4 ms·

What would be more proper in this case is to make it 64" display. Otherwise it is just a waste of resources. But one can not sit in front of 64" monitor at a no

by FpUser 3y ago

What would be more proper in this case is to make it 64" display. Otherwise it is just a waste of resources. But one can not sit in front of 64" monitor at a normal viewing distance. I would guess except some very limited niches 8K PC monitor makes little sense

vladvasiliu 3y ago
I don't think so. From where I'm sitting, I can see the rainbow effects of antialiasing on my 4k 32" monitor. The easiest way to observe this is some skinny light text on a dark background. Other than that, I'm quite happy with my screen real-estate. So, I would indeed love it to have a higher resolution. I could probably use a somewhat bigger screen, a bit further away, that would do a better job as a TV the rare times I use it as such (don't have an actual TV). But all in all, I just want smaller pixels. Others are talking about higher refresh rates, but for my use case it wouldn't be as useful since I rarely drag things around (I use a TWM) and don't use smooth scrolling in apps.
- lloeki 3y ago
  > I can see the rainbow effects of antialiasing on my 4k 32" monitor Are you talking about subpixel rendering? Leveraging individual R G and B dots needs knowledge of the layout to achieve increased resolution, and the algorithm should be adjusting (best effort) to compensate for human colour perception with knowledge of the subpixel layout + subpixel size. But usually it might be that the screen has a different layout than the OS picked, e.g RGB vs BGR, vertical vs horizontal, or it has a peculiar layout like RGBG. See down the page for an example when it doesn't match, which usually gives the perceptual effect you described https://www.grc.com/ctwhat.htm https://www.grc.com/ctwhat.htm At some point though I found with increasing DPI there's diminishing returns to go subpixel and it's simply easier and just as good to go grayscale AA and be done with it.
  - vladvasiliu 3y ago
    I'm familiar with the subpixel arrangement issues. My display is RGB, according to its specs and to some review I've seen before buying it (I made a point of avoiding "non-standard" panels). I only notice this with very thin fonts, since sometimes the vertical lines end up "in between" pixels. I agree that at some point grayscale AA is good enough. But I've found that that point is at a higher DPI than I get on a 4k 32" screen. On my 24" 4k screen grayscale is good enough, so the limit is somewhere in between for me.
    - dontlaugh 3y ago
      I also find 24" to be the "perfect" maximum size for a 4k monitor. 27" is close, 32" is clearly too big.

by FpUser 3y ago

vladvasiliu 3y ago

I don't think so. From where I'm sitting, I can see the rainbow effects of antialiasing on my 4k 32" monitor. The easiest way to observe this is some skinny light text on a dark background. Other than that, I'm quite happy with my screen real-estate. So, I would indeed love it to have a higher resolution. I could probably use a somewhat bigger screen, a bit further away, that would do a better job as a TV the rare times I use it as such (don't have an actual TV). But all in all, I just want smaller pixels. Others are talking about higher refresh rates, but for my use case it wouldn't be as useful since I rarely drag things around (I use a TWM) and don't use smooth scrolling in apps.

lloeki 3y ago
> I can see the rainbow effects of antialiasing on my 4k 32" monitor Are you talking about subpixel rendering? Leveraging individual R G and B dots needs knowledge of the layout to achieve increased resolution, and the algorithm should be adjusting (best effort) to compensate for human colour perception with knowledge of the subpixel layout + subpixel size. But usually it might be that the screen has a different layout than the OS picked, e.g RGB vs BGR, vertical vs horizontal, or it has a peculiar layout like RGBG. See down the page for an example when it doesn't match, which usually gives the perceptual effect you described https://www.grc.com/ctwhat.htm https://www.grc.com/ctwhat.htm At some point though I found with increasing DPI there's diminishing returns to go subpixel and it's simply easier and just as good to go grayscale AA and be done with it.
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  I'm familiar with the subpixel arrangement issues. My display is RGB, according to its specs and to some review I've seen before buying it (I made a point of avoiding "non-standard" panels). I only notice this with very thin fonts, since sometimes the vertical lines end up "in between" pixels. I agree that at some point grayscale AA is good enough. But I've found that that point is at a higher DPI than I get on a 4k 32" screen. On my 24" 4k screen grayscale is good enough, so the limit is somewhere in between for me.
  - dontlaugh 3y ago
    I also find 24" to be the "perfect" maximum size for a 4k monitor. 27" is close, 32" is clearly too big.