3 ms·

Of all places, HN should not be the one to casually conflate resolution and DPI!

• cpuguy83 1y ago
  But who's going to use such a tiny display that would make 1080p look good?
  • zamadatix 1y ago
    E.g. 1080p on a 15" laptop is still sharper than 4k on a 32" desktop monitor. People do work on both modalities, they talk to the one they use, chaos ensues.
    • cpuguy83 1y ago
      And I am immensely unhappy with my 4K@32. 4K@27 is more tolerable... really miss the 5K@27 I had (other than it was a "smart" monitor which annoyed the hell out of me).
• teiferer 1y ago
  The comments silently imply that they are talking about the same screen size, so 1920x1200 vs 4K is indeed a conversation about DPI.
  • maccard 1y ago
    I read their comment in the exact opposite way, and that your comment is exactly their point.
  • criddell 1y ago
    Of course that's what I meant. It wouldn't make any sense otherwise.
  • zamadatix 1y ago
    The conflation was that 1920x1080 is a automatically poor clarity so that's why 4k is needed (at the same size). I.e. there is no resolution that is clear or unclear in and of itself, but that's how it is discussed. One person talks about a laptop, another talks about their big coding desktop monitor, a third talks about a TV they use. None agree how much 1080p clarity makes sense for usage because the only thing quoted is resolution. This drives the assumption everyone is talking about the same sizes and viewing distances based on the resolution, which is almost never the case (before the conversation even gets to the age old debate of how much clarity is enough). I'm sure if you ask the original commenter, they don't mean 1080p looks great for reading books at 34" just as much as GP wouldn't mean to compare screens of different sizes either.
• kergonath 1y ago
  The implicit bit is that some of us also like to work with decently sized screens.