5 ms·

Why is <220 ppi a dealbreaker? 27 inch 4k displays seem fine to me for retina and they are quite abundant. Though I've tried 32 inches 4k, and there the resolut

by yrral 5y ago

Why is <220 ppi a dealbreaker? 27 inch 4k displays seem fine to me for retina and they are quite abundant. Though I've tried 32 inches 4k, and there the resolution is not enough for text work. Dell has a 32 inch 8k display which is ~280 ppi in stock. https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-8k-monitor-up3218k/apd/210-alez/monitors-monitor-accessories https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-8k-m...

fourfour3 5y ago
If you're on macOS, your choice for a 27" 4K is realistically either the 'looks like 1080p' high DPI mode, or the 'looks like 1440p' high DPI mode. The 'looks like 1080p' mode makes all of the UI elements huge. The 'looks like 1440p' mode makes text slightly fuzzy as it's being downscaled from 5120x2880 to 3840x2160. It's not terrible, but it's nowhere near as nice as the 27" 5K.
- bluewalt 5y ago
  Exactly. I end up to get use to this fuzzy text, but the first time was like "Ughhh this is ugly".
- petschge 5y ago
  That sounds like a MacOS problem, not a "220dpi is not enough" problem.
  - minimaul 5y ago
    This specific issue is definitely a macOS problem - instead of doing proper resolution independent rendering, macOS just renders at 2x the 'looks like' resolution, and then scales the result to fit the panel. But even on Windows, the choices at 27" 4K aren't great. 100% is too small. 200% is too large. 150% is quite nice, but I find apps regularly don't scale properly, and text still isn't as nice as 200% on a 5K display. edit: and on Linux, it's similarly not great - integer scaling works quite well on most modern DEs. Fractional scaling is a mixed bag and a lot of apps have broken or compromised UI when it's in use.
    - ahelwer 5y ago
      I use a triple monitor setup with the LG 24UD58-B. 24", 4K, $300. 2X scaling is absolutely perfect on it. 27" is not a good monitor size for this, I agree. As an aside, a user here recommended putting the outside monitors in vertical mode with the middle monitor in horizontal mode. It works extremely well for reading websites/documentation/terminal output while coding in the middle panel.
      - minimaul 5y ago
        It's cheap enough that I've been tempted to pick up one of these to try, but I think going back to 24" would be a little frustrating for side-by-side editing in an IDE. I think it could make a great secondary though.
    - chrismorgan 5y ago
      > Fractional scaling is a mixed bag and a lot of apps have broken or compromised UI when it's in use. I use 1.5× scaling in Sway, and haven’t observed even the slightest problem in any Wayland app. (I also use the high-DPI patches for XWayland, and run it at 3×, so that it’s an integer multiple of my scaling factor, a minor visual improvement on the very few X11 things I use that is probably not worth it.) I will note, however, that Firefox is rendering content at 2× and downscaling; setting the experimental widget.wayland.fractional_buffer_scale to 1.5 distinctly improves rendering, but had some very annoying bugs when I tried it several months ago which became debilitating maybe a couple of months ago, so I gave up on it.
      - minimaul 5y ago
        The one that sticks in my memory the most was a bunch of issues with Qt-based apps in particular where UI would scale in 1x, 2x, 3x steps, but font size would scale with the fractional size specified. Led to some pretty broken looking UI.
        chrismorgan 5y ago
        I have a few Qt apps and haven’t observed anything like this; most likely that’s been fixed. I’ve been using Wayland since April. (One thing that is comically broken about Sway and I think Wayland in general is cursor sizes. Specifying `seat seat0 xcursor_theme Adwaita 96` nets me at least four or I think five different cursor sizes, varying by app, and at least one of the dodgy sizes is actually a fractional scaling bug, scaling by ceil(1.5) rather than 1.5.)
- floatboth 5y ago
  I'm using a 28" 4K (with Wayland, which does scaling exactly like macOS) — used to use 1.5x with downscaling but switched to 2x "huge UI" for perfect crispness and honestly? It's not bad. It's actually good. Don't fear the big buttons :)
  - nickjj 5y ago
    > switched to 2x "huge UI" for perfect crispness and honestly? It's not bad. It's actually good. Don't fear the big buttons :) There's always a balance and trade-off here. 2x scaling with 4k really means you end up with the same screen real estate as 1080p. In my opinion I would very much prefer 24" or 25" at 1440p with native scaling which is ~120 PPI. I personally run both a 25" 1440p display and another 24" 1440p display at 1x. I still consider going from 1080p to 1440p one of the biggest quality of life upgrades I've encountered when I made the switch 7 years ago. It's the same level of "wow this is great" as going from a HDD to SSD. Before there were shortages you could get a high quality IPS panel monitor from a reputable brand (Dell, ViewSonic) with low input latency for around $300. 4k at 1.5x also gives you the same real estate as 1440p but with higher PPI but I don't know how crisp that will be given the scaling ratio.
    - KptMarchewa 5y ago
      >2x scaling with 4k really means you end up with the same screen real estate as 1080p. Yes and no. With much clearer looking text, I can use smaller fonts (13 -> 11 in IntelliJ) than on regular 1080p displays, so there's _some_ difference.
    - mmis1000 5y ago
      > you end up with the same screen real estate as 1080p. Is that even a problem? I am not buying better screen to torture my eyes. IMO. A smaller sharper text won't really be easier to see compared to a larger but blurrer text.
      - nickjj 5y ago
        I think so, but it's personal opinion. I wear glasses and 25" at 1440p has very clear text. I feel no strain. Even the grey text on HN is very readable from about 32" (81 cm) away which is my normal viewing distance. It's readable without much strain from 45" (114 cm) but I wouldn't want to use things that far away. For reference my work issued laptop is a 13" 2020 MBP so I have experienced retina. I would take the 1440p screen real estate at ~120 PPI (24"/25") 10 out of 10 times vs going back to 1080p but with higher PPI. There's also the added benefit of never having to think or worry about poor UI scaling since not all apps handle scaling well, but that's not a deciding factor in my mind, more of a nice to have.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> Why is <220 ppi a dealbreaker? Because it's very blocky and not pleasant to use.
emu 5y ago
I wish Mac OS and Apple hardware supported 8k monitors. I have this monitor and love it, but I can't use it with a Macbook at higher than 4k.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hamstergene 5y ago
I have been using Dell P2415Q (24" 180ppi) for a few years side-by-side with a Retina MacBook, and the difference is visible: I can see pixels on 180ppi text if I lean forward, but not on the 220ppi. Not a deal breaker, of course, but the "retina" marketing pitch isn't lying. BTW, LG 24UD58 mentioned in the article is also only 180ppi.
- _ph_ 5y ago
  I am using the same, as I needed an external screen for my MacBook. I use it in scaled resolution for screen estate (2300 horizontal pixels), which works, but isn't as sharp as my iMac.
ayushnix 5y ago
> Why is <220 ppi a dealbreaker? 27 inch 4k displays seem fine to me for retina and they are quite abundant. I regret buying a 27 inch 4K monitor each and every day. Sure, the PPI is much better than my 24 inch 1200p Dell Ultrasharp but a 27 inch 4K needs wither fractional scaling, which is a mess, or scaling fonts, which makes UI elements look weird. 24 inch 4K and 27 inch 5K should be a standard but all monitor OEMs are interested in making shitty gaming monitors.

by yrral 5y ago

fourfour3 5y ago

If you're on macOS, your choice for a 27" 4K is realistically either the 'looks like 1080p' high DPI mode, or the 'looks like 1440p' high DPI mode. The 'looks like 1080p' mode makes all of the UI elements huge. The 'looks like 1440p' mode makes text slightly fuzzy as it's being downscaled from 5120x2880 to 3840x2160. It's not terrible, but it's nowhere near as nice as the 27" 5K.

bluewalt 5y ago
Exactly. I end up to get use to this fuzzy text, but the first time was like "Ughhh this is ugly".
petschge 5y ago
That sounds like a MacOS problem, not a "220dpi is not enough" problem.
- minimaul 5y ago
  This specific issue is definitely a macOS problem - instead of doing proper resolution independent rendering, macOS just renders at 2x the 'looks like' resolution, and then scales the result to fit the panel. But even on Windows, the choices at 27" 4K aren't great. 100% is too small. 200% is too large. 150% is quite nice, but I find apps regularly don't scale properly, and text still isn't as nice as 200% on a 5K display. edit: and on Linux, it's similarly not great - integer scaling works quite well on most modern DEs. Fractional scaling is a mixed bag and a lot of apps have broken or compromised UI when it's in use.
  - ahelwer 5y ago
    I use a triple monitor setup with the LG 24UD58-B. 24", 4K, $300. 2X scaling is absolutely perfect on it. 27" is not a good monitor size for this, I agree. As an aside, a user here recommended putting the outside monitors in vertical mode with the middle monitor in horizontal mode. It works extremely well for reading websites/documentation/terminal output while coding in the middle panel.
    - minimaul 5y ago
      It's cheap enough that I've been tempted to pick up one of these to try, but I think going back to 24" would be a little frustrating for side-by-side editing in an IDE. I think it could make a great secondary though.
  - chrismorgan 5y ago
    > Fractional scaling is a mixed bag and a lot of apps have broken or compromised UI when it's in use. I use 1.5× scaling in Sway, and haven’t observed even the slightest problem in any Wayland app. (I also use the high-DPI patches for XWayland, and run it at 3×, so that it’s an integer multiple of my scaling factor, a minor visual improvement on the very few X11 things I use that is probably not worth it.) I will note, however, that Firefox is rendering content at 2× and downscaling; setting the experimental widget.wayland.fractional_buffer_scale to 1.5 distinctly improves rendering, but had some very annoying bugs when I tried it several months ago which became debilitating maybe a couple of months ago, so I gave up on it.
    - minimaul 5y ago
      The one that sticks in my memory the most was a bunch of issues with Qt-based apps in particular where UI would scale in 1x, 2x, 3x steps, but font size would scale with the fractional size specified. Led to some pretty broken looking UI.
      - chrismorgan 5y ago
        I have a few Qt apps and haven’t observed anything like this; most likely that’s been fixed. I’ve been using Wayland since April. (One thing that is comically broken about Sway and I think Wayland in general is cursor sizes. Specifying `seat seat0 xcursor_theme Adwaita 96` nets me at least four or I think five different cursor sizes, varying by app, and at least one of the dodgy sizes is actually a fractional scaling bug, scaling by ceil(1.5) rather than 1.5.)
floatboth 5y ago
I'm using a 28" 4K (with Wayland, which does scaling exactly like macOS) — used to use 1.5x with downscaling but switched to 2x "huge UI" for perfect crispness and honestly? It's not bad. It's actually good. Don't fear the big buttons :)
- nickjj 5y ago
  > switched to 2x "huge UI" for perfect crispness and honestly? It's not bad. It's actually good. Don't fear the big buttons :) There's always a balance and trade-off here. 2x scaling with 4k really means you end up with the same screen real estate as 1080p. In my opinion I would very much prefer 24" or 25" at 1440p with native scaling which is ~120 PPI. I personally run both a 25" 1440p display and another 24" 1440p display at 1x. I still consider going from 1080p to 1440p one of the biggest quality of life upgrades I've encountered when I made the switch 7 years ago. It's the same level of "wow this is great" as going from a HDD to SSD. Before there were shortages you could get a high quality IPS panel monitor from a reputable brand (Dell, ViewSonic) with low input latency for around $300. 4k at 1.5x also gives you the same real estate as 1440p but with higher PPI but I don't know how crisp that will be given the scaling ratio.
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    >2x scaling with 4k really means you end up with the same screen real estate as 1080p. Yes and no. With much clearer looking text, I can use smaller fonts (13 -> 11 in IntelliJ) than on regular 1080p displays, so there's _some_ difference.
  - mmis1000 5y ago
    > you end up with the same screen real estate as 1080p. Is that even a problem? I am not buying better screen to torture my eyes. IMO. A smaller sharper text won't really be easier to see compared to a larger but blurrer text.
    - nickjj 5y ago
      I think so, but it's personal opinion. I wear glasses and 25" at 1440p has very clear text. I feel no strain. Even the grey text on HN is very readable from about 32" (81 cm) away which is my normal viewing distance. It's readable without much strain from 45" (114 cm) but I wouldn't want to use things that far away. For reference my work issued laptop is a 13" 2020 MBP so I have experienced retina. I would take the 1440p screen real estate at ~120 PPI (24"/25") 10 out of 10 times vs going back to 1080p but with higher PPI. There's also the added benefit of never having to think or worry about poor UI scaling since not all apps handle scaling well, but that's not a deciding factor in my mind, more of a nice to have.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> Why is <220 ppi a dealbreaker? Because it's very blocky and not pleasant to use.

emu 5y ago

I wish Mac OS and Apple hardware supported 8k monitors. I have this monitor and love it, but I can't use it with a Macbook at higher than 4k.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hamstergene 5y ago

I have been using Dell P2415Q (24" 180ppi) for a few years side-by-side with a Retina MacBook, and the difference is visible: I can see pixels on 180ppi text if I lean forward, but not on the 220ppi. Not a deal breaker, of course, but the "retina" marketing pitch isn't lying. BTW, LG 24UD58 mentioned in the article is also only 180ppi.

_ph_ 5y ago
I am using the same, as I needed an external screen for my MacBook. I use it in scaled resolution for screen estate (2300 horizontal pixels), which works, but isn't as sharp as my iMac.

ayushnix 5y ago

> Why is <220 ppi a dealbreaker? 27 inch 4k displays seem fine to me for retina and they are quite abundant. I regret buying a 27 inch 4K monitor each and every day. Sure, the PPI is much better than my 24 inch 1200p Dell Ultrasharp but a 27 inch 4K needs wither fractional scaling, which is a mess, or scaling fonts, which makes UI elements look weird. 24 inch 4K and 27 inch 5K should be a standard but all monitor OEMs are interested in making shitty gaming monitors.