4 ms·
> But a few months back, I switched to a single 43" UHD TV instead. I get more screen real estate that I did before No you didn’t. If you switched from 2x 24”
by Terretta 7y ago
> But a few months back, I switched to a single 43" UHD TV instead. I get more screen real estate that I did before
No you didn’t. If you switched from 2x 24” 4Ks to a single 43” 4K, you have half the real estate you used to, you’re just zoomed in on it.
To avoid confusing inches as a useful metric for how much information can be shown on screens at once, monitors should be measured in megapixels.
Problem’s even worse with “ultrawides” that are generally significantly lower dpi than their 4K siblings, so 1/2 to 1/4 the megapixels compared to dual 4Ks.
- bluedevil2k 7y agoI think you’re off too. A 43” 4k can be run at its native 4k and the text is fine for reading and programming. If you’re running a 24” 4k, you’re running it scaled. At a minimum you’re running it at 1.5x, which means you’re getting about the same screen usage as the 43” tv.
- Terretta 7y agoIt’s mathematically impossible to be off when using megapixels, that’s the point. It’s objective, not subjective. Bring back the subjective by considering “dpi” or “ppi”. And no, I use dual 24” plus the Macbook Pro 16” native screen, and I run the 24s at native pixels (dual 4K @ 60Hz). I do, however, scale fonts up to 120% - 150% text size (depends on app). This reduces the % of screen used for UI elements, while retaining “retina” text legible at arms length (same distance you’d read an iPad or magazine).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]