k. It would work well on smaller 27 inch displays and regular 32 inch.
But don’t get tempted to buy Crapple products now.
Anything larger than 27" is a meme and considered a tv.
Anything smaller than 32 is not worth it in 2015+7
Might be time to get your eyes checked out gramps
>thinks screen size has anything to do with eyesight
>in a thread specifically discussing pixel density
t. someone who has never used 32in for a desktop monitor
40-43" if you want to run 1:1 UI scaling at a reasonable PPI. 32" or smaller and you either need to use scaling or you need a magnifying glass.
85 inches
27-28" and 31.5" seems to be the norm.
24" is double in price.
43"
Any desk monitor is too small for 4k. 4k is for very large televisions and other incidental displays.
Basically, next to worthless.
Most desktop monitors are actually too large for 4k. You always want to have your UI scaled to 2x for optimal results. But if you do that with 4k basically only a 24 inch display is viable.
Just think what you would consider an optimal resolution for any screen size and double that.
So for example, 1440p at 27 inches makes for 120ppi. Good to use. Meaning you ideally want 240ppi to get a sharper image but leave all the UI elements the same size.
>scaling up to 4k
Why don't you just save money and get the lower resolution monitor in the first fricking place instead of wasting time scaling your fricking meme shit for your overpriced meme monitor?
see
In essence
>hurr durr I can’t afford it so it’s probably not worth it
btw this would put my ideal desktop monitor at
>32 inch
>6400x3600
Scaled to 2x this would put your UI to a size as if it were a 115ppi display.
No, you're just dumb and missing the point
Monitors are for more than your fricking gaiamyn graphics, kid. It's called "text" and it's too goddamn small on desktop monitors with your 4k bullshit unless you waste time scaling it and when you do you might as well just use the lower fricking resolution in the first goddamn place and save your money not buying shitty meme monitors made to separate fools from their money.
>he has never seen scaled text
>he presses his fricking eyeballs up to the goddamn screen and cries when he can see fricking individual pixels
Sigh. You fricking brainwashed consumer prostitutes.
Oh, I see
>he has terrible eyesight and can’t make out individual pixels on a 100ppi display at arm’s length
no shame in getting glasses, kid. you’ll be surprised what the world actually looks like to us healthy people
>making excuses for being a consumer prostitute kid pressing his eyeballs against the screen by attacking me with a shitload of fricking bullshit
I remember when you could see individual pixels on a screen, kids. The 80s. Welcome to 2022 when even 1080p is more than enough to hide fricking individual pixels at a normal reading distance. Keep lying about how I'm blind, though, just because you're mad that you wasted money on a fricking meme monitor sold to you by greedy corporations who knew it was unnecessary bullshit but needed your fricking money.
>Welcome to 2022 when even 1080p is more than enough to hide fricking individual pixels at a normal reading distance
Are you fricking blind?
You're just trolling at this point. I really feel sorry for kids who have been so utterly brainwashed by corporate bullshit that they feel compelled to fricking lie constantly on a goddamn ANONYMOUS board.
That or you are corporate shills trying to sell your 4k trash.
Please don't post again until you can give me the correct definition of "Vernier acuity"
>Vernier acuity is a type of visual acuity – more precisely of hyperacuity – that measures the ability to discern a disalignment among two line segments or gratings.
So absolutely shit nothing to do with seeing pixels. Jesus, do you shills just paste any random fricking bullshit you see? Even pixels are fricking aligned, it's how a fricking monitor works.
JUST ADMIT IT. JUST FRICKING ADMIT YOU'RE GODDAMN WRONG. THAT OR YOU'RE A PAID SHILL. FRICK. IS IT THAT HARD?
>JUST ADMIT IT. JUST FRICKING ADMIT YOU'RE GODDAMN WRONG. THAT OR YOU'RE A PAID SHILL. FRICK. IS IT THAT HARD?
I'm not wrong, you simply fail to understand displays and the science behind them.
Why am I the one trolling when I'm the one who owns a 4K monitor and has owned multiple 1080p and 1440p monitors in the past.
You know nothing John Snow
You blind poorgay morons who hate scaling are the reason why Apple is 10+ years ahead of the PC market in monitors. iToddlers get gorgeous high-DPI font and UI rendering while Wingays suffer with 100% scale like it's 2005.
>So absolutely shit nothing to do with seeing pixels.
It measures aliasing so it's directly relevant here. Your ability to see where the pixels are is much finer than your ability to see individual pixels. This is why games use anti-aliasing and why 4K is not quite ideal even on a 12" laptop.
Jesus, any normal person can see the quality difference of a doubled resolution from 3m distance. Consult a doctor about your eyes.
Agreed. I can even see individual pixels on my 32" 4K display on 3m distance under extreme circumstances
No you fricking can't. You are fricking lying as a coping mechanism for falling for corporate shilling.
Grow up. I honestly can't understand why kids have to double down on their fricking bullshit when it is much easier and better for them to just admit their fricking biases and bullshit so they can learn and grow.
lol, keep living in denial poorgay
Kek, you're still dumb.
Just scale text or use bigger text
High resolution has become a huge ergonomics factor. I see more and more companies in my area putting 4k monitors in every workplace to reduce eye strain for their worker bees.
That's nice really. Nobody should have to suffer with 24-27" 1080p-1440p monitors these days.
>4k
you don't need that
navsat is 720p and anime is 1080p
Less than 4K is suboptimal for office work and unacceptable for films.
>office work and movies
i wrote my ba and watch anime on a 13" laptop just fine
you don't need 4k
You don't need your 13" laptop either, and pretending it was ever a matter of need tells me that you just can't afford better.
i have 27" 1080p monitor too and i don't see any pixels either
go shill your monitors in bestbuy or whatever
You're a free man, you don't have to buy any monitor. I am simply trying to give advice that's based on the papers I've read and relevant to a given use case.
ok, your vision is awful and youre also moronic
>your vision is awful
i don't look for individual pixels like an autist
hell, even my old Thinkpad with a 1366x768 screen doesn't look half bad
>youre also moronic
rich coming from someone who wastes money on 4k monitors
I don't even need to try to see pixels on my 32" 4K monitor. You're going to be saying the same thing about 8K and you're going to be just as wrong.
>8k
not a single monitor or tv in my home is 4k and i don't plan to """upgrade""" any time soon
as i have said previously, anime is either 720p or 1080p
>not a single monitor or tv in my home is 4k
You've made that quite clear yes, you couldn't afford it anyway.
I'm not going to allow you to spread bullshit without correction though, you and many others are too stupid to read research papers on video and understand them.
>yes, you couldn't afford it anyway
>if you don't waste money on my latest shilled gadget, that means your POOR
yup, still not """upgrading"""
in fact, i'm gonna look out for another X series with a 768p screen right now
>research papers
all paid by 4k shills like you?
hard pass
I know you're poor because you have an irrational hatred of improvements to technology.
There's no objective justification to anything you say, it's just your contrarian feelies before realies.
>you're poor because you have an irrational hatred of improvements to technology
no, i have an irrational hatred of buying into your 4k trash when the only thing i watch (anime) maxes out at 1080p, didn't buy into your 3d tv shilling either
this device has a higher resolution than my desktop's monitor btw
>captcha
poor.
Good old 3D. Still hoping it makes a comeback, it didn't deserve to die.
You don't have to buy any monitor, but you should stop being delusional.
>i don't look for individual pixels like an autist
>my dog just took a shit on my carpet but I'm not an autist so I don't smell it
>keeping a dog inside your home
american moment
>rich coming from someone who wastes money on 4k monitors
Maybe we're not blind like you
now I know you're lying.
1080p at 27 inches makes every individual pixel about 0.31mm in size. that's frick huge. if you can't see that from a normal working distance your eyes must be fricked.
Kek, walk and test your vision. Driving with bad eyesight is dangerous
>Less than 4K is suboptimal for office work and unacceptable for films.
I think movies work just fine at 1080p. Not having compression artifacts and HDR is way more important for movies than resolution if you ask me. But it also depends on how large the monitor is.
UHD Blurays provide plenty of bitrate for 4K
It also allows you to integer scale 1080P and 720P content.
Name me a monitor that can do HDR well, you can't
There are a number of monitors with >HDR1000 certification and full-array backlight.
Dell has a 32" model with over 2K zones
I prefer 27 inch.
4k means you can sit closer to larger display without eye strain
so basically ANY FRICKING SIZE YOU WANT
>Whats the best size for a 4k display?
Depends what you are doing. I would say 27" for productivity and 32" for movies, assuming we only count monitors you can actually buy.
I got 24 inch 1080p and 27 inch 4K, 32 inch is a lot more expensive and too big
>Whats the best size for a 4k display?
Windows-native. That is, 96PPI. 23" for fullHD, 46" for 4K, so about 50".
Windows supports scaling now, you should use 200%.
correction
>windows native x2
Always go for twice of what would have been optimal in the days before scaling.
btw even if you want to run at 100%, go for something like 120ppi. like a 27 inch 1440p. perfectly fine without scaling
Hopefully some day we can do 500% scaling as standard in order to match Vernier.
17"
There is no best you absolute moron it depends on your viewing distance and whether you want scaling or not
13" or bust