7 ms·

As someone who reads text all day, going up to a 27" 150 PPI monitor was huge. There is a tangible improvement in how that text looks, especially on an accurate

by zanny 9y ago

As someone who reads text all day, going up to a 27" 150 PPI monitor was huge. There is a tangible improvement in how that text looks, especially on an accurately colored monitor. The other footnote should be that display prices have been crashing recently. You can get an IPS 24" FHD monitor for like $90, and a QHD version at 27" for about $150. Those would have been twice as expensive a few years ago. That being said, all those 768p screens are crappy plastic laptops with really slow hard drives. That I guess is what we end up with the Intel took what should have just been the natural evolution of notebooks - small SoCs running a high PPI display in a metal frame - and made them into some premium brand name product with a huge margin on the prices of chips that cost peanuts to manufacture because they didn't have any real competition in the space for a very long time (and even then, their monopolistic behavior lets them keep AMD out of all the major brands premium notebooks anyway).

bayindirh 9y ago
> As someone who reads text all day, going up to a 27" 150 PPI monitor was huge. You're right, however not everyone has the same desktop space to accomodate a 27" panel. I can barely fit a 24" on my desk. 1440p monitors start at 25". > The other footnote should be that display prices have been crashing recently. When I was in the US at the end of 2014, one of my friends said the same thing about flash drives when I pointed out a $44 PNY 128GB flash drive. Unfortunately, other parts of the world doesn't work same way. Because EUR or other currencies are not fixed against US$, and prices fluctuate at most parts of the world if not increase. So, no, technology doesn't become cheaper as it matures at some parts of the world unfortunately. Addendum: BTW, you are right about the 768p screens are generally found in entry level laptops or netbooks. These devices are most feasible ones when they first came out. Now they are bottom end cash cows which are virtually free to build.
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  Lenovo still sells 768p screens in their high end X-series laptops including the very recent X280.
  - vxNsr 9y ago
    Which imo is criminal, if the laptop is starting at >$700 they should "splurge" on the nicer display.
  - ac29 9y ago
    I could swear 1080p was the default on my X270 that I bought a few months ago, but it looks like its a $150 upgrade now -- on an already expensive nearly $1200 base model. I paid just over $800 for my X270, including the 1080P screen and upgraded memory.
- deno 9y ago
  1440p is a resolution for gaming, not work. You can get 24" 4k (2160p) 180ppi 60Hz for $300 e.g. LG 24UD58.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - kuzimoto 9y ago
    Just purchased two 1440p monitors and I love doing work on them. 25" and the PPI is just perfect for me. Anything higher resolution-wise requires a much larger display to be readable at 100% scaling. I'm adamantly against using scaling.
    - deno 9y ago
      > I'm adamantly against using scaling. Why?
      - kuzimoto 9y ago
        I guess I just don't see the point unless you're gaming, watching g 4k content, or doing graphic design. I tested out a 4k 28" and unless I had it at 200% scaling couldn't use it for longer periods of time. Sure it looks a little more smooth, but now you have to render 2.4x (Vs a 2560x1440 monitor) the amount of information for what I think is fairly little gain. I get more screen estate and still readable text with the 25" 1440p. Perhaps my experience would have been better on a desktop, but this was for my work where I have a Surface Pro which when going from a docked to undocked state (or vice versa) with monitors that didn't match the same scaling as the surface resulted in graphical issues that can only be resolved by logging out then in again. Also still come across apps that don't know how to scale so that can be really frustrating.
        deno 9y ago
        > I guess I just don't see the point unless you're gaming, watching g 4k content, or doing graphic design. I have to say you have it exactly backwards! Gaming on 4K is extremely expensive and still basically impossible at refresh rates higher than 60 Hz. In fact, you’ll be lucky to get even that much. 1440p/144Hz is a much better and more realistic target for even the most enthusiastic gamers. Also a most welcome recent trend has been to ship with novel temporal antialiasing techniques, completely redefining how games can look at lower resolutions. Temporal artifacts have always been the bane of 1080p, forcing higher resolutions either directly, or indirectly as subsampling. Once you take that out of equation, the benefit of native 4K is much more modest. 4K movies are nice, but as with games, it’s more of a linear progression. I doubt most people could even tell the difference in a blind test. Full-range HDR is, in my opinion, a much better investment if you want to improve your TV viewing experience (and lately gaming as well) in a noticeable way. I don’t know much about graphic design, but I doubt 4K is all that essential. Everyone has been using 96 dpi displays to create content for very high density mediums for a long time. Even the most craptastic ink printer is 300 dpi+. All you need is a zoom function. Color reproduction is, I think, much more important than resolution. Where HiDPI displays really shine is actually in the most mundane: font rendering. For anyone that works in the medium of text, programmers, writers, publishers, etc., a 4K display will be a considerable and noticeable quality-of-life improvement. Even the most Unix-neckbeardy terminal dwellers will appreciate the simply amazing improvement in visual fidelity and clarity of text on screen[1]. > I tested out a 4k 28" and unless I had it at 200% scaling couldn't use it for longer periods of time. That’s what you are supposed to do! :) It’s only HiDPI at 200% scaling. Otherwise it’s just 2160p, or whatever the implicit resolution is for some partial scaling value. For 4K at 100% scaling you’d need something like 45" screen at minimum, but that’s not actually practical once you consider the optimal viewing distance for such a screen, especially with a 16:9 ratio. > I get more screen estate and still readable text with the 25" 1440p. A 4K display should only provide extra space indirectly. With text on the screen looking so much sharper and more readable, it might be possible to comfortably read smaller font sizes, compared to equivalent 96 dpi display. If you also need extra space as well, then that’s what 5K is for. Though for things like technical drawings or detailed maps you can actually use all the extra 6 million pixels to show more information on the screen. A single-pixel–width hairline is still thick enough to be clearly visible on a HiDPI display[2]. > but now you have to render 2.4x (Vs a 2560x1440 monitor) the amount of information for what I think is fairly little gain. Yes, that’s an issue with things like games. However you can still display 1080p content on a 4K screen, and it looks just as good[3], and often even better[4]. Most graphics software will also work with 1080p bitmaps just fine. Vector graphics necessitates doing a little bit extra work, but for a very good payoff. Overall though, for things like programming or web browsing, it shouldn’t matter. I have a netbook with a cheap Atom SoC (Apollo Lake) and it can handle 3K without breaking a sweat. That much more capable[5] GPU on your Surface Pro should easily handle even multiple 4K displays. Pushing some extra pixels is not a big deal, if all you’re doing is running a desktop compositor with simple effects. > going from a docked to undocked state (or vice versa) with monitors that didn't match the same scaling as the surface resulted in graphical issues that can only be resolved by logging out then in again. Yeah that must suck. Still, it’s only a software bug, and you mustn’t let it keep you from evaluating HiDPI on its merits. > Also still come across apps that don't know how to scale so that can be really frustrating. That’s life on bleeding edge ;) Sure, it’s annoying, but the situation is a lot better than it used to be. Even Linux is doing fine, at least if you stick to recent releases. Some distros like to ship outdated software for some reason :/ Still, in my opinion, the quality-of-life improvements of a HiDPI display very much outweigh the occasional inconvenience. Though obviously, YMMV. [1] https://www.eizo.be/eizo-pixeldichte-im-zeitalter-von-4k-e5.jpg https://www.eizo.be/eizo-pixeldichte-im-zeitalter-von-4k-e5.... [2] Assuming you’re viewing at optimal distance. [3] With the notable exception of 96dpi native pixel art. 4K has exactly 4 times as many pixels as 1080p, so it shouldn’t be an issue in theory. Nearest-neighbor will give you exactly what you want. However in practice you need to force scaling in software, otherwise graphic drivers, and most monitor’s postprocessing, tends to default to bicubic scaling. That said, pixel art is not computationally expensive, so it’s mostly just an inconvenience. [4] You can use advanced scaling algorithms to upscale 1080p to 4K and it usually looks great. E.g. MPV with opengl-hq profile or MadVR on Windows. For that you’ll need something a notch over integrated graphics though, e.g. RX 560, GTX 1050 and on mobile Ryzen 2500U or equivalent. [5] http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-HD-4000-Mobile-125-GHz-vs-Intel-HD-Graphics-G3-PentiumCeleron-1011-GHz/m7653vsm7695 http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-HD-4000-Mobile-12...
shados 9y ago
2560x1440 on a 27 inch at a reasonable distance is pretty darn close to optimal IMO, so 4k, to me, is for 34" monitors (but 27 inch I feel is optimal on 60-75 inch desks, which is what I usually work with, so 4k rarely matters). I'm with you on accurately calibrated monitors though! God most of them suck out of the box.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  I never get comments like these, as if the text just gets smaller as the resolution increases, rather than what actually happens (the text gets crisper). 5120x2880 is so nice because you can’t see the pixels and words almost look like they are on paper.
  - Stratoscope 9y ago
    Seconded. 2560x1440 on a 27" panel is only 109 pixels per inch. I use a ThinkPad with that same resolution on a 14" display, with a 24" 4K UHD next to it in portrait mode. Both displays are around 200 pixels per inch, plus or minus. It's great not having to see the pixels, so much more pleasant and easy on the eyes. Also the combination of a portrait display with the landscape display is really nice. I can read an entire PDF page without scrolling.
    - kuzimoto 9y ago
      I agree that having higher PPI is great, but are you using scaling to make text larger? I was barely able to use a 28" 4k a 100%, can't imagine doing that at 24"
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        Scaling is usually on by default in most modern operating systems.
      - Stratoscope 9y ago
        Yes, I should have mentioned that I'm using Windows 10 with 225% scaling on both the 4K UHD 24" display (187 DPI) and the WQHD 14" (210 DPI). Some people like a bit less scaling, some more, but in general you want a scaling factor that roughly matches your display's pixels per inch. The original Windows "standard display" was assumed to be around 96 DPI. That's the monitor that 100% scaling (i.e. no scaling) is intended for. Round the 96 up to 100 and we can say that in rough terms, the percentage scaling should be in the neighborhood of the monitor's DPI. So monitors in the 200 DPI range are best at around 200% scaling. A 28" 4K UHD has 157 DPI, so I wouldn't want to try it at 100% scaling - ouch. It ought to be running in the 150-175% scaling range. The idea with a high-DPI monitor isn't to make everything smaller on the screen, it's to make everything sharper and more detailed. When you double the DPI and scale appropriately, you get four times the number of pixels for everything you put on the screen.

by zanny 9y ago

bayindirh 9y ago

> As someone who reads text all day, going up to a 27" 150 PPI monitor was huge. You're right, however not everyone has the same desktop space to accomodate a 27" panel. I can barely fit a 24" on my desk. 1440p monitors start at 25". > The other footnote should be that display prices have been crashing recently. When I was in the US at the end of 2014, one of my friends said the same thing about flash drives when I pointed out a $44 PNY 128GB flash drive. Unfortunately, other parts of the world doesn't work same way. Because EUR or other currencies are not fixed against US$, and prices fluctuate at most parts of the world if not increase. So, no, technology doesn't become cheaper as it matures at some parts of the world unfortunately. Addendum: BTW, you are right about the 768p screens are generally found in entry level laptops or netbooks. These devices are most feasible ones when they first came out. Now they are bottom end cash cows which are virtually free to build.

MichaelGG 9y ago
Lenovo still sells 768p screens in their high end X-series laptops including the very recent X280.
- vxNsr 9y ago
  Which imo is criminal, if the laptop is starting at >$700 they should "splurge" on the nicer display.
- ac29 9y ago
  I could swear 1080p was the default on my X270 that I bought a few months ago, but it looks like its a $150 upgrade now -- on an already expensive nearly $1200 base model. I paid just over $800 for my X270, including the 1080P screen and upgraded memory.
deno 9y ago
1440p is a resolution for gaming, not work. You can get 24" 4k (2160p) 180ppi 60Hz for $300 e.g. LG 24UD58.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- kuzimoto 9y ago
  Just purchased two 1440p monitors and I love doing work on them. 25" and the PPI is just perfect for me. Anything higher resolution-wise requires a much larger display to be readable at 100% scaling. I'm adamantly against using scaling.
  - deno 9y ago
    > I'm adamantly against using scaling. Why?
    - kuzimoto 9y ago
      I guess I just don't see the point unless you're gaming, watching g 4k content, or doing graphic design. I tested out a 4k 28" and unless I had it at 200% scaling couldn't use it for longer periods of time. Sure it looks a little more smooth, but now you have to render 2.4x (Vs a 2560x1440 monitor) the amount of information for what I think is fairly little gain. I get more screen estate and still readable text with the 25" 1440p. Perhaps my experience would have been better on a desktop, but this was for my work where I have a Surface Pro which when going from a docked to undocked state (or vice versa) with monitors that didn't match the same scaling as the surface resulted in graphical issues that can only be resolved by logging out then in again. Also still come across apps that don't know how to scale so that can be really frustrating.
      - deno 9y ago
        > I guess I just don't see the point unless you're gaming, watching g 4k content, or doing graphic design. I have to say you have it exactly backwards! Gaming on 4K is extremely expensive and still basically impossible at refresh rates higher than 60 Hz. In fact, you’ll be lucky to get even that much. 1440p/144Hz is a much better and more realistic target for even the most enthusiastic gamers. Also a most welcome recent trend has been to ship with novel temporal antialiasing techniques, completely redefining how games can look at lower resolutions. Temporal artifacts have always been the bane of 1080p, forcing higher resolutions either directly, or indirectly as subsampling. Once you take that out of equation, the benefit of native 4K is much more modest. 4K movies are nice, but as with games, it’s more of a linear progression. I doubt most people could even tell the difference in a blind test. Full-range HDR is, in my opinion, a much better investment if you want to improve your TV viewing experience (and lately gaming as well) in a noticeable way. I don’t know much about graphic design, but I doubt 4K is all that essential. Everyone has been using 96 dpi displays to create content for very high density mediums for a long time. Even the most craptastic ink printer is 300 dpi+. All you need is a zoom function. Color reproduction is, I think, much more important than resolution. Where HiDPI displays really shine is actually in the most mundane: font rendering. For anyone that works in the medium of text, programmers, writers, publishers, etc., a 4K display will be a considerable and noticeable quality-of-life improvement. Even the most Unix-neckbeardy terminal dwellers will appreciate the simply amazing improvement in visual fidelity and clarity of text on screen[1]. > I tested out a 4k 28" and unless I had it at 200% scaling couldn't use it for longer periods of time. That’s what you are supposed to do! :) It’s only HiDPI at 200% scaling. Otherwise it’s just 2160p, or whatever the implicit resolution is for some partial scaling value. For 4K at 100% scaling you’d need something like 45" screen at minimum, but that’s not actually practical once you consider the optimal viewing distance for such a screen, especially with a 16:9 ratio. > I get more screen estate and still readable text with the 25" 1440p. A 4K display should only provide extra space indirectly. With text on the screen looking so much sharper and more readable, it might be possible to comfortably read smaller font sizes, compared to equivalent 96 dpi display. If you also need extra space as well, then that’s what 5K is for. Though for things like technical drawings or detailed maps you can actually use all the extra 6 million pixels to show more information on the screen. A single-pixel–width hairline is still thick enough to be clearly visible on a HiDPI display[2]. > but now you have to render 2.4x (Vs a 2560x1440 monitor) the amount of information for what I think is fairly little gain. Yes, that’s an issue with things like games. However you can still display 1080p content on a 4K screen, and it looks just as good[3], and often even better[4]. Most graphics software will also work with 1080p bitmaps just fine. Vector graphics necessitates doing a little bit extra work, but for a very good payoff. Overall though, for things like programming or web browsing, it shouldn’t matter. I have a netbook with a cheap Atom SoC (Apollo Lake) and it can handle 3K without breaking a sweat. That much more capable[5] GPU on your Surface Pro should easily handle even multiple 4K displays. Pushing some extra pixels is not a big deal, if all you’re doing is running a desktop compositor with simple effects. > going from a docked to undocked state (or vice versa) with monitors that didn't match the same scaling as the surface resulted in graphical issues that can only be resolved by logging out then in again. Yeah that must suck. Still, it’s only a software bug, and you mustn’t let it keep you from evaluating HiDPI on its merits. > Also still come across apps that don't know how to scale so that can be really frustrating. That’s life on bleeding edge ;) Sure, it’s annoying, but the situation is a lot better than it used to be. Even Linux is doing fine, at least if you stick to recent releases. Some distros like to ship outdated software for some reason :/ Still, in my opinion, the quality-of-life improvements of a HiDPI display very much outweigh the occasional inconvenience. Though obviously, YMMV. [1] https://www.eizo.be/eizo-pixeldichte-im-zeitalter-von-4k-e5.jpg https://www.eizo.be/eizo-pixeldichte-im-zeitalter-von-4k-e5.... [2] Assuming you’re viewing at optimal distance. [3] With the notable exception of 96dpi native pixel art. 4K has exactly 4 times as many pixels as 1080p, so it shouldn’t be an issue in theory. Nearest-neighbor will give you exactly what you want. However in practice you need to force scaling in software, otherwise graphic drivers, and most monitor’s postprocessing, tends to default to bicubic scaling. That said, pixel art is not computationally expensive, so it’s mostly just an inconvenience. [4] You can use advanced scaling algorithms to upscale 1080p to 4K and it usually looks great. E.g. MPV with opengl-hq profile or MadVR on Windows. For that you’ll need something a notch over integrated graphics though, e.g. RX 560, GTX 1050 and on mobile Ryzen 2500U or equivalent. [5] http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-HD-4000-Mobile-125-GHz-vs-Intel-HD-Graphics-G3-PentiumCeleron-1011-GHz/m7653vsm7695 http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-HD-4000-Mobile-12...

shados 9y ago

2560x1440 on a 27 inch at a reasonable distance is pretty darn close to optimal IMO, so 4k, to me, is for 34" monitors (but 27 inch I feel is optimal on 60-75 inch desks, which is what I usually work with, so 4k rarely matters). I'm with you on accurately calibrated monitors though! God most of them suck out of the box.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
I never get comments like these, as if the text just gets smaller as the resolution increases, rather than what actually happens (the text gets crisper). 5120x2880 is so nice because you can’t see the pixels and words almost look like they are on paper.
- Stratoscope 9y ago
  Seconded. 2560x1440 on a 27" panel is only 109 pixels per inch. I use a ThinkPad with that same resolution on a 14" display, with a 24" 4K UHD next to it in portrait mode. Both displays are around 200 pixels per inch, plus or minus. It's great not having to see the pixels, so much more pleasant and easy on the eyes. Also the combination of a portrait display with the landscape display is really nice. I can read an entire PDF page without scrolling.
  - kuzimoto 9y ago
    I agree that having higher PPI is great, but are you using scaling to make text larger? I was barely able to use a 28" 4k a 100%, can't imagine doing that at 24"
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Scaling is usually on by default in most modern operating systems.
    - Stratoscope 9y ago
      Yes, I should have mentioned that I'm using Windows 10 with 225% scaling on both the 4K UHD 24" display (187 DPI) and the WQHD 14" (210 DPI). Some people like a bit less scaling, some more, but in general you want a scaling factor that roughly matches your display's pixels per inch. The original Windows "standard display" was assumed to be around 96 DPI. That's the monitor that 100% scaling (i.e. no scaling) is intended for. Round the 96 up to 100 and we can say that in rough terms, the percentage scaling should be in the neighborhood of the monitor's DPI. So monitors in the 200 DPI range are best at around 200% scaling. A 28" 4K UHD has 157 DPI, so I wouldn't want to try it at 100% scaling - ouch. It ought to be running in the 150-175% scaling range. The idea with a high-DPI monitor isn't to make everything smaller on the screen, it's to make everything sharper and more detailed. When you double the DPI and scale appropriately, you get four times the number of pixels for everything you put on the screen.