Why aren't you using a 4k tv set at 96dpi as a computer monitor, IQfy?
It's literally like having 4 1080p monitors side by side, and even at massive sizes like 55 and 65 inches, it's still cheaper than a quad monitor setup, you don't need VESA mounts either.
Forgot to add, you can also think of it as 2 ultrawide monitors stacked on top of each other.
>96dpi
Going back down to 96/72 dpi and looking at that awful text rendering is eye torture.
Higher dpi text looks blurry on windows
>windows
>american reddit
>windows
No it doesn’t. At high enough DPI, nothing is blurry on any OS / Device. At low DPI, Cleartype blows other font renderings out of the water, so either way you’re just wrong.
TVs are NOT the same as monitors
I've been using a 42.5" 4k 60hz IPS panel for 5 or 6 years now. 2nd minitor is a 27" 1440p 144hz VA panel.
Both have similar pixel density, so moving windows between the two is mostly seamless.
I use it at 150% scaling. OLED subpixel size isn't the best so I sit two feet further away than with a monitor.
I'm poor. That's what's stopping me.
cute, who is that?
Itsuki from Quints of course
yeah of course
That looks gay as frick.
Because I already have 4 monitors that cost pocket change
A 4K monitor has less horizontal pixels than two 2k monitors even with one in landscape, I’d rather work horizontally than be looking up and down all the time which is a drag.
>2k
where are you finding these 2048x1080 monitors
1440p or 2560x1440 displays are often colloquially called 2k my dear pedant as I'm sure you were already well aware, thanks for the you.
>colloquially
you mean wrongly
moron they're called 2K before you were born
>calls QHD 2K
>calls others morons
fricking moron zoomer broccoli head
>t. seething zoom zooms
>calling 1440p ""2k""
anyone who says this is immediately outing themself as a zoomie now go play fortnite you moronic inbred mutt
btw, 1080p is 2k. 1440p would actually be "2.5k"
>projecting this hard
>1080p is 2K
Holy shit you're actually mentally deranged aren't you?
He's not really wrong
DCI 2k is 2048x1080
consumer 16:9 aspect ratio gives you 1920x1080.
DCI 4k is 4096x2160
consumer 4k (16:9) is 3840x2160
You are so stupid that I can't even laugh. I'm just shocked.
why not just get an 8k monitor?
I couldn't find an ATI card that could push that res for shit 🙁
I use mactype on Windows and it's nice
Because I'm using a CRT monitor.
haha. gay
because I live in a small apartment and anything over 24" would take up too much space
I'm also not a consoomer like you
so unnecessary
It's hard to find TVs with proper chroma 4:4:4
It's not hard at all, as in, literally all of them support that.
Not for 4k@60Hz
all of them with hdmi 2.0 or newer support that
False
I was wondering how you're supposed to buy HDMI 2.0 cables ever since they made resolutions greater than 4K@60Hz optional despite being in the standard and also they retroactively upgraded every older cable to 2.0 because every new part of the standard is also optional.
HDMI 2.1
The HDMI group are even making it so they wont certify your product for HDMI if they call an HDMI 2.0 port HDMI 2.0, it MUST be called HDMI 2.1 even if it only meets the 2.0 spec.
Fricking anti-consumer bullshit
i have a 4k 32" monitor, it really is amazing to code on. i can either have 4 things on my screen or have a long window, i can see so much more code at once. it really is worth it.
I use a 48in C1 like that sometimes, but 32in would be much better for desk use.
>Why aren't you using a 4k tv set at 96dpi as a computer monitor, IQfy?
I have a 32" 4K at work and it's nice. Thinking of getting a 42" LG C2 for home.
I use my tv as a computer monitor and browse from the couch
I prefer multiple actual monitors over one big one.
Having multiple windows per screen is just more of a hassle.
I just use whatever I could steal from work.
No idea what they are. One has an orange piece of trim.
If a certain company would sell the monitor seperately we'd have 192ppi display at 4500x3000.
the top of your monitor is supposed to be at eye level for proper posture. this b***h is looking straight up like he's in the front row at the movies.
Why not just an ultrawide? If you go with the setup from the OP, you either won't be using the top half or you'll be craning your neck uncomfortably.
I made the mistake of buying a small (27" 4k monitor). Definitely don't do this. I bet at 32" it looks perfect at 100% scaling.
I have 32" 4k and use 150% scale
nah, 100% scale requires ~36" at the smallest.
And really 38-42" is the sweet spot.
I use a 42.5" 4k at my desk, and I think it's just slightly too large, I'd love a 38" or 40"
>Tylenol
When I saw a pill bottle on the zoomed-out pic, I thought it would be either HRT or stims.
42” is the minimum for 1:1 4K
>and even at massive sizes like 55 and 65 inches, it's still cheaper than a quad monitor setup
Using the cheapest TV from walmart as a monitor is a bad idea.
48" is the max size for a monitor, 43" is the best size for the quad split productivity panel and 32" 4k is the best for everyone else.
Literally every website is designed for 1080p, I have enough 720p anime (from early 2010s) that I don't wanna make the mistake of blowing shit up to full screen and dealing with upscaling or websites rendering in stupid and unpredictable ways, my own website looks horrible at 4K if you scale it 1:1.
Plus, when I do decide to play games, I have to lower the resolution which will look awful at that size or play them in windowed mode.
I have a tiling window manager that already makes full use of my 1080p monitor, why do I need more?
>Literally every website is designed for 1080p, I have enough 720p anime (from early 2010s) that I don't wanna make the mistake of blowing shit up to full screen and dealing with upscaling or websites rendering in stupid and unpredictable ways, my own website looks horrible at 4K if you scale it 1:1.
This is a you problem because no matter what website or 1080/720p content I consume it all still looks the same as it does on the native 1080p monitor next to me. Sure, I can tell that 1080p video doesn't look as good, or that small images are small, but it doesn't look worse in any way.
43" Sony X80J
RGB panel, non-pwm backlight, 4:4:4, only 60hz tho
I've been using this for about 18months and quite happy.
look at that Fisher Price keyboard, are you a child?
i've tried gaming with a 55 incher and it's not really optimal when you're gaming with a pc and not a console. i'm a 27 incher for life. anything over that is just too fricking big when you're sitting right in front of the screen,
Too big. I want 24".
I actually prefer two seperate monitors because when I have hundreds of windows open, it's easy to quickly move a window to one screen and maximize it. With one giant display, it's a pain in the ass to organize windows.
also you will get neck pain from moving your head so much because the screen spans wider than your field of view, given how close you are to it. If you can't glance the entire screen by just moving your eyes in their sockets and without moving your head, it's a huge ergonomic failure.
I'd love to go back to 42"+, but it would have to be OLED since I also watch a ton of movies etc. But I also work on it, 10+hours of static ui.
I'd have to replace it yearly for burn-in.
I'm using 2, 32" 4k Monitors.
MacOS sucks for using multiple monitors. I have visual glitches, focusing a window I wasn't on takes ages etc. Apple doesn't care about actual users, they just want you to consoom so one screen is enough for them. Frick em