3 ms·

Always focus on PPI, some rough numbers 27” 5k (5120 x 2880) -> 218 PPI 32” 4k (3840 x 2160) -> 137.68 PPI 34” 5k (5120 x 2160) -> 163.44 PPI 39,7 5K (5120

Always focus on PPI, some rough numbers 27” 5k (5120 x 2880) -> 218 PPI 32” 4k (3840 x 2160) -> 137.68 PPI 34” 5k (5120 x 2160) -> 163.44 PPI 39,7 5K (5120 x 2160) -> 139.97 PPI Apple Pro Display XDR 32" 6k (6016 x 3384) -> 218 PPI

Kuraj 3y ago
PPI doesn't translate to screen estate, though
- notorandit 3y ago
  And too many PPI won't make text easier to read, unless you magnify the screen, thus actually loosing PPIs. PPIs will display sharper pictures, provided that they have enough quality.
  - vladvasiliu 3y ago
    The text is sharper with a higher PPI even if the actual size of the text is the same. I have a 4k 24" screen, and text is much much sharper than on any FHD 24". Hell, it's noticeably sharper even than on my 14" FHD laptop. And sharper text helps with legibility, so I find I can actually use smaller font sizes more comfortably than the "regular" size on a lower-res screen. You don't get more real estate, indeed, since that depends on zoom level. However, depending on your setup and habits, you may actually gain some. In my case, I use 4k at 100% zoom. I don't care for window decorations, interface icons and so on, so it's not an issue if they're small.
  - brandall10 3y ago
    If you go up PPI by a percentage you can reduce font size by a similar amount. Too small to be legible? Literally move the screen closer. No need to magnify anything. Have a 27" 4k monitor and a 42" 4k monitor? Move the 27" close enough that it takes up the same FOV as the 4k and you get the same experience. This isn't like home theatre where you're constrained to the dimensions of a room (ie. wall or console location a TV sits on top of and seat viewing distance).
    - ParetoOptimal 3y ago
      For eye health, I've gotten the recommendation to keep my monitor an arms length away. If that is true, I'd consider move the screen closer to not be an option.
      - brandall10 3y ago
        You don't want it too close, but it can be closer than that if you have normal eyesight. The line should be where your eyes have trouble focusing and add a small buffer. For me that's about a foot. So wherever you're comfortable looking at a smartphone (or really any object) is a good point of reference. Otherwise this is a commonly propagated myth related to radiation from early TV sets. https://theopticalshoppetn.com/is-sitting-too-close-to-the-tv-really-bad-for-your-eyes/ https://theopticalshoppetn.com/is-sitting-too-close-to-the-t...
wongarsu 3y ago
My preferred setup in terms of screen real estate is 24" 2k (2560x1440) without scaling. In terms of PPI it's a bit low (122), but 244 PPI 24" screens are hard to get. 1.5x scaling is an option
- baq 3y ago
  I like 25x14 on a 27" and the fact that on a mac you have to buy BetterDisplay just to make it work about 80% as good as on Windows makes me... not at all surprised since I'm supposed to use an apple display with an apple computer, right?
  - pivo 3y ago
    Why not just get a 4K 27”? They can be had for around $220 USD nowadays. I paid that for mine. I do dislike the fact that Apple removed decent support for lower resolution monitors, but I also don’t see why anyone would prefer them to higher res unless it’s a budget issue.
    - baq 3y ago
      4k is... too low res for desktop use on a mac. 25x14 upscaled to 5k only to be downscaled again to device native resolution by a $15 tool still gives me more usable screen real estate than a native 4k and the $15 makes it so text is actually legible...
      - pivo 3y ago
        By 25x14, do you mean 2560x1440? If so, are you saying that a $15 device will magically make a 2560x1440 monitor higher resolution than 3840x2160? If that's what you're saying, do you have a link that provides some detail on this because I don't believe it. I'm also unable to believe someone would consider 27" 4K text illegible on a mac since that's what I use that every day and can read text comfortably. Edit: Unless you're using it unscaled, then yeah, text isn't that legible. These are strange statements to make without any detail.

Kuraj 3y ago

PPI doesn't translate to screen estate, though

notorandit 3y ago
And too many PPI won't make text easier to read, unless you magnify the screen, thus actually loosing PPIs. PPIs will display sharper pictures, provided that they have enough quality.
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  The text is sharper with a higher PPI even if the actual size of the text is the same. I have a 4k 24" screen, and text is much much sharper than on any FHD 24". Hell, it's noticeably sharper even than on my 14" FHD laptop. And sharper text helps with legibility, so I find I can actually use smaller font sizes more comfortably than the "regular" size on a lower-res screen. You don't get more real estate, indeed, since that depends on zoom level. However, depending on your setup and habits, you may actually gain some. In my case, I use 4k at 100% zoom. I don't care for window decorations, interface icons and so on, so it's not an issue if they're small.
- brandall10 3y ago
  If you go up PPI by a percentage you can reduce font size by a similar amount. Too small to be legible? Literally move the screen closer. No need to magnify anything. Have a 27" 4k monitor and a 42" 4k monitor? Move the 27" close enough that it takes up the same FOV as the 4k and you get the same experience. This isn't like home theatre where you're constrained to the dimensions of a room (ie. wall or console location a TV sits on top of and seat viewing distance).
  - ParetoOptimal 3y ago
    For eye health, I've gotten the recommendation to keep my monitor an arms length away. If that is true, I'd consider move the screen closer to not be an option.
    - brandall10 3y ago
      You don't want it too close, but it can be closer than that if you have normal eyesight. The line should be where your eyes have trouble focusing and add a small buffer. For me that's about a foot. So wherever you're comfortable looking at a smartphone (or really any object) is a good point of reference. Otherwise this is a commonly propagated myth related to radiation from early TV sets. https://theopticalshoppetn.com/is-sitting-too-close-to-the-tv-really-bad-for-your-eyes/ https://theopticalshoppetn.com/is-sitting-too-close-to-the-t...

wongarsu 3y ago

My preferred setup in terms of screen real estate is 24" 2k (2560x1440) without scaling. In terms of PPI it's a bit low (122), but 244 PPI 24" screens are hard to get. 1.5x scaling is an option

baq 3y ago
I like 25x14 on a 27" and the fact that on a mac you have to buy BetterDisplay just to make it work about 80% as good as on Windows makes me... not at all surprised since I'm supposed to use an apple display with an apple computer, right?
- pivo 3y ago
  Why not just get a 4K 27”? They can be had for around $220 USD nowadays. I paid that for mine. I do dislike the fact that Apple removed decent support for lower resolution monitors, but I also don’t see why anyone would prefer them to higher res unless it’s a budget issue.
  - baq 3y ago
    4k is... too low res for desktop use on a mac. 25x14 upscaled to 5k only to be downscaled again to device native resolution by a $15 tool still gives me more usable screen real estate than a native 4k and the $15 makes it so text is actually legible...
    - pivo 3y ago
      By 25x14, do you mean 2560x1440? If so, are you saying that a $15 device will magically make a 2560x1440 monitor higher resolution than 3840x2160? If that's what you're saying, do you have a link that provides some detail on this because I don't believe it. I'm also unable to believe someone would consider 27" 4K text illegible on a mac since that's what I use that every day and can read text comfortably. Edit: Unless you're using it unscaled, then yeah, text isn't that legible. These are strange statements to make without any detail.