5 ms·

4K screens on laptops don't make sense to me. They are too small to get maximum value out of. 1440p is more than enough.

0xffff2 6y ago
I absolutely benefit from a 4k screen even in a small form factor. 768p is "enough" in the sense that we all got stuff done on such screens for many years, but the increase in text rendering quality with higher PPI screens is tremendously worth it to me for the reduced eyestrain. 4k is still noticeably better than 1440p. I wouldn't be surprised if 8k is noticeably better still (although with swiftly diminishing returns of course).
- londons_explore 6y ago
  The reverse is also kinda true... Many people when they say "I like high resolution" mean "I like to fit lots of stuff on the screen at once". If you're in the latter crowd, you can configure X or Wayland to render to a 4k screen buffer, and then downscale to fit the actual screen. Yes, downscaling no longer means 1 pixel=1 pixel, which introduces some blur, but unless you're a 20/20 vision kind of person, I doubt you'd be able to tell without your nose touching the screen...
dboreham 6y ago
Hmm. You might want to get an eye test. Not being snarky: when I was 45 or so, having had "perfect" eyesight, someone suggested I get mine tested. Turns out most people loose the ability to focus at short distances with age, but the brain doesn't clue you in. Not being able to tell the difference between 1440 and 4k would be consistent with this. For me even at 13" screen size 4k is very obviously better for coding.
- Dahoon 6y ago
  With a 55" screen you'd have to be within 3.5 feet to be able to see a difference with 4k. So no eye test needed. Your brain is either lying to you or the 4k screen you tested with is better than the non-4k you used. http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/ http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
  - 0xffff2 6y ago
    I don't know what the methodology of that site is, but it's certainly flawed when it comes to computer monitors. Based on their calculator, I shouldn't notice the difference between 1080p and 2160p when sitting 2 feet from my 16" laptop monitor, but the difference is night and day. I don't want to get into a philosophical debate, but if I can see the difference that your equation says I shouldn't be able to see, the equation is wrong, not reality.
    - p1necone 6y ago
      This reminds me of the pervasive "your eyes can only see 24fps" myth, I guess people crave evidence that what they have is "good enough" and others are just being elitist?
      - vetinari 6y ago
        Well, you will definitely see more than 24 fps, but that might or might not translate to better experience. If you want the cinematic effect for a movie, it will be 24 fps, otherwise you will get the soap opera effect. For other uses, like fluid animations or games, you want as high as possible.
        p1necone 6y ago
        I wonder if the "Cinematic" look at ~24fps seeeming less tacky than the "Soap Opera" look at ~60fps has just been trained into us via familiarity though. If we lived in an alternate universe where cinema was all 60fps and soap operas were 24 would we think that 24fps looked tacky instead? On the other hand I think there's definitely some objective effects in play here too - CGI is a lot easier to make convincing at a lower framerate and added motion blur.
        jjeaff 6y ago
        Peter Jackson thinks so. He pushed for 60fps in his movies even though people complained. His theory is that once people acclimate, they will get a better experience.
boltzmann_brain 6y ago
Oof, might want to have your eyes check. 4K is perfect to that crispy text.

0xffff2 6y ago

I absolutely benefit from a 4k screen even in a small form factor. 768p is "enough" in the sense that we all got stuff done on such screens for many years, but the increase in text rendering quality with higher PPI screens is tremendously worth it to me for the reduced eyestrain. 4k is still noticeably better than 1440p. I wouldn't be surprised if 8k is noticeably better still (although with swiftly diminishing returns of course).

londons_explore 6y ago
The reverse is also kinda true... Many people when they say "I like high resolution" mean "I like to fit lots of stuff on the screen at once". If you're in the latter crowd, you can configure X or Wayland to render to a 4k screen buffer, and then downscale to fit the actual screen. Yes, downscaling no longer means 1 pixel=1 pixel, which introduces some blur, but unless you're a 20/20 vision kind of person, I doubt you'd be able to tell without your nose touching the screen...

dboreham 6y ago

Hmm. You might want to get an eye test. Not being snarky: when I was 45 or so, having had "perfect" eyesight, someone suggested I get mine tested. Turns out most people loose the ability to focus at short distances with age, but the brain doesn't clue you in. Not being able to tell the difference between 1440 and 4k would be consistent with this. For me even at 13" screen size 4k is very obviously better for coding.

Dahoon 6y ago
With a 55" screen you'd have to be within 3.5 feet to be able to see a difference with 4k. So no eye test needed. Your brain is either lying to you or the 4k screen you tested with is better than the non-4k you used. http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/ http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
- 0xffff2 6y ago
  I don't know what the methodology of that site is, but it's certainly flawed when it comes to computer monitors. Based on their calculator, I shouldn't notice the difference between 1080p and 2160p when sitting 2 feet from my 16" laptop monitor, but the difference is night and day. I don't want to get into a philosophical debate, but if I can see the difference that your equation says I shouldn't be able to see, the equation is wrong, not reality.
  - p1necone 6y ago
    This reminds me of the pervasive "your eyes can only see 24fps" myth, I guess people crave evidence that what they have is "good enough" and others are just being elitist?
    - vetinari 6y ago
      Well, you will definitely see more than 24 fps, but that might or might not translate to better experience. If you want the cinematic effect for a movie, it will be 24 fps, otherwise you will get the soap opera effect. For other uses, like fluid animations or games, you want as high as possible.
      - p1necone 6y ago
        I wonder if the "Cinematic" look at ~24fps seeeming less tacky than the "Soap Opera" look at ~60fps has just been trained into us via familiarity though. If we lived in an alternate universe where cinema was all 60fps and soap operas were 24 would we think that 24fps looked tacky instead? On the other hand I think there's definitely some objective effects in play here too - CGI is a lot easier to make convincing at a lower framerate and added motion blur.
        jjeaff 6y ago
        Peter Jackson thinks so. He pushed for 60fps in his movies even though people complained. His theory is that once people acclimate, they will get a better experience.

boltzmann_brain 6y ago

Oof, might want to have your eyes check. 4K is perfect to that crispy text.