What is better for working with 3d graphics, 4k or Ultrawide?

>>541990
too much pixels for real time rendering & editing,
1440p is the best.

>>541990
I bought a 4k display. Its too many pixels. Lots of soft doesn't support UI scaling, resulting in blurry text/ viewports. If using with no upscaling, you cant see shit. I regret buying 4k display. Go with 1440p, thats what im buying soon

I'd give 4k another year or so.

2017 will be the year of 4k displays.

Im using a 43" 4k screen and theres no better way to work in a 3d software than this.

>>542044
Would you say a 4K makes more sense the bigger it is...so you can read text/UI better?

I've got 2 32" HD screens and i am really satisfied with my view.

>>542047
One bigger screen is better than two smaller ones.

4k it is then.

>>542098
Why so? I run into the issue of UE4 filling up my entire screen and my second screen having all my files, etc. while the left has the level. If I halve the size of the window on one monitor it becomes unusable.

>>543388
Im so sorry for you

>>541990
I'd rather two monitors than 4k. 21:9.

>>542047
Iirc 43" 4k is around 100dpi, which is optimal for about 60-100cm away, so I love it.
Going 27" might give the average joe problems reading from a normal distance.

If you need 2x 32" of space, you will feel that the 43" is too small. But I can fit 4x 23" virtual screens on my 43" so it's made me rethink how I multitask, for the better.

>>541990
19:9 aspect ratio is cheaper to produce

File: ultrawide.png (606KB, 2547x1016px) Image search: [Google]

606KB, 2547x1016px

21:9 is pretty good, I recommend it.

LG 5K Displays. Nuff Said.

21:9 is shit. I regret purchasing it.

What I REALLY desired was more vertical space, not simply "more" space.

I will most likely get a 120hz display next, but i'm still researching if it makes everyday windows interaction smoother or only useful for gaming (anyone knows?)

>>543989
16:10 master race, got mine 8 years ago and still love it to this day.

There's really no point to modelling in 4k - you're just putting unnecessary strain on your GPU, for nothing.

>>543871

Those are basically Apple displays. They will kill your GPU while you're just navigating a viewport, for absolutely no reason at all.

It is so not worth it.

>>544007
Or you could have a 1080 viewport and fill the rest with other windows.

>>544092

Massive Rant incoming. Part 1 of 2.

I presently have the LG 5k 27" display and a cheap AOC 27" 1080 display.

It has been a fucking nightmare and I regret making this purchase decision almost everytime I sit in front of my machine.

Here's why it FUCKING. SUCKS.

1. If you're still running Win7 - just fucking forget it, right now. 7 does not support multi-display scaling, so unless you have TWO 5k displays, get used to having your 1080 display filled with RETARDEDLY HUGE GUI. See those folders on your desktop right now? Those will be 5 times larger than they are presently. This browser window you're looking at? You'll be able to fit maybe 3 posts on screen at any one time.
The alternative is to run the UHD display at 1080 and call yourself a cunt every time you look in the mirror.

2. If you're running Max 2016 or below - fucking forget it right now. It doesn't have a UHD scalable interface, so get used to operating with a magnifying glass stuck to the side of your screen.
Or admit defeat and run it at 2.5k and again, call yourself a cunt every time you look in the mirror and think about what you could have better spent that money on.

3. So you're running Win10 and Max2017?! Great! That solves everything OH WAIT NO IT DOESN'T.
Windows10 claims to have multi-display scaling - but it only works maybe, 60-70% of the time. Certain UI elements, (folders, in my case) will still appear FUCKING HUGE in the 1080 display. Why? No one knows and there's fuck all you can do about it, you cunt why did you buy this stupid fucking display.

4. But hey! It works most of the time right?! Yeah, except when it doesn't. Because some applications will STILL not scale correctly for UHD displays in which case you have to change the compatibility mode they run in, and still then you can only view them on your 1080 display. (Do you feel like a cunt yet? You should do - you are). ctd...

>>544102

Massive rant against UHD displays, part 2 of 2.

5. Still though - after all that, being able to run Max with that beautiful crisp, clean sharpness of a 5k display must be pretty sweet right?!
Yeah. For about, oooh... 20 minutes? Because - get this - THERE ARE RANDOM PARTS OF THE MAX GUI WHICH STILL SCALE INCORRECTLY ON UHD DISPLAYS. The edges, for example, are 1 fucking pixel wide. THEY ARE EFFECTIVELY INVISIBLE.
"But anon! Surely you can scale the display size of a highlighted edge up in the viewport right?! I mean, you can scale up the display size of vertices, can't you?" NOT WITH EDGES YOU CAN'T CUNTFACE! Again - get that fucking magnifying glass out or deal with a fucking migraine everyday looking for that single poly line you're trying to select. CUNT.

6. "Ok - forget Max for a moment, there are other apps in the world. They can't ALL be bad?" True, Maya works great and has done for 2 years because they perfected it for hi-res Mac displays. Adobe stuff looks real nice too, because Adobe have their shit together. Pretty much everything else though is a clusterfuck of mixed/mismatched scaling inconsistencies and fuzzy typefaces juxtaposed with microscopic display elements.

7. "Ok anon, fine - now is just not the right time to run a UHD display (unless you're a Mac user where it has been absolutely locked down since day one because they have their shit together, but don't admit that in public because people will think you voted for Hillary and you also blow dudes) - is there any thing else you'd like to get off your chest about why it sucks?"
Yeah - you are literally halving the useful life of your graphics card because it is doing 10 times the work it would have to do normally, all because you're a cunt.

>>544092
A 1080 viewport on a 27" 5k display would account for a piece of screen real estate equal to about the size of child's hand.

This would be a fucking horrible working experience, much, much worse than just using a normal 27" 1080 display normally.

>>544104
So dual/triple 1080 screens are the way to go for 3d work then?

File: before.jpg (66KB, 800x490px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x490px

>>543866
>have to drag another extra mile to get to the tool you want
>good
Two screen is where it's at nigga.
Or for an even more patrician workspace.
Two screen with 1 vertical.

>>542098

six 43" 4k screens arranged 2x3 is ideal. i'm waiting probably for curved and sub 4ms before i splurge and get six 35"+ 4k screens.

>>545115
is this a 3d render of a 3d station ?

>>545753
sorta looks like it though, doesnt it? My guess is it isn't - I'd think whoever modeled the giant mousepad wouldnt put the warp at the corner on it.

Bringing up another topic, because the /g/ dudes didn't really know the answer:
Would a 144hz monitor benefit the average /3/ user in any way while working, or should I just get another 60hz with better colors than what I've got right now?

I animate mostly, but do some modeling and vfx too. My first impression is that the 144hz won't do shit for animating, because most of the stuff I do is at 24-30 or 60 fps.
But of course I don't know that much about monitors to really make the claim that it wouldn't improve clarity.

Anyone have any experience with 90-144hz monitors?

>>545992
In most cases color accuracy is more important then any other aspect of what a monitor provides. Many studios and game companies need to mimic a variety of devices ranging from print to projectors to TVs, if you have a monitor with shit gamut no amount is resolution can help if you can't preview what your product will look like on the side of a building or on a projector in theater.

>>545992
Also refresh rate is only important if you have a beast gpu and you play allot of games. But most people can't tell the difference when you go past 60fps.

>>546119
120fps is very noticable. NV is about to announce 240fps soon.

>>546121
Compared to what? 24fps? Maybe but not so much when you compare it to 60.

>>546123
theres a huge difference. Get some 120fps footage and play it on a 120fps monitor

>>546123

dude, there's a significant difference between 120 and 144.

eventually we'll have 1000+ fps display.

>>546119

almost everyone can notice the difference clearly and instantly.

>>545992

honestly 60fps is just fine for 3d work. you should be more interested in color and accuracy. it's not like you have to have lightning reflexes to do 3d modelling.

if you can afford it, get a quadro and a 10 bit display.

>>546133
60fps is no longer fine since VR is here

>>546134

those things don't have any rational correlation. if you're using VR you're using those goggles and 60fps refers to the screen's refresh rate, not what your hardware is capable of.

>>546132
I think you are missing the point. Inorder to take advantage of the screens in question your going to have to be doing something specific that requires fps like this. Unless you're in research or simulation of some kind that tech is it out of reach to most people. Also I'm not going to go in it, but the question originally asked was in the context of content creation of vfx, http://gizmodo.com/why-frame-rate-matters-1675153198. With that this article explains the pit falls of both high fps and low fps.

>>546209

no, i definitely want to be rotating objects in a viewport at 1000fps. it just looks better. you could work at 4fps, but i don't want to. eventually 1000fps screens will cost 140 dollars at best buy and i will be using them.

>>546221
past a certain point, there are diminishing returns when raising fps on displays because of how our eyes process information.
That point is also probably less than 1000fps. 1000 is pretty excessive.

>>546253

i would bet every dollar i have that you can easily tell the difference between 750fps and 1000fps.

now, once we have 25,000+fps displays, it probably won't even be a spec you look at when buying a monitor because who cares if it's 22,000fps or 25,000fps. but there will still be people buying 110,000fps monitors anyways.

>>546261
Why not 1 million fps... Better yet why more ALL the fps!

>>546295

eventually, computers will basically only be GPU's, with thousands and thousands of slower cores, and 2ghz will be fast again.

when that happens, framerate will be tied to processor ticks, and i don't believe it's technically possible to have more frames per second than you have processor cycles per second.

unless your monitor is processing interpolated blur frames in between processed frames, which could make, say, 10,000 FPS look a bit smoother.

>>546311
Recently computers will be a cord you will plus into the back of you spinal cord.

>>546323
And then Russian Hackers will hack your spinal cord and your brain. And will make you vote for Trump again.

>>546397

No, i can believe in 1000000 fps monitors but the idea that le evil russians "hacked the election" (this means nothing at all) is beyond my capacity for gullibility.

Trump won because americans voted for him, that is all there is to it, and i made 4400 dollars off of it to. Because i knew he was going to win in august when he was pulling 30,000+ people multiple times a day in rallies, nonstop for like six fucking months, while hillary got 50 people twice a week at best. That senile old bitch was simply out fucking skilled. By someone who had never even done it before lmfao

>>546413
she lost because she didnt have a dick. thats it.

>>546416

And lets be frank that is a totally valid reason. Women in leadership is a recipe for utter catastrophe. And not withstanding the statistically itrelevant outliers this particular woman was a corrupt, psychopathic bitch.

>>546426
40 years ago she was a total slut and had a nice booty.

>>546428

Granted

>>544732

desu a 1080 display at 27" is a little rough on the eyes these days. And I'd be very skeptical that you have any use for 3 displays.*

Two moderately large 2k displays will be very comfortable and not cost a great deal.

The key thing is to have displays of matching resolution because I don't know how long it's gonna take Windows to properly sort this multi-display scaling bullshit. It has *never* been an issue under Mac OS - it's totally seamless.

Windows? Total fucking disaster, even now.

*Before buying a third fucking display, try this:
If you have an iPad available to you - there's an awesome app called Duet (which costs $20 but is well worth it) which just instantly and painlessly turns your iPad into another extension display for your PC. Perfect for just hosting a couple of toolboxes or floating menus that you call on repeatedly.
I love it.

>>546253
>>546261

Isn't the upper limit of what a human eye can perceive something like 1/250th of a second? Like, they tested fighter pilots or some such, and there were perceptible shapes when flashed at 1/250th of a second, but past that, not really?

>>546616
I'm pretty sure those posts are just troll bait.

>>546616

Even if that were true, which may be and would mean that 250fps monitors were the ideal, can you seriously say you dont think there would be a noticable quality difference between 250 and 350? Detecting a flash is one thing, the general smootheness of a field of vision is another.

Compare it to sensation. You can feel the difference between two sides of a comb. How many more times could you divide the fineness of a comb before you stopped felling it get finer?

>>546619
>How many more times could you divide the fineness of a comb before you stopped felling it get finer?
Science says 13 nanometers while moving, .2mm while static.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep02617


Comparing sensation to sight is ridiculous, but yes, based on if we're comparing the two, it seems very likely there is a cap on how many frames humans can process in a second.

I just use two 1080 screens
Standard resolution for render and viewing targets + having two screens is good because one's for actually working and the other for whatever else, like reference
Three screens is just too much head movement, unless maybe it's above? Like maybe 4 screens might be usable with a 2x2 setup but anymore than 2 is just too much clutter and too much head movement, 2 is optimal
Just be warned that once you go dual you will probably have trouble going back to single screens

>>546621

Nothings infinite, comparing two senses is not unreasonable, 13 nanometers is basically 50,000 fps monitors.

two good and decent sized monitor is plenty, no need for the fancy stuff, use your money for something else if you have to