4 ms·

At ~220PPI and 2x HiDPI mode it works as properly as Apple's Pro XDR 6K display: everything is crisply clear and the working area is vast. You basically get two

At ~220PPI and 2x HiDPI mode it works as properly as Apple's Pro XDR 6K display: everything is crisply clear and the working area is vast. You basically get two and a half 4K screens seamlessly in one rectangle. Actually it has 4% more pixels than 6K Pro Display XDR (6144x3456 vs 6016x3384) and 44% more pixels than 5K Studio Display (5120x2880). It is the highest resolution computer monitor I can get at the moment. (8K and higher resolutions are mostly TV sets or cinema equipment, not optimized for computer use.) I was even trying to attach two of these 6K babies to the M4 Mac mini. According to Apple spec it should work, but no matter how I tried, the second attached display only gets max 4K signal. Maybe it needs M4 Pro.

patrakov 1y ago
Honest question: > 8K and higher resolutions are mostly TV sets or cinema equipment, not optimized for computer use. Does this mean "not offering true RGB 8K processing even internally, only compressed YCbCr 4:2:0"?
- riobard 1y ago
  That's only one of the reasons. 8K 10-bit RGB requires ~60Gbps while HDMI 2.1 can carry at most 42Gbps. So video has to be compressed somehow and it's mostly likely YCbCr with subsampling (coz that's how most video is encoded anyway). HDMI 2.1 also supports DSC so it's an option but I doubt any non-computer-monitor-oriented TV will support that. Another reason is PPI. macOS works best ~220PPI for 2x HiDPI mode so 8K would be about 40". But current batch of 8K TV comes in sizes over 60", which is too big for most desks. There're also convenience factors like DDC control (where you can control brightness and volume using software on your computer) which most modern computer monitors support but I've never seen any TV supporting that. Without HDMI CEC on the computer side, you can't even auto wakeup the TV when you wake up the computer.
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    > So video has to be compressed somehow Multiple plugs is also an option, as seen on the 32" 8K Dells 8 years ago.
    - riobard 1y ago
      I don’t know any Mac support that.
throw0101c 1y ago
What's the exact make/model?
- riobard 1y ago
  That's the tricky question. It doesn't have one (or it has many???) It's the same LG panel (LM315STA-SSA1) used by Dell's ugly-as-hell U3224KB, but in an all-aluminum case and stand weighing about 9KG. Assembled in China at half the cost of U3224KB and various Chinese brands are selling it with their logos etched on the back.
  - throw0101c 1y ago
    > It's the same LG panel (LM315STA-SSA1) used by Dell's ugly-as-hell U3224KB Crikey, CAD 4200: * https://www.dell.com/en-ca/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-6k-monitor-u3224kb/apd/210-bhbz/monitors-monitor-accessories https://www.dell.com/en-ca/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-6k-monito... Though more real estate and resolution, not sure I really want to go there (even for half the cost). I think I'll stick with 27" 5K: > In just the past few months, we've taken a look at the ASUS ProArt Display 5K, the BenQ PD2730S, and the Alogic Clarity 5K Touch with its unique touchscreen capabilities, and most recently I've been testing out another new option, the $950 ViewSonic VP2788-5K, to see how it stacks up. * https://www.macrumors.com/review/viewsonic-vp2788-5k-display/ https://www.macrumors.com/review/viewsonic-vp2788-5k-display...
perching_aix 1y ago
> At ~220PPI and 2x HiDPI mode it works as properly as Apple's Pro XDR 6K display Not an Apple guy, so this confuses the bejeezus out of me. The standard PPI on MacOS is 72, and the Pro Display XDR promptly clocks in at 216 PPI, so exactly 3x standard PPI for MacOS. This would suggest a scaling factor of 3x, not 2x. What's going on? I do vaguely recall about them "raising the standard PPI to double the original", but then we're looking at 1.5x scaling, and according to other vague recollections, they don't do fractional scaling. Another vague recollection is a claim that they abandoned 72 as the standard PPI (in favor of 96? or what?), which would potentially check out (192 PPI would be 2x), but then it's 12.5% more dense than ideal.
- throw0101c 1y ago
  > The standard PPI on MacOS is 72 […] [citation needed] ? Where did you get that number from? Not saying you're wrong (or right), I'm just curious where you came up with that number? Perhaps 'back in the day' MacOS 9-based hardware does that? [1][2] Per [3], it seems that non-Retina displays should be 100-120 ppi and Retina should be 200-230. [1] https://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/the-72-ppi-web-resolution-myth/ https://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/the-72-ppi-we... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch [3] https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/ https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    > Perhaps 'back in the day' MacOS 9-based hardware does that? [1][2] My information does come from historical sources, although I'd be hesitant to conclude it doesn't apply beyond them. In the sources you cite, they detail for example how Apple moved on from defining a reference constant to just speaking in terms of logical-to-physical pixel mappings. This took a while for me to wrap my head around, since I considered that basically nonsensical, but it means them having taken exclusive ownership of the reference PPI, preventing third parties from strongly relying on it or expecting physically precise sizes. This doesn't necessarily mean such a constant (or constants per device class) do not exist, it just means it's under wraps. 1x has to mean something in terms of density, otherwise apparent sizes of screen elements wouldn't be transferable across devices. Unless they really are just eyeballing it or just "letting jesus take the wheel", which would be entertaining, but I find that unlikely. > Per [3], it seems that non-Retina displays should be 100-120 ppi and Retina should be 200-230. Maybe. I'd be cautious to just accept it, some person writing that on their blog is not any more credible than me writing anything here as a comment. Random bits of Apple documentation still references 72 PPI as the 1x reference point for example. [0] [1] It's possible though that in the spirit of the aforementioned, they did "secretly" move to 110 PPI or something as their reference constant, and so by that 2x is indeed 220, giving GP what they see, but that just rubs me so strange. But I mean, if when you open the display settings on a Pro Display XDR or similar, and it says the scaling factor is 2x, and you can reproduce this kind of scaling selection across a wide array of devices all hinting at 110 PPI being 1x, then there we go, apparently their current reference PPI then is 110. [0] https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/typography https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline... > Point size based on image resolution of 72 ppi for @1x and 144 ppi for @2x designs. > Point size based on image resolution of 144 ppi for @2x and 216 ppi for @3x designs. [1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/appkit/nstouch/device https://developer.apple.com/documentation/appkit/nstouch/dev... > The range of the touch device in points, such as 72 ppi. (admittedly a pretty random source to cite this last one, doesn't explicitly support anything)

patrakov 1y ago

Honest question: > 8K and higher resolutions are mostly TV sets or cinema equipment, not optimized for computer use. Does this mean "not offering true RGB 8K processing even internally, only compressed YCbCr 4:2:0"?

riobard 1y ago
That's only one of the reasons. 8K 10-bit RGB requires ~60Gbps while HDMI 2.1 can carry at most 42Gbps. So video has to be compressed somehow and it's mostly likely YCbCr with subsampling (coz that's how most video is encoded anyway). HDMI 2.1 also supports DSC so it's an option but I doubt any non-computer-monitor-oriented TV will support that. Another reason is PPI. macOS works best ~220PPI for 2x HiDPI mode so 8K would be about 40". But current batch of 8K TV comes in sizes over 60", which is too big for most desks. There're also convenience factors like DDC control (where you can control brightness and volume using software on your computer) which most modern computer monitors support but I've never seen any TV supporting that. Without HDMI CEC on the computer side, you can't even auto wakeup the TV when you wake up the computer.
- perching_aix 1y ago
  > So video has to be compressed somehow Multiple plugs is also an option, as seen on the 32" 8K Dells 8 years ago.
  - riobard 1y ago
    I don’t know any Mac support that.

throw0101c 1y ago

What's the exact make/model?

riobard 1y ago
That's the tricky question. It doesn't have one (or it has many???) It's the same LG panel (LM315STA-SSA1) used by Dell's ugly-as-hell U3224KB, but in an all-aluminum case and stand weighing about 9KG. Assembled in China at half the cost of U3224KB and various Chinese brands are selling it with their logos etched on the back.
- throw0101c 1y ago
  > It's the same LG panel (LM315STA-SSA1) used by Dell's ugly-as-hell U3224KB Crikey, CAD 4200: * https://www.dell.com/en-ca/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-6k-monitor-u3224kb/apd/210-bhbz/monitors-monitor-accessories https://www.dell.com/en-ca/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-6k-monito... Though more real estate and resolution, not sure I really want to go there (even for half the cost). I think I'll stick with 27" 5K: > In just the past few months, we've taken a look at the ASUS ProArt Display 5K, the BenQ PD2730S, and the Alogic Clarity 5K Touch with its unique touchscreen capabilities, and most recently I've been testing out another new option, the $950 ViewSonic VP2788-5K, to see how it stacks up. * https://www.macrumors.com/review/viewsonic-vp2788-5k-display/ https://www.macrumors.com/review/viewsonic-vp2788-5k-display...

perching_aix 1y ago

> At ~220PPI and 2x HiDPI mode it works as properly as Apple's Pro XDR 6K display Not an Apple guy, so this confuses the bejeezus out of me. The standard PPI on MacOS is 72, and the Pro Display XDR promptly clocks in at 216 PPI, so exactly 3x standard PPI for MacOS. This would suggest a scaling factor of 3x, not 2x. What's going on? I do vaguely recall about them "raising the standard PPI to double the original", but then we're looking at 1.5x scaling, and according to other vague recollections, they don't do fractional scaling. Another vague recollection is a claim that they abandoned 72 as the standard PPI (in favor of 96? or what?), which would potentially check out (192 PPI would be 2x), but then it's 12.5% more dense than ideal.

throw0101c 1y ago
> The standard PPI on MacOS is 72 […] [citation needed] ? Where did you get that number from? Not saying you're wrong (or right), I'm just curious where you came up with that number? Perhaps 'back in the day' MacOS 9-based hardware does that? [1][2] Per [3], it seems that non-Retina displays should be 100-120 ppi and Retina should be 200-230. [1] https://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/the-72-ppi-web-resolution-myth/ https://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/the-72-ppi-we... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch [3] https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/ https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/
- perching_aix 1y ago
  > Perhaps 'back in the day' MacOS 9-based hardware does that? [1][2] My information does come from historical sources, although I'd be hesitant to conclude it doesn't apply beyond them. In the sources you cite, they detail for example how Apple moved on from defining a reference constant to just speaking in terms of logical-to-physical pixel mappings. This took a while for me to wrap my head around, since I considered that basically nonsensical, but it means them having taken exclusive ownership of the reference PPI, preventing third parties from strongly relying on it or expecting physically precise sizes. This doesn't necessarily mean such a constant (or constants per device class) do not exist, it just means it's under wraps. 1x has to mean something in terms of density, otherwise apparent sizes of screen elements wouldn't be transferable across devices. Unless they really are just eyeballing it or just "letting jesus take the wheel", which would be entertaining, but I find that unlikely. > Per [3], it seems that non-Retina displays should be 100-120 ppi and Retina should be 200-230. Maybe. I'd be cautious to just accept it, some person writing that on their blog is not any more credible than me writing anything here as a comment. Random bits of Apple documentation still references 72 PPI as the 1x reference point for example. [0] [1] It's possible though that in the spirit of the aforementioned, they did "secretly" move to 110 PPI or something as their reference constant, and so by that 2x is indeed 220, giving GP what they see, but that just rubs me so strange. But I mean, if when you open the display settings on a Pro Display XDR or similar, and it says the scaling factor is 2x, and you can reproduce this kind of scaling selection across a wide array of devices all hinting at 110 PPI being 1x, then there we go, apparently their current reference PPI then is 110. [0] https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/typography https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline... > Point size based on image resolution of 72 ppi for @1x and 144 ppi for @2x designs. > Point size based on image resolution of 144 ppi for @2x and 216 ppi for @3x designs. [1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/appkit/nstouch/device https://developer.apple.com/documentation/appkit/nstouch/dev... > The range of the touch device in points, such as 72 ppi. (admittedly a pretty random source to cite this last one, doesn't explicitly support anything)