5 ms·

I don’t get marketing people. The only link in the press release is to adobe’s creative cloud. Why isn’t there two taps to buy the monitor with Apple Pay and ha

by ec109685 11mo ago

I don’t get marketing people. The only link in the press release is to adobe’s creative cloud. Why isn’t there two taps to buy the monitor with Apple Pay and have it shipped when it’s available? > The redemption period ends August 31, 2026. For full details, visit https://www.asus.com/content/asus-offers-adobe-creative-cloud https://www.asus.com/content/asus-offers-adobe-creative-clou.... Well, the monitor is €8,999, so maybe it’d be more than two taps for me: > The monitor is scheduled to be available by October 2025 and will costs €8,999 in Europe (including VAT)

gigatexal 11mo ago
Too rich for me. Also I don’t need a creative cloud sub. But I’m the wrong customer for such a monitor. I’ll wait till 8k becomes more of the norm for say 1-1.5k
- nine_k 11mo ago
  Human eye resolution is about 1 arcminute. The comfortable field of view is about 60°, or 3600 arcmimutes. A 4K display should mostly suffice %)
  - gigatexal 11mo ago
    But I run double on Mac so an 8k is 4k.
  - refulgentis 11mo ago
    Naw, not at 32". 32" 4K isn't much better than pre-Retina iPhone, even after accounting for viewing distance between say, ~18" for phone, and 2-3 feet for desktop. I agree for many people, I might even go so far as to say "normies", this sort of thing doesn't matter. But after many years of poking at this, I strongly believe it's not because their eyes can't see the difference, it's because they don't understand the question we're asking (i.e. about overall quality rather than detail density, and when you try explaining detail density, they think you're asking if a monitor "looks real" which sounds ~impossible) This whole thing is disappointing because all I've wanted for a decade is 27" 5K to be mainstream and ubiqituous, that hits a sweet spot - surprisingly, only slightly less PPI than this, but a much more reasonable price. They of course exist, its just, consistently fringe and Mac-focused, presumably due to vagaries of HDMI.
    - nine_k 11mo ago
      All good points! 5K requires a lot of bandwidth; some 5K monitors required two HDMI connections, and Thunderbolt was Mac-specific and generally costly.
  - Rizz 11mo ago
    Human foveala, the central part of your vision, has on average about one cone every 30 arcseconds, but resolution of 20 arcseconds is still quite common because the variety in cone density is quite high. So someone with good vision, maybe someone who would naturally be inclined to work in graphics, would need over 430ppi at 2 feet, or 290 at 3 feet. This screen seems to be perfect for someone with good vision at 3 feet, if you place the screen closer you would need even higher resolution.
pjerem 11mo ago
Buy a 9k€ monitor and get free 3 months for a cloud subscription. What a deal !
- ryanjshaw 11mo ago
  If you’re not careful, that adobe creative cloud sub will cost you more than the monitor when you try to cancel
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]

gigatexal 11mo ago

Too rich for me. Also I don’t need a creative cloud sub. But I’m the wrong customer for such a monitor. I’ll wait till 8k becomes more of the norm for say 1-1.5k

nine_k 11mo ago
Human eye resolution is about 1 arcminute. The comfortable field of view is about 60°, or 3600 arcmimutes. A 4K display should mostly suffice %)
- gigatexal 11mo ago
  But I run double on Mac so an 8k is 4k.
- refulgentis 11mo ago
  Naw, not at 32". 32" 4K isn't much better than pre-Retina iPhone, even after accounting for viewing distance between say, ~18" for phone, and 2-3 feet for desktop. I agree for many people, I might even go so far as to say "normies", this sort of thing doesn't matter. But after many years of poking at this, I strongly believe it's not because their eyes can't see the difference, it's because they don't understand the question we're asking (i.e. about overall quality rather than detail density, and when you try explaining detail density, they think you're asking if a monitor "looks real" which sounds ~impossible) This whole thing is disappointing because all I've wanted for a decade is 27" 5K to be mainstream and ubiqituous, that hits a sweet spot - surprisingly, only slightly less PPI than this, but a much more reasonable price. They of course exist, its just, consistently fringe and Mac-focused, presumably due to vagaries of HDMI.
  - nine_k 11mo ago
    All good points! 5K requires a lot of bandwidth; some 5K monitors required two HDMI connections, and Thunderbolt was Mac-specific and generally costly.
- Rizz 11mo ago
  Human foveala, the central part of your vision, has on average about one cone every 30 arcseconds, but resolution of 20 arcseconds is still quite common because the variety in cone density is quite high. So someone with good vision, maybe someone who would naturally be inclined to work in graphics, would need over 430ppi at 2 feet, or 290 at 3 feet. This screen seems to be perfect for someone with good vision at 3 feet, if you place the screen closer you would need even higher resolution.

pjerem 11mo ago

Buy a 9k€ monitor and get free 3 months for a cloud subscription. What a deal !

ryanjshaw 11mo ago
If you’re not careful, that adobe creative cloud sub will cost you more than the monitor when you try to cancel
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]