6 ms·

Curiously, it is still nearly impossible to buy an external display with “retina grade” resolution. (The only one on the market is the LG Ultrafine and I’m look

Curiously, it is still nearly impossible to buy an external display with “retina grade” resolution. (The only one on the market is the LG Ultrafine and I’m looking at one right now… don’t get me started on this fucking dog.) And while laptops are certainly much more popular than desktops, retina grade displays are still an option for most non-Apple computers. So yeah, we haven’t dug ourselves out of this hole yet.

kayodelycaon 5y ago
I have an LG Ultrafine and an LG 24UD58-B. https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-24UD58-B-4k-uhd-led-monitor https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-24UD58-B-4k-uhd-led-monito... The 24UD58-B isn't quite as good, but for $300, it's a lot cheaper than $700.
TwoBit 5y ago
What is your definition of "retina grade"?
- mixmastamyk 5y ago
  200+ dpi at arm’s length.
  - q-big 5y ago
    In other words: defined in a way so that Apple's displays are retina grade, but others are not.
    - mixmastamyk 5y ago
      I have two Dell 4k monitors which are about that dpi.
    - Spivak 5y ago
      I mean this is just saying a normal laptop screen that's 200+dpi. Nothing else fancy here because the further away you are from the screen the easier it gets to achieve the "can't see the dots" effect."
HPsquared 5y ago
What's the definition of "Retina grade"? Surely the eyes ability to distinguish pixels depends on how far the screen is. An average 4K TV at a typical viewing distance is going to be impossible to distinguish the pixels. Same with a typical 4K monitor, depending on the size and viewing distance. EDIT: A 27" 4K display at 60 cm viewing distance (53° horizontal FoV) has 73 pixels per degree (ppd). A Retina equivalent display is anything above 60 ppd (i.e. 1 arcminute per pixel) as far as I can tell. Calculator here: https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/ https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/
- antris 5y ago
  When the pixels are so dense, that using the monitor at its typical viewing distance makes pixels indistinguishable. But not just in the sense that you cannot see that your view is pixelated, rather in the sense that packing the pixels any denser wouldn't make a difference. Quality desktop monitors viewed at their typical distance do not look pixelated, e.g. you rarely are able to see individual pixels especially if proper antialiasing is used, but they do still almost always have a lack of sharpness that could be corrected with a denser display. On retina smartphones, making the pixels denser wouldn't make the image look any sharper from a typical viewing distance. Once you achieve that, I'd say it's "retina-grade".
  - def_true_false 5y ago
    > On retina smartphones, making the pixels denser wouldn't make the image look any sharper from a typical viewing distance. If that were true, there would be no reason for Apple to switch from 326ppi to whatever they use now for new phones. The real point where this stops making a difference is likely somewhere much higher, just like with framerates. That doesn't mesh well with their luxury electronics marketing narrative, though.
    - antris 5y ago
      Yeah, and digital camera manufacturers aren't adding megapixels for nothing and processor makers don't chase higher clock speeds for nothing, right? Because why would they keep adding pixels and increasing the clock frequency just to make the tech numbers look more impressive in order to sell more electronics? Yes, sounds pretty ridiculous. Now of course, maybe the new retina screens appear slightly sharper if you have exceptionally good eyesight, but I have long ago stopped seeing any improvement in sharpness of smart phone displays. The screens do look better in terms of better colours, contrast etc, but at a typical distance with an individual with normal eyesight, adding more pixels does pretty much nothing at this point.
def_true_false 5y ago
There is a number of 28, 27 and 24 inch 3840x2160 panels, so the LG is certainly not the only one.
- andrewingram 5y ago
  3840x2160 really needs to be no larger than 24 inch if you want to be able to argue that it's retina grade; that's why the LG ones sold by Apple were 4k@24" and 5k@27", the same as their iMac displays. I have 4k monitors at 27 inch because I prefer the magnification faction, but I can see the individual pixels.
  - def_true_false 5y ago
    That depends entirely on how far away you sit. There are also ~32 inch ones that are 8K. Given the cost of these things, it might be more feasible to just sit further away and use a bunch of the 4K ones.
- Eric_WVGG 5y ago
  That's nowhere close to retina grade for a 27" display. The LG I cited is 5120×2880. http://tools.rodrigopolo.com/display_calc/ http://tools.rodrigopolo.com/display_calc/
shantanujoshi 5y ago
Underrated comment this is the bane of my existence. I can definitely see pixels on 4k 27". 4k @ 27 inches is a measly 163ppi. Lg 5k is closer at 217ppi. Meanwhile the iphone 12 pro is at 460ppi. Higher PPI means more distinguishable smaller screen items allowing you to move the screen closer (imagine 10-12inch viewing distance instead of 24...) all of which leads to way more effective screen real-estate imo

kayodelycaon 5y ago

I have an LG Ultrafine and an LG 24UD58-B. https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-24UD58-B-4k-uhd-led-monitor https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-24UD58-B-4k-uhd-led-monito... The 24UD58-B isn't quite as good, but for $300, it's a lot cheaper than $700.

TwoBit 5y ago

What is your definition of "retina grade"?

mixmastamyk 5y ago
200+ dpi at arm’s length.
- q-big 5y ago
  In other words: defined in a way so that Apple's displays are retina grade, but others are not.
  - mixmastamyk 5y ago
    I have two Dell 4k monitors which are about that dpi.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    I mean this is just saying a normal laptop screen that's 200+dpi. Nothing else fancy here because the further away you are from the screen the easier it gets to achieve the "can't see the dots" effect."

HPsquared 5y ago

What's the definition of "Retina grade"? Surely the eyes ability to distinguish pixels depends on how far the screen is. An average 4K TV at a typical viewing distance is going to be impossible to distinguish the pixels. Same with a typical 4K monitor, depending on the size and viewing distance. EDIT: A 27" 4K display at 60 cm viewing distance (53° horizontal FoV) has 73 pixels per degree (ppd). A Retina equivalent display is anything above 60 ppd (i.e. 1 arcminute per pixel) as far as I can tell. Calculator here: https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/ https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/

antris 5y ago
When the pixels are so dense, that using the monitor at its typical viewing distance makes pixels indistinguishable. But not just in the sense that you cannot see that your view is pixelated, rather in the sense that packing the pixels any denser wouldn't make a difference. Quality desktop monitors viewed at their typical distance do not look pixelated, e.g. you rarely are able to see individual pixels especially if proper antialiasing is used, but they do still almost always have a lack of sharpness that could be corrected with a denser display. On retina smartphones, making the pixels denser wouldn't make the image look any sharper from a typical viewing distance. Once you achieve that, I'd say it's "retina-grade".
- def_true_false 5y ago
  > On retina smartphones, making the pixels denser wouldn't make the image look any sharper from a typical viewing distance. If that were true, there would be no reason for Apple to switch from 326ppi to whatever they use now for new phones. The real point where this stops making a difference is likely somewhere much higher, just like with framerates. That doesn't mesh well with their luxury electronics marketing narrative, though.
  - antris 5y ago
    Yeah, and digital camera manufacturers aren't adding megapixels for nothing and processor makers don't chase higher clock speeds for nothing, right? Because why would they keep adding pixels and increasing the clock frequency just to make the tech numbers look more impressive in order to sell more electronics? Yes, sounds pretty ridiculous. Now of course, maybe the new retina screens appear slightly sharper if you have exceptionally good eyesight, but I have long ago stopped seeing any improvement in sharpness of smart phone displays. The screens do look better in terms of better colours, contrast etc, but at a typical distance with an individual with normal eyesight, adding more pixels does pretty much nothing at this point.

def_true_false 5y ago

There is a number of 28, 27 and 24 inch 3840x2160 panels, so the LG is certainly not the only one.

andrewingram 5y ago
3840x2160 really needs to be no larger than 24 inch if you want to be able to argue that it's retina grade; that's why the LG ones sold by Apple were 4k@24" and 5k@27", the same as their iMac displays. I have 4k monitors at 27 inch because I prefer the magnification faction, but I can see the individual pixels.
- def_true_false 5y ago
  That depends entirely on how far away you sit. There are also ~32 inch ones that are 8K. Given the cost of these things, it might be more feasible to just sit further away and use a bunch of the 4K ones.
Eric_WVGG 5y ago
That's nowhere close to retina grade for a 27" display. The LG I cited is 5120×2880. http://tools.rodrigopolo.com/display_calc/ http://tools.rodrigopolo.com/display_calc/

shantanujoshi 5y ago

Underrated comment this is the bane of my existence. I can definitely see pixels on 4k 27". 4k @ 27 inches is a measly 163ppi. Lg 5k is closer at 217ppi. Meanwhile the iphone 12 pro is at 460ppi. Higher PPI means more distinguishable smaller screen items allowing you to move the screen closer (imagine 10-12inch viewing distance instead of 24...) all of which leads to way more effective screen real-estate imo