5 ms·
1440p for 49" in 2022? You can probably pick the pixels with your fingers.
by naoqj 5y ago
1440p for 49" in 2022? You can probably pick the pixels with your fingers.
- cehrlich 5y agoI don't think the person you're replying to was comparing those two monitors, just pointing out that 5120x2880 at 120hz is the same amount of data as 5120x1440 at 240hz.
- ihuman 5y agoIt's an ultrawide, so its really two 1440p 26" screens next to each other
- naoqj 5y agoDoesn't change anything at all. It's a shame that they are selling that. And it costs 1600€! It's insane.
- nohr 5y agoThat renders your complain null and void, what's wrong with you?
- Rebelgecko 5y agoAre there any alternatives you'd recommend? When last I looked I was surprised how limited the options were for 2160p + higher refresh rates (I guess maybe cables/ports/GPUs need time to catch up?)
- ninkendo 5y agoUnfortunately there are no monitors sold by any company other than Apple (and LG for that one 5K display they made specifically _for_ apple) that have a “retina” pixel density, which I would define as >200 PPI. (The Studio Display’s is 218.) Every ginormous “4k2k” or whatever display is just that: ginormous, so the actual pixel density is much lower, and is comparable to a typical (smaller, 1440p, etc) display. I suspect this is because the fabrication of the LCDs is tuned to a particular pixel size, so if a company wants to make a 4K monitor, they scale existing LCD production up to a large enough size that they can get it 2160 pixels tall (by however wide), and that’s the size of the display. They can advertise having both a large display (which people like) and 4K (which people like), so there’s no downside to the manufacturers. But if you want actual high pixel density, 200+PPI, your options are basically an Apple monitor (LG’s apple-sold display notwithstanding), or a smartphone. (I’d love to be proven wrong on this! My holy grail monitor is 200+ppi, 120+Hz, large (27”+), and ideally ultrawide, but alas, such a thing doesn’t exist.)
- maherbeg 5y agoAgh yeah that is my dream monitor as well. There are some 5k2k ultrawides that get close but the reviews aren't positive :(
- dbttdft 5y agoIt turns out, for basic computer use cases, like scrolling on a website, motion clarity matters. My holy grail (for something usable from current PCs) is - fast pixel response (CRTs are close, but the light to dark transitions fail) - strobing, or a refresh rate that is high enough such that there is no blur (240Hz still doesn't fix this) - at least 100Hz or so (perhaps only because I haven't used stuff over 144Hz enough yet) - non glossy without grainy artifacts - retina pixel density - no viewing angle issues - *at least* as good contrast as a 90% dead CRT I got in the trash - no bloatware in the monitor or whatever they do that adds tons of input lag for no reason - no local dimming type artifacts that (obviously) local dimming causes, but more importantly what the alpha OLEDs have - low minimum brightness. most LCDs even at the lowest settings are far too bright - the option of warm color temperatures - perfectly flat screen, and pixel sharpness, for the sake of being fair (but the latest CRTs almost pass) - no backlight bleed
- rowanG077 5y agoMicroled, if it pans out, should technically be able to hit that.
- dbttdft 5y agoMaybe OLED will already be good enough no? I haven't read up much yet on it, but I learned yesterday that the ABL feature I feared (which causes the image brightness to change substantially based on the content on screen) might be disableable on something like the LG CX OLED.
- scottrblock 5y agoI think the Dell 8k 32" is pretty close to what you want — 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.... It's certainly not cheap! edit: in case anyone knows, I see this monitor "requires two DisplayPorts" for full 8k. Does anyone know if I can plug two display ports into a docking station, and one cord out of the docking station into my 14" m1 mbp? Ideally this would also charge the mbp. Is this possible? If I were to buy such an expensive monitor, I really only want one cord.
- howinteresting 5y agoAre you saying that it is a shame companies are selling 110ppi monitors?! 110ppi (27 inches/16:9 at 1440p) has been the standard non-retina resolution for a long time. It's what I have on my desk right now as an ultrawide -- I'd be interested in getting a higher-res one but there isn't really one that has a high enough refresh rate.
- naoqj 5y agoNon-retina is a thing of the past. It should be relegated to monitors that cost 200€.
- ubercow13 5y agoJust like non-VRR is a thing of the past, non-120+Hz is a thing of the past, etc.
- howinteresting 5y agoI can claim equally without evidence that non-120+Hz is a thing of the past.
- nick__m 5y agoNon-curved 60Hz monitors are a thing of the past they should be relegated to monitors that cost 200$. That was an easy comment to make! Do you realize that other peoples have different preferences than you do and they are equally valid.
- noahtallen 5y agoMaybe it should be, but it’s not actually a thing of the past. I would bet hard cash that a higher number of recently released expensive monitors ($1000+) don’t have retina than those that did. There is still a massive market for people willing to make the trade off in another direction (like higher refresh rate or going ultrawide) rather than retina. Obviously it’d be amazing if what you said is true, because both retina and HRR are very nice to have
- account42 5y agoThere are so many other dimensions that can be more important. 110 dpi is fine for me now - my next upgrade will focus on contrast and black level instead.
- z3t4 5y agoOne problem with high pixel density is that you either have to scale everything up, or everything becomes super tiny. And second problem is that with bad eye sight due to aging things get blurry anyway... That 12px font ... I'll just keep buying larger monitors.
- davidgay 5y ago> ... is that with bad eye sight due to aging things get blurry anyway Until they get so blurry that reading glasses are obligatory. And then, suddenly, everything is sharp again and that hi-dpi is nice :)
- turdnagel 5y agoApple's philosophy around high pixel density is to be able to run at a scale factor of 2. (Or close to 2 on mid-2010s Apple laptops, or sometimes 3, as on newer iPhones.) That way everything is physically the same size, but looks a lot nicer. Mac users running 5k monitors aren't running 5120 x 2880, they're running 2560 x 1440 at 2x.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- redbell 5y agoTotally agree! > One problem with high pixel density is that you either have to scale everything up The bad news is, as a Windows user, very few apps support scaling (aka DPI awareness). For larger displays, ex: 49" with 5120x1440, you'll take full advantage of every pixel without scaling.
- naoqj 5y ago>The bad news is, as a Windows user, very few apps support scaling (aka DPI awareness). That is not true in my experience. Also, for those who don't support it (which by default look blurry) you can enable it in compatibility options and it will generally work well.
- 5y ago
- mdoms 5y agoIt's ultrawide, 49" is the diagonal size (as always). It's a smaller vertical size than a typical 16:9 1440p monitor.
- cehrlich 5y agoIt's the exact same vertical size as a 27" 16:9 monitor.
- jjcm 5y agoIt's 110ppi, which is the most common display PPI still. Keep in mind 1440p is a family of resolutions, not a single resolution. In this case this monitor is 5120x1440, which is twice the resolution of the most common 1440p resolution (2560x1440).
- out_of_protocol 5y ago49" super ultrawide. Pixel density is 110 dpi, which is regular "1x" density. And you'll need 10k display to have "retina" thing