5 ms·

Serious question: what is the point of such high pixel density? I assume you can not tell any difference between 2k and 4k from the distance a laptop is suppose

Serious question: what is the point of such high pixel density? I assume you can not tell any difference between 2k and 4k from the distance a laptop is supposed to be used. Is it purely a marketing hype? Or am I missing something?

detaro 8y ago
Full-HD is ~140 PPI, that's not low but not so high more wouldn't be a noticeable difference. Not really needed for general use IMHO, but also not just hype.
Nursie 8y ago
> I assume you can not tell any difference between 2k and 4k from the distance a laptop is supposed to be used My 2013 13" macbook pro retina has a resolution of 2560x1600. I absolutely can tell the difference compared to 'Full' HD, just in crispness of image, beautiful font rendering etc. So a 4K screen at 15.6" doesn't seem outrageous to me.
- jakobegger 8y ago
  Also, OLED displays have fewer subpixels as far as I know. I think LCD usually have Red/Green/Blue for every pixel, OLEDs don't. So on an OLED display, you need a higher resolution to make it look as sharp as an LCD.
have_faith 8y ago
Font rendering is the big one. It has a massive impact on the readability of complex characters at small font sizes.
systoll 8y ago
My understanding is that this is pentile, meaning each ‘pixel’ is either R+G, or G+B; not the R+G+B pixel you’d expect. In practice this means 4k brightness detail, but only 2k colour detail. That aside, 1080p isn’t past the threshold of imperceptibility. 4k totally is, but doubling a common res means you get all the benefits without non-integer scaling issues or changes in screen real-estate.
Tepix 8y ago
The pixel density always needs to be considered together with the typical viewing distance. A UHD 15.6" display with a viewing distance of 34 inches (86cm) results in 170 pixels per degree which is quite high. It's a very subjective thing. Some people value it higher than others. For example going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 on your 5.8" phone screen provides only limited value, yet many people still go for it.
endorphone 8y ago
Your question is entirely valid -- there is a point of diminishing returns. The GS8, for instance, has a resolution of 2960 x 1440. By default it runs the screen at 2220 x 1080 and the overwhelming majority of customers will never know the difference. I have a Lenova 720 with a UHD screen (like the linked), and the vast majority of time I run it at 1920x1080 to halve, and halve again, the load on the GPU trying to run so many pixels (not to mention the occasional irritating software incompatibility with the resolution, leading to interfaces for ants). It is generally an imperceptible difference, and one of the very few times I go back to the native resolution is if doing an extended reading session of dense subject matter, where there's a minuscule advantage in type clarity. There is a placebo effect as well, so someone with their shiny new ultra high resolution screen may feel that there's a compelling difference, but I have doubts it would hold up under legitimate blind testing. We see the same thing with color perceptions now -- that OLED and a good LCD (e.g. iPhone XR) will be calibrated to close to identical color performance, and in blind testing will likely be very difficult to separate on that basis, but it's very common to hear OLED users laud color performance. There is no question that OLED absolutely owns when it comes to contrast, especially in dark environments where the difference between LCD grey and OLED black is without question.

detaro 8y ago

Full-HD is ~140 PPI, that's not low but not so high more wouldn't be a noticeable difference. Not really needed for general use IMHO, but also not just hype.

Nursie 8y ago

> I assume you can not tell any difference between 2k and 4k from the distance a laptop is supposed to be used My 2013 13" macbook pro retina has a resolution of 2560x1600. I absolutely can tell the difference compared to 'Full' HD, just in crispness of image, beautiful font rendering etc. So a 4K screen at 15.6" doesn't seem outrageous to me.

jakobegger 8y ago
Also, OLED displays have fewer subpixels as far as I know. I think LCD usually have Red/Green/Blue for every pixel, OLEDs don't. So on an OLED display, you need a higher resolution to make it look as sharp as an LCD.

have_faith 8y ago

Font rendering is the big one. It has a massive impact on the readability of complex characters at small font sizes.

systoll 8y ago

My understanding is that this is pentile, meaning each ‘pixel’ is either R+G, or G+B; not the R+G+B pixel you’d expect. In practice this means 4k brightness detail, but only 2k colour detail. That aside, 1080p isn’t past the threshold of imperceptibility. 4k totally is, but doubling a common res means you get all the benefits without non-integer scaling issues or changes in screen real-estate.

Tepix 8y ago

The pixel density always needs to be considered together with the typical viewing distance. A UHD 15.6" display with a viewing distance of 34 inches (86cm) results in 170 pixels per degree which is quite high. It's a very subjective thing. Some people value it higher than others. For example going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 on your 5.8" phone screen provides only limited value, yet many people still go for it.

endorphone 8y ago

Your question is entirely valid -- there is a point of diminishing returns. The GS8, for instance, has a resolution of 2960 x 1440. By default it runs the screen at 2220 x 1080 and the overwhelming majority of customers will never know the difference. I have a Lenova 720 with a UHD screen (like the linked), and the vast majority of time I run it at 1920x1080 to halve, and halve again, the load on the GPU trying to run so many pixels (not to mention the occasional irritating software incompatibility with the resolution, leading to interfaces for ants). It is generally an imperceptible difference, and one of the very few times I go back to the native resolution is if doing an extended reading session of dense subject matter, where there's a minuscule advantage in type clarity. There is a placebo effect as well, so someone with their shiny new ultra high resolution screen may feel that there's a compelling difference, but I have doubts it would hold up under legitimate blind testing. We see the same thing with color perceptions now -- that OLED and a good LCD (e.g. iPhone XR) will be calibrated to close to identical color performance, and in blind testing will likely be very difficult to separate on that basis, but it's very common to hear OLED users laud color performance. There is no question that OLED absolutely owns when it comes to contrast, especially in dark environments where the difference between LCD grey and OLED black is without question.