>>52714769 >Funny because 2k res on laptops is still overkill, just as it was back then. You can see a difference, but not enough for it to justify the price. what are you referring to when you say 2k? the closest common resolution that that seems to be referring to is 1920x1080 and we refer to that as 1080p or as 1920x1080.
retroactively calling it "2k" just because we call 4k by that naming scheme is confusing and pointless.
as for calling it a waste of money, i don't know what to say. eyesight is one of those tricky things that you need to get checked every once in a while - maybe get glasses or contacts or something.
>>52714210 It's absolutely a potato resolution if you've used 4k, 5k, or 1440p ultrawide and then try going back.
Great resolution for gaming though, considering most GPUs are incapable of doing anything greater than 1080p with 60fps on the most demanding games (check out 980ti benchmarks for the latest Tomb Raider and The Division).
>>52715084 I work with a 1920x1080 monitor to my right and some 4k monitors of the same size in front of me. I'm not seeing grains the borders of pixels the way the picture illustrates (because like you said, I sit at a normal viewing distance), but the notion that you're not going to notice the difference looking at text on the higher resolution monitor is preposterous. you need to speak from experience on this
>>52714811 2k/4k res monitors are expensive and displaying anything at those resolutions requires more powerful(expensive) hardware by default, and also leads to battery life issues on mobile devices.
The difference is indeed noticeable, but not noticeable enough to warrant how expensive 2k/4k devices can get.
2k is 2000+ vertical pixel res. I'm not sure why you think 2k means 1920x1080. Do you see a '2000' in there anywhere? 2k is a blanket term used now for any vertical pixel res above 2000. More accurate to call 2,500~ "2.5k" but only autistic kids would do that.
>>52715101 it doesn't even have to be 200+. the UP2414Q and the P2415Q are ~183 pixels per inch, but that's double the ~90ppi that you'd get from a 1920x1080 monitor of the same size.
this is the same exact discussion that /g/ had when Apple announced the rMBP. it was embarrassing that so many people didn't understand the appeal of more sharpness (a lot of them honestly thought this would mean you'd have a microscopic cursor), but it's actually more embarrassing that we seem to have this conversation all fucking over again whenever we bring higher density displays to other venues.
>>52715153 I assume the reason why everyone has no idea why you would want high DPI is because most people use Windows, and Window's catastrophically bad high DPI support makes everyone skeptical of the usefulness of it.
When Windows finally catches up, everyone will inevitably claim they 'always knew' it was a good idea and that anyone using 1080p is an idiot.
>>52715152 >not noticeable enough to warrant how expensive 2k/4k devices can get. this is a fundamentally personal call, and you seem to think it's not. i don't know what priorities you have or how much (or little) you make, but if you spend a lot of time using your computer, it probably involves a lot of looking at your screen and reading text. your display is the obvious place to invest to have a better experience.
>2k is 2000+ vertical pixel res so 4k refers to the horizontal pixels and 2k refers to vertical pixels? >2k is a blanket term used now for any vertical pixel res above 2000 oh my god, no. whoever told you this is an idiot. stop listening to them.
>>52715152 You're an idiot. The cinema standard for "2k" is 2048x1080. To fit a 16:9 aspect, 2k is 1920x1080, rounding up to 2048, since it is about there. 2560x1440 is objectively 2.5k. Why would you use your dumb explanation for justifying calling 1440p 2k when 4k is 3840x2160?
>>52715171 >most people use Windows, and Window's catastrophically bad high DPI support makes everyone skeptical of the usefulness of it. you're right of course. the "microscopic cursor" meme actually started to go away when Windows updates bought marginally better scaling affordances to idiots on /g/ (I think it came with Windows 8.1, or 10, not sure). Scaling in Windows is still bad, but it's not *quite* as bad as it was when Apple brought out the rMBP and started pushing developers to target for 2x scaling (which, for all its faults, is one silver lining of merit to a tightly regulated walled garden approach that the app store represents).
>>52714780 40" 1080p TV here too for gaymen, HDMI from my tower to the TV. Play some of my games from my bed with xbone controller if I'm too lazy to sit at my desk, and works perfectly fine with my stereo system.
>>52715242 hi welcome to the thread. i know it's a chore, but read the rest of the thread (like >>52715054 and the following conversation). asking us to chase your camp around in circles is a waste of everyone's time.
Regardless, everything I stated was correct. 2k/4k shit is expensive and taxing. The difference isn't incredibly noticeable on smaller screens to often justify the price increase, not to mention there is still a fundamental lack of support in many areas of entertainment as well as software.
>>52715195 >objectively 2.5k As I pointed out already. Thanks for repeating me, I guess? It's still not called 2.5k by anyone except autistic kids. Retail outlets don't have a '2.5k' section. They have a 2k section, because it's pointless to separate the two, in category when people don't know what the fuck it is to begin with.
No one calls it "2.5k" even though it should be labeled as such.
>>52715276 >4k shit is expensive and taxing again, this is a personal call. my UP2414Qs were about 600 each. A P2415Q is ~400 last time I looked. 4k can be driven by modern integrated video (admittedly, it would be somewhat taxing, but it's doable).
several people have pointed out that you don't seem to know what you're talking about regarding noticeability, and regarding >fundamental lack of support what does "fundamental" mean in this case? Windows is probably the only operating system that still flounders at scaling; OS X handles scaling just fine, and virtually every modern program handles scaling properly. Again, if you're doing something like coding, reading, etc... then "fundamentally supporting" sharper text is both trivial and now ubiquitous.
Except, perhaps, on Windows.
I grant that there's not a lot of entertainment prepared for 4k, but on balance having sharper text and having to scale a 1080p movie to 2x is much better than having less sharp text and having movies and games at 1080p natively. but again, this depends on your priorities. it sounds like your priorities put gaming and entertainment above work, which is reasonable if you don't do a lot of software/tech work
>>52715300 it was a crop of a photo. unfortunately it's not feasible to sit you at my desk or ship you these monitors to see it for yourself, but for the fact that you should be able to infer from seeing this what kind of difference you could expect to experience.
if you're coming into this thread with the decision already made that you have to be right, then there's not much any of us can do to help you. if you're open to the possibility that people who've used both for some time might know more about this than someone who hasn't, then we can have a worthwhile conversation about this.
>>52714813 Same here. I bought a TV a few months ago and went for a 50" 1080p model because if you can seriously tell the difference at the distance of 13-15' (width of my living room) you've got hawk eyes and should probably pursue a career that will pay you well for putting them to use.
>>52715054 I work with text on monitors for a living (pharmacy data). I don't see the point in bumping up to absurdly high resolutions. The monitors I use at work are all only x768 and they're just fine desu. I program for fun on the side and don't see how it would benefit me much there either in terms of eye strain. I'm not sold on 4K yet and too cheap to try out a 2K monitor. I think they're still memes at this point
>>52714936 People might laugh but a some older PC games run nicely on HiDPI screens too. I play vanilla WoW at 2880x1800 on my 15" rMBP and it's smooth as butter with edges so crisp that you really don't need antialiasing. It looks awesome for a game released in 2004.
Having an internal struggle on whether to get a 144hz TN monitor or 144hz IPS monitor. I dont care about viewing angles, I dont look at my monitor from the sides due to the location of my setup, so that's not an issue.
>>52715213 The other reason that Apple was able to push HiDPI so quickly is because 90% of the programs Mac users use on a day to day basis are written with native APIs with relatively little custom work. Because of this, when HiDPI was introduced all Mac developers had to do was check a tickbox in Xcode and update a few raster image resources and BAM, full HiDPI support.
On the other hand, in Windows land developers have a combo of acute snowflake and NIH syndrome, insisting on reinventing the wheel and assuming 72DPI while doing so, which is why Windows blows so hard at scaling.
>>52715401 I agree that "absurdly high resolutions" is pointless (or at least a never-ending chase). I'm not talking about infinitely high resolution though; just getting to the point that you hit seriously diminishing returns.
We can probably agree (vacuously) that 60 pixels per inch is worse than 90 pixels per inch, and that the difference is pretty noticeable. Maybe there's a point between 90 and 180 that's reasonably close to the plateauing of marginal benefit, but (unfortunately) 24" monitors are generally 1920x1080, and the least problematic way to handle scaling is by doing it in integer values: 2x, 3x, 5x, etc...
The smallest amount by which we can scale a 1080p display to get more sharpness (e.g. same size cursor and text, just with more resolved detail) without having to deal with interpolation is by scaling from 1920x1080 to 2x. That's what 4k happens to be.
That's why 4k on a 24" monitor fits so well as a drop-in replacement to a same-size 1080p monitor. That intuition is why the iPhone 4S doubling its resolution over the iPhone 4 was so well-received - because it didn't necessarily break everyone's interfaces, and calculating how to scale legacy UIs was trivial.
>buy 1 40" 4k monitor for $500 >no scaling >essentially 4 20" 1080p monitors >no issue with syncing color, brightness, etc >no panel to panel issues
>buy 4 20" 1080p monitors >costs more >have to keep RMAing them until you get panels that are virtually identical >have to buy a VESA mount for two of them >hours spent just trying to get it setup >giant bezels.
>>52715497 i think he's talking about youtube - would flash (or more likely html5) even use that shit?
my hunch is that it's just his operating system not knowing what the fuck it's doing. OS X really embarrasses Windows on this front. And it's clear that MS is trying to catch up (Windows 10 scaling is decidedly better than it was in 8 and that was better than 7 was), and their own devices deliberately make use of it (the Surface and Surface Pro being prime examples), but as above posters have pointed out they're stuck dealing with all these snowflake developers and legacy software that will simply never be brought up to speed.
it's like herding cats, and worse, some of the cats are dead.
>>52715552 He doesn't know; he can't. I promise you, we don't yet know what we're doing with VR technology on a day-to-day basis. We have some really cool niche applications for it (applications as in "things to do", not software), but we're still working out the long term place.
>>52715552 There are hundreds of VR games being worked on and OSes too. Naturally they are not as refined as traditional OSes yet since the HMDs are not even out yet but they are still the inevitable future.
>>52715577 You could argue that the technology is still not good enough for everyday use but saying it's inefficient is retarded, it's going to revolutionize user interfaces since you are not as limited by screen size. It's also extremely useful for 3D modelling and stuff.
>>52715605 >it's going to revolutionize user interfaces Not to say that you're wrong, but as a researcher in human-computer interaction i can tell you that literally every zealot for their own toy technology says their thing will "revolutionize" something more than it will. we don't have any good evidence that this will be any more ubiquitous as an interface paradigm than smartwatches, and on that front we're seeing some truly meek research coming out to explore cool ways to interact with stuff (like one paper coming out at an upcoming major conference is about writing a paper through a smartwatch).
You might reasonably claim that VR will revolutionize a very narrow use case (like surgery), but nobody with a stake in this field would claim anything will revolutionize something as broad as "user interfaces".
>>52715519 I want VR so I can have a virtual computer desk with a virtual monitor that displays my current monitor to do all of my work, except I can customize where I'm sitting, like in a beautiful field of grass, or floating in the far reaches of space, or in a girl's bathroom so I can look away from my monitor for a moment to watch a hot girl take a big shit.
>>52715634 >this interface design I just made up in my head is more inefficient No matter how you try to spin it, more screen real state will always be more efficient, there's a reason why multiple monitors are so popular in professional environments.
If you have to turn around just to get to stuff that's inefficient as fuck.
There are so many better solutions like you mentioned already with multiple monitor which don't force you to have to change position because you're usually not a retard and position them so far apart. Not to mention Virtual desktops changeable at the click of a button is so much better.
Instead you actually think it's going to be great to create some virtual desktop strip that you have to turn around just to navigate is stupid as fuck.
>>52715685 Let's not forget that with VR it's finally practical to put the third dimension to use. One can imagine pulling/pushing a stack of windows towards and away from your face, with the windows fading away after reaching a certain distance from your face for example. You could also glance through a tilted stack of windows 50 windows deep the same way we glance through a manila folder full of papers in real life and instantly picking out the right one by going off of window titles.
>>52715754 you're talking about AR if you can see your hands. VR blocks your entire field of view and replaces it with 3-dimensional space.
Like I said before, AR isn't there yet. You can say it looks promising, but we're so far from real application that mocking people talking about monitors is ridiculously stupid. As in, it merits ridicule.
>>52715729 Again you are making up some imaginary design that no sane developer would do if efficiency was the goal, you are just thinking of movie VR with flashy lights for dramatic effect.
https://youtu.be/id86HeV-Vb8 There's a lot of serious work being done on VR right now, the future of user interfaces is most likely going to be VR with some AR thrown in like Leap Motion's hand tracking.
>>52715794 augmented reality. defining feature being that you see the things around you (like your hands) without interruptions.
you can do VR and see your hands and stuff but you'd need to do it with some kind of glove or camera to track your hands and represent them in VR. That's so prohibitively difficult (especially given that decent AR isn't that hard) that it would be a waste of resources (and for little to no obvious purpose).
VR's marginal benefit over AR seems to be that VR lends itself to gaming under the paradigm of Second Life or something - a fundamentally anachronistic way of thinking about gaming (really advanced AR would support gaming in "the real world" by adding whatever elements you want to the existing stuff around you)
>>52715822 Watch the fucking video you idiot, it talks about what you are complaining about which is comfortable viewing angles and input methods. You have to be a real retard to think you have discovered some amazing problem that no one that is working on this for several years has ever thought of.
>>52715810 We've done research on this; representing your hands as cursors or really anything else tends to lower dexterity and perceived fidelity of movement. If it's at all possible, you should try to let the user see and reference their own limbs if you're using them as input devices.
And I'm not saying that's even a good way to do input. The lactic acid that builds up from holding your arms up in mid-air for more than 5-10 minutes makes the entire "Minority Report" paradigm of interaction the definition of a pipe dream - the sort of thing that you think up if you've only given it a cursory thought and never bothered to investigate the potential any further or with actual rigor.
>>52715846 >That's so prohibitively difficult There is AR hand tracking that simply uses cameras to track your hands available right now as a consumer product, it's still first gen so it's not perfect but it's far from "prohibitively difficult".
i'm not pulling this out of my ass. we used leap motion on a project aimed to implement gestures in airplanes but any complications in the environment dramatically reduced accuracy, calibrating became a huge pain in the ass, and again the (very short) latency between your movement and the representation of your hands totally threw people off.
it's not viable right now. it probably will be someday, but by then you'll have to wonder why the hell you would do all of this when you've got the solution in front of you already. is it so you can have a wire-frame skeleton hand as your cursor instead of your skin/flesh? is that a goal that merits all that extra work?
>>52715962 Latency and inaccuracy is not a problem with the concept itself but rather just limitations of the unrefined technology. You would still have to track your hands in AR in the exact same way if you wanted to use them as input methods but AR screens are far more primitive than VR right now. HoloLens for example which is probably the best one right now is basically just a glorified Google Glass with head tracking.
I'm temporarily using 1920x1080 on a 60" screen, at about 5ft viewing distance. and it looks like shit.
My previous monitor was a 1920x1080 27" screen and it seemed pretty good at ~3ft viewing distance
I also have a 4k 39" screen and it looked too good at a 3ft viewing distance. windows dpi scaling sucks ass so I ended up using it with small icons and such. really looked super good. only problem is I went too cheap and it only does 30hz, which looks like shit. Its definitely not a good computer monitor because of 30hz
>>52716272 generally idiots quote star wars in unrelated discussions.
it'll take a long time for holograms to exist at that level of fidelity.
more importantly, for the purposes of this thread, all of this technology is not "just around the corner".
at this point, arguing about holograms, AR, VR, etc... is a red herring. make a separate thread if this interests you so much. the faggot that started you down this rabbit hole should have been banned for baiting everyone off topic.
>>52716334 there was a conversation about the merit of 4k and various screen sizes until he showed up.
if you're not interested in the topic, jumping in and derailing it isn't any more okay than jumping into /g/ and demanding that everyone talk about video games or television programs or cooking. just hide the thread, or go to a different board.
>>52716392 that looks good. i didn't expect to see a 4k 24" monitor for about $350, but the reviews look good too.
i have my 4k monitors in portrait orientation (i use it for reading text, and it's a great way to read a long stretch of text), but if you want to do that with this monitor you'll need to buy a stand. That's not a big deal, and you'll probably want to get a nice mount regardless, but the one your monitor comes with looks particularly junky.
>>52714762 black friday has pretty much always been a scam they slowly start raising prices so they can put products on "sale" for their normal price or higher odds are if you think you got a steal of a deal you either got 1/20 true deals, or you spent what they should normally cost
>>52716505 even before they learned to do that, buying electronics at black friday has been a losing proposition. when my friends and i were younger, we'd go and wait outside Fry's at 2am to buy some 500 or 750GB hard drives because the deals were getting better and better. it took us a while before we realized that if you checked the prices on those hard drives in February or March, the steady march of commoditization of tech would yield the same lower prices without the mosh pit of smelly indians and chinese people pushing you around just so they can save a few bucks on RAM sticks or SD cards or something.
whenever you want to buy tech components, do yourself a favor and just wait it out. the only thing i've found to be worth buying on black friday is clothing. good shirts, pants, etc... aren't magically depreciating in value over time, and if you have like 40-60% off that shit all of a sudden, you can get good, long-lasting clothing for a song.
>>52716532 it would depend on the size of the monitor, but as >>52715470 pointed out, 4k is double of 1920x1080, so if you see a 4k monitor that's the size of a monitor you'd use in 1920x1080, then you can expect a pixel doubling effect similar to a "retina display".
>>52716572 >The difference between 200ppi and 300pi+ is not noticeable unless you're on top of your monitor. Even so into the 100s. but we're talking about the difference between 90 and 180ppi, and that arguably is noticeable.
what's noticeable is admittedly dependent on factors like eye sight quality, distance, etc... but these are things that people have worked out, and at the distances people often use desktop monitors this is a pretty reasonable bump.
>caring about resolution heh ive been setting up an emulation machine at 640x480 and its not a big deal. besides, whats the point of 4K if most content on youtube is only 1080p 4K is just a premium for those who can afford it. its rather pointless for media since there isnt much for now but i doubt it will ever be as widely used at 1080p
Personally I own a Samsung 32" 1440p monitor. This resolution at this size is like the perfect combo. Cannot imagine going back to 23"-27" monitors. At the time my monitor was $600. A comparable $600 4k Asus monitor at the time just felt like a cheap piece of shit. 7ms input latency, only did 60hz over DP. Only 27"
Granted when I was monitor shopping 4k was pretty much just hitting the market. I think the only thing I'll buy 4k of is a 40"+ 4k TV to hang on my wall solely for use as a second PC monitor. 1440p seems to be the sweet spot of Pixel count while still able to be driven by a single good video card. Case in point, my r9 390. The Hawaii chips love the higher resolutions.
>>52716606 i use both a 200ppi and a 110ppi and i dont notice anything at all. maybe if i rub my face on the screen theres a difference but i dont really see any sitting at a healthy distance from the screen.
>>52716701 Yea a single 390 will do 4k 60fps no problem if you're at medium settings and minimal to no AA which to me is worthless. I know 4k doesn't benefit from AA as much, but having to turn down several settings just to get the card not to fall on its face makes no sense to me. Rather play the came maxed out at 1440p than play meh settings at 4k.
Now when AMD launches their dual Fury card... that is a different story.
>>52716663 >so 4k looks shittier on a 23 inch monitor than on a larger size monitor? It's not quite that.
it's that you're going to scale a 4k monitor at some level (maybe 100%), and you're going to want to scale it at a clean value. in other words, you'll want to scale it at 100% or 200%.
given that you're going to scale it at either 100% or 200%, you want the monitor to either come out to roughly the pixel density you're used to (in the case of 100%) or to double the pixel density that you're used to (in the case of 200%). in the first case, going for ~90ppi, that's like a 50" monitor, which is problematic for all sorts of reasons you can probably figure out on your own.
so your best option is to go with a 4k monitor and scale at 200% since everything that's not set up for it will still interpolate properly, and the scaling we're talking about leads to a ~24" monitor (or whatever you typically associate with a 1920x1080 resolution).
that's the reasoning. you can get a 30" monitor, but with pixel density at ~147, you need to scale at some intermediate value that might lead to awkward interpolation, and given that high density displays aren't *perfectly* supported (frankly they never will be because legacy applications will always fuck that up but whatever), you want to minimize the complications where possible. hence the motivation to scale things with an integer coefficient.
>>52716846 To me one of the big benefits of HiDPI gaming is the enormously increased detail of distant objects. On standard DPI screens walls and such just kinda smudge out past a certain distance, even with anisotropic filtering enabled. On a HiDPI screen distant objects seem nearly as detailed as those right next to the camera.
>>52716672 how healthy are we talking here? i have 3 monitors in front of me (well, 4 with my laptop) and flipping this thread back and forth between the 4k monitors and the 1080p monitor it's clear which one is sharper.
i'm not saying (and nobody has said) that we've all been groaning about the visible pixels on displays up till now, but with these monitors adjacent to one another it's hard to believe that you wouldn't see that text is sharper on these higher density monitors.
>>52716971 the logic can seem tricky, but once you have a heuristic for it i think it's pretty intuitive. this is an illustrative example of putting more pixels into the same amount of space (starting with 1 pixel in the top left).
this is just handling things that are defined pixel by pixel, of course. with the 4x4 grid you can have much finer detail in things like fonts (read: text) which just compute the curves and shit.
>>52717190 and to be clear, the problem is emerging because we're dealing with arrays of pixels (the situation in the top right) and deciding between something like the bottom left (where interpolation gets fucked up) and the bottom right (where a pixel becomes 4 pixels and you can deal with it by turning the whole quartet off or on if you absolutely need to deal with it that way).
given all this, the next step that you want those pixels to actually be packed into the same physical space (so your stuff on the screen is the same relative size) leads you to looking for something with 2x the pixel density, and thus 24" for 4k
if we had 5k monitors (Dell actually offers it, and apple has an iMac with it) you would want it to be something like ~27" to 30" (because it's 2x of 2560x1440, which you commonly see in 27" monitors). as it happens, both are 27".
Thread replies: 181 Thread images: 13
Thread DB ID: 479237
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.