4 ms·

> not-quite-4K 3,840 x 2,160 But...that is 4K. It's what 4K is defined as, exactly 2x 1080p resolution in each dimension. > Windows scaling looks like crap I

> not-quite-4K 3,840 x 2,160 But...that is 4K. It's what 4K is defined as, exactly 2x 1080p resolution in each dimension. > Windows scaling looks like crap I don't understand. 2x each dimension (so 1 pixel in the old resolution is 4 in the new) is, like, the easiest possible scenario when it comes to scaling in software.

another_kel 6y ago
4k on 27inch requires you to do 175%. 200% is too big.
- alexvoda 6y ago
  To explain further: 200% (2 times each direction) scaling on 4K is the equivalent of 1080p. A 1080p 27 inch monitor has huuuge pixels for the normal viewing distance of a desktop monitor. 1080p is common on 23-24 inch displays. Therefore you are forced to use fractional scaling which is less then perfect.
mdre 6y ago
That's UHD. 4K is defined as 4096px wide. But I guess the mass adoption of the term 4K in consumer electronics changed the definition.
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  That's DCI 4K. Two groups have competing definitions. One isn't inherently correct. I say this as someone who was "that guy" when it came to HD Radio: "It's not High Definition, it's Hybrid Digital!" even though that's exactly the confusion they were trying to encourage. Arguing that this is misleading is a fool's errand, and only plays into things if you assume that the primary purpose of a "4K" screen somehow is inherently "to play back cinematic content", which... it's not.
atdrummond 6y ago
While DCI 4K is a standard with 4,096 pixels of width, you’re correct that the HD standard (and therefore what is relevant to the discussion here) has always been UHD 4K and 3840 pixels wide. DCI is relevant for movie industry professionals only, as these are the dimensions used for projection devices and (potentially) their content.
coldtea 6y ago
>But...that is 4K. It's what 4K is defined as, exactly 2x 1080p resolution in each dimension. That's irrelevant though, except if we're talking about consuming movies fullscreen. For a monitor I don't want 4K, I want insivible pixels at viewing distances, so hi-dpi. I would also prefer no scaling for assets that are bitmap in nature. This ideally means pixel doubling (less cpu/gpu demanding and less fuzzy than fractional scaling). This, for 27" and more, means higher resolution that 4K. I don't want to restrict myself to pixel-doubled 1920x1080 on my 27" or 32" monitor. You do get nice DPI, but needlessly large buttons and other assets (compared to something closer to 5K).
- gambiting 6y ago
  I just completely don't understand your point. There's no misleading advertising here - the resolution is exactly as promised ,at the size promised....what's the problem? If the resolution isn't high enough for you....then buy one where it is? There are 5K monitors out there, maybe even 8K? Or just get a 4K one but in a smaller size? I'm so confused by your comment.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >I just completely don't understand your point. There's no misleading advertising here - the resolution is exactly as promised ,at the size promised....what's the problem? That would be relevant is my problem was false promises or misleading advertising. But my problem is not (a) "Monitors say they are 4K and they are not" but: (b) "Most monitors out there are BS-4K, but for the best quality/viewing comfort at their 27" and above diagonal they should rather be 5K, but most manufactures like Dell aren't bothered to produce at such a resolution and the few that do have prices to the skies". >There are 5K monitors out there, maybe even 8K? Or just get a 4K one but in a smaller size? Perhaps you've skiped through the thread? My comment responds to (and agrees with) the sub-thread started by a parent commenter writing: "Dell used to have good offerings, but all they seem to push now is the same 27” not-quite-4K 3,840 x 2,160 panels everybody else does.".
    - pavlus 6y ago

another_kel 6y ago

4k on 27inch requires you to do 175%. 200% is too big.

alexvoda 6y ago
To explain further: 200% (2 times each direction) scaling on 4K is the equivalent of 1080p. A 1080p 27 inch monitor has huuuge pixels for the normal viewing distance of a desktop monitor. 1080p is common on 23-24 inch displays. Therefore you are forced to use fractional scaling which is less then perfect.

mdre 6y ago

That's UHD. 4K is defined as 4096px wide. But I guess the mass adoption of the term 4K in consumer electronics changed the definition.

FireBeyond 6y ago
That's DCI 4K. Two groups have competing definitions. One isn't inherently correct. I say this as someone who was "that guy" when it came to HD Radio: "It's not High Definition, it's Hybrid Digital!" even though that's exactly the confusion they were trying to encourage. Arguing that this is misleading is a fool's errand, and only plays into things if you assume that the primary purpose of a "4K" screen somehow is inherently "to play back cinematic content", which... it's not.

atdrummond 6y ago

While DCI 4K is a standard with 4,096 pixels of width, you’re correct that the HD standard (and therefore what is relevant to the discussion here) has always been UHD 4K and 3840 pixels wide. DCI is relevant for movie industry professionals only, as these are the dimensions used for projection devices and (potentially) their content.

coldtea 6y ago

>But...that is 4K. It's what 4K is defined as, exactly 2x 1080p resolution in each dimension. That's irrelevant though, except if we're talking about consuming movies fullscreen. For a monitor I don't want 4K, I want insivible pixels at viewing distances, so hi-dpi. I would also prefer no scaling for assets that are bitmap in nature. This ideally means pixel doubling (less cpu/gpu demanding and less fuzzy than fractional scaling). This, for 27" and more, means higher resolution that 4K. I don't want to restrict myself to pixel-doubled 1920x1080 on my 27" or 32" monitor. You do get nice DPI, but needlessly large buttons and other assets (compared to something closer to 5K).

gambiting 6y ago
I just completely don't understand your point. There's no misleading advertising here - the resolution is exactly as promised ,at the size promised....what's the problem? If the resolution isn't high enough for you....then buy one where it is? There are 5K monitors out there, maybe even 8K? Or just get a 4K one but in a smaller size? I'm so confused by your comment.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >I just completely don't understand your point. There's no misleading advertising here - the resolution is exactly as promised ,at the size promised....what's the problem? That would be relevant is my problem was false promises or misleading advertising. But my problem is not (a) "Monitors say they are 4K and they are not" but: (b) "Most monitors out there are BS-4K, but for the best quality/viewing comfort at their 27" and above diagonal they should rather be 5K, but most manufactures like Dell aren't bothered to produce at such a resolution and the few that do have prices to the skies". >There are 5K monitors out there, maybe even 8K? Or just get a 4K one but in a smaller size? Perhaps you've skiped through the thread? My comment responds to (and agrees with) the sub-thread started by a parent commenter writing: "Dell used to have good offerings, but all they seem to push now is the same 27” not-quite-4K 3,840 x 2,160 panels everybody else does.".
  - pavlus 6y ago