4K monitors at native resolution?

>programmer
Get a 32" 21:9 1440p

>>57609342
>>57609342
interesting.
any model suggestions? I

>>57609195
>However, a buddy of mine told me that there's no way that I'll be able to use 27" monitor at its native resolution because the text will be too small.

what do you think scaling is

>>57609391
>what do you think scaling is
then there's no point in me getting a 4K screen since I'll be able to fit the exact same number of lines of text on my 4K screen. The text will be a lot sharper but I don't care about it that much.

>>57609377
LG 34UM88C

File: 1478334627280.jpg (17KB, 451x451px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 451x451px

>>57609391
>what do you think scaling is

You DO NOT WANT TO RELY ON SCALING! Trust me on that! It's fucking garbage and only 1/4 of applications actually work well with it.

See: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/LivingAHighDPIDesktopLifestyleCanBePainful.aspx

ALWAYS buy a display that you will use @ native resolution and stay the fuck away from any that require scaling.

File: 1475977850576.jpg (71KB, 710x408px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 710x408px

1080p @ 24" = 92 ppi
1440p @ 27" = 109 ppi
4K @ 27" = 163 ppi

Is 163 ppi unreadable? never seen one in person so can't comment. my current monitor is 1080p @ 24 and while I can see pixels if I come close, it's perfectly readable at its native rez.

>720 is actually 720
>1080 is actually 1080
>4K isn't actually 4K
>8K isn't actually 8K
>stupid fucking people will be the death of us all

File: Capture.png (381KB, 3840x2122px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 3840x2122px

>>57609195
There are 2 "kinds" of 4K (i.e. 3840x2160/2160p/UHD) monitors. There are 4K high-DPI screens, these offer much improved image quality and are basically smaller screens. 4K @ 27" would be a high-DPI screen. I have one of these, running everything at 100% scale isn't unreadable but it's definitely below the comfort zone. I find 125% scaling to be acceptable and at this point you've still got more work area than a 27" 1440p monitor.

The 2nd kind are 4K monitors with typical DPI, i.e. close to 96. These are large (think >40") and you'd run them at 100% scaling and text would be the same size as on a normal monitor. Image quality isn't improved, but there's shitloads of space. This is what you want if you want lots of text on screen.

This is what this thread looks like at 4K with no scaling. It's perfectly readable to me on my 27" screen but a bit bigger would be more comfortable. I'm a programmer too, in practice I've set the font a bit bigger in my tools/IDEs.

>>57609195
I have a 27" 4K monitor and I find it perfectly usable without scaling. I don't have particularly amazing eyesight either (I wear glasses). The one area where you will need scaling is web browsing, as many sites look absolutely ridiculous without it, but that's something that can be handled at a browser level. Other programs are absolutely fine IMO.

Incidentally, I wasn't expecting much from the 4K meme when I bought it (coming from 1080p), but man, that pixel density at 27" really does look incredible. Going back to 1080p is utterly impossible once you've seen it in person.

I use a 4k 28 inch monitor at 125% scaling and I love it. Great for programming and web browsing

>>57610012
>dat pic
ridiculously tiny text! how can u read that?

>>57610323
Bear in mind that you're (I assume) not viewing it on a 4K screen with exceptional pixel density. It's a lot clearer and easier to read on a native 4K monitor, even around the 27" range (though I wouldn't go below that).

>>57610504
I viewed it scaled on a 25" screen and it was unreadable.

Literally just buy a 4k TV that is 4:4:4 chroma. There have been deals going on because of black Friday too.

>>57610068
Does 1080p or 720p video (or worse) look worse on a 4k screen?

>>57609195

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1224162-REG/lg_27ud68_p_27_widescreen_led.html

$350 for 4k IPS monitor... No GSync though.

>>57610646
Again, you simply cannot compare whatever monitor you're using to a native 4K one, scaled or not. I considered 4K just a meme that couldn't possibly be that different before I saw it, but the clarity is incredible. It's a huge upgrade even over 1440p. Text is perfectly readable without scaling.

>>57610721
Yes. You'll see more artifacts, both from compression and scaling. You really get a sense for how shitty Youtube's compression is at 4K.

I'm not replacing my 1080p monitor and TV until they break and the 4K replacements are dirt cheap. Plus having a graphics card that can cheaply drive it.

File: 1478220057977.jpg (469KB, 1440x1920px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1440x1920px

>>57609195
Human eye can't see resolutions beyond native 480i NTSC resolution. Look it up idiots.

>>57610780

Pretty sure Zen and Kaby Lake cpu's will be able to do 4k 60hz with their iGPU. No gaymen of course.

>>57610778
>most of my porn is 1080/720, some worse from the 00's

Welp. Never leaving 1080p then

>>57610808
where is his PC?

>>57612569
You could try maybe following the peripheral cords.

Just get a 1080p monitor and use it in portrait.

>"4k"
>not cinema 4k
shitty

>>57609195
yes, 1440p is the right resolution for 27" monitors

consider an ultrawide monitor so you can have two square windows comfortably open side by side

or just a dual monitor setup to extend your current one

>>57609195
I can comfortably use 1080p on my 13" laptop, so I guess 27" at double the resolution would be fine too.

>>57609975
welcome newfriend, it's 2016, nothing is good anymore, and idiots believe everything they read, yes even on the internet where any possible evidence can easily be fabricated.
2016, what a wonderful time to be alive.
riots and entire cities burning becuase of propaganda sites like fagbook and twitter are allowed to stay up and nobody gives any fucks about the safety or security of their country.
2016, oh i am so glad to be alive today, tommorow looks even bleaker, can't wait to be apart of it.

>>57609195
If you're running Win10, OSX or any new Linux Dist you can use scaling to scale it to your comfortable size.

>>57609195
Trust me 4k is a colossal waste of many. Get an 21:9 1440p if you're concerned about screen space. Or 2 normal 1440p monitors. Or 2 normal 1080p. Your call.

>>57609434
>The text will be a lot sharper but I don't care about it that much.
lol what? are you retarded?

>>57609975
party because the industry decided to use the width first now.
1080p should be renamed to 1920p, 1440p to 2560p and so forth if they want to use the new bullshit names.

>>57616244
that still doesn't work...

4K UHD (3840 × 2160 progressive scan)
8K UHD (7680 × 4320 progressive scan)
notice how neither of them have 4k or 8k horizontal pixels ?

>>57615154
he;s saying that 4K scaled looks better you idiot.

>>57617088
>notice how neither of them have 4k or 8k horizontal pixels ?
it refers to the order of pixels.

>4K resolution, also called 4K, refers to a horizontal resolution on the order of 4,000 pixels and vertical resolution on the order of 2,000 pixels

>>57609434
>then there's no point in me getting a 4K screen
Congratulations, you aren't retarded. Why manufacturers are producing 4K+ displays at 27-32" is beyond fucking me.

File: dell-u3415w.jpg (29KB, 673x224px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 673x224px

Anyone have any comments about curved shit? Ultra-wide?
Looking to get pic related.

>>57618732
How does curved shit even work? If I draw a straight line in Paint, is it actually deformed and curved on the screen? Why the fuck would anyone want a monitor that distorts the image by design?

>>57609975
That's what you get when marketing thinks it's a cool idea to use cinema nomenclature standards for consumer use.
The whole K thing came about from the film scanning process where the CCD scanners operated in increments of 1024 pixels. For instance 2K was 2048 pixels wide by however tall the image format is, for instance 1080 or 858, since various films are matted differently. It only makes sense for scan width to remain constant in this case.
However, film formats are often overscanned for consumer use, so 2048x1152 is eventually cropped down to 1920x1080, and that's how we settled on that standard. Why it wasn't called "2K" back then is anybody's guess, maybe they wanted it to make more sense as a pair with 720p that was already around at the time.
There are actual 4096x2160 true 4K monitors out there, but since they're intended for film editors, they're also very expensive.

File: 755309554c266c520bf3.jpg (312KB, 1200x920px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1200x920px

>>57618732
it's a fucking gimmick. unless your screen is over 60", go for a normal screen. Curve introduces distortions.

>>57618732
I have an ultrawide display. I opted for non curved and it's awesome.
I've worked on curved screens before but I didn't like how the image was always distorted

>>57610323
HE HAS A HUGE ASS SCREEN YOU RETARD

FUCK

>>57610808
Not even true when looking at a 4 inch screen

File: 1479572781223.jpg (22KB, 453x530px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 453x530px

>>57618966
Which one do you use? How has it worked out for you?

>>57618732
Curve is good for gaming, i got a Samsung 24" as the center monitor in a triple screen setup for simracing. 75Hz and freesync support for $150.

>>57618788
No you mongoloid, it's still a flat LCD panel, it's just curved so that all the pixels are more-or-less facing your eyes. This is pretty good for color accuracy as well as augmenting the illusion of depth in certain video games.

When you draw a straight line on the screen, if you are looking from above or below the centerline of the monitor, it will appear curved because, obviously, the screen is curved. If you look at it dead-on, the line will be straight, but you will notice the upper and lower edges of the screen are slightly distorted.

>>57619026
I should also note that there's a optical sweet spot in these curved displays where you can't really perceive distortions, but on the 24" model it's maybe 6 inches away from the panel, lol

but yeah, one curved display in the middle for vidya, two flat panels on the sides for accuracy. Works great.

File: Screenshot (47).png (612KB, 3440x1440px) Image search: [Google]

612KB, 3440x1440px

>>57619012
I use LG 34UM88-P since about 6 months,

>I never will go back to 16:9
>I completely ditched my multi-monitor setup (which were 2x24" 1080p)
>colors are great
>3440x1440 resolution 60Hz (75Hz if you use FreeSync)
>Gaming (if you so desire) is a little more heavy on your GPU
>21:9 support in games becomes better and better

>>57619026
>it's still a flat LCD panel, it's just curved
So if you project a straight line unto a curved surface you get a curved line. So the monitor distorts everything it displays, brilliant tech indeed.

>However, a buddy of mine told me that there's no way that I'll be able to use 27" monitor at its native resolution because the text will be too small.
>Hmm.. is he right? So 4K is a just another meme?

The point of 4K/ High PPI isn't more desktop space, it is to make the pixels so small that things like text become very sharp.

You can scale it by 200% and that will essentially give you the same desktop space as 1080p monitor while still keeping everything on screen very sharp and clear.

Or just scale it 125/150% since the pixels are so small to begin with any kind of scaling artifacts will be very difficult to notice if at all.

>>57609195
>there's no way that I'll be able to use 27" monitor at its native resolution because the text will be too small.
think of it like a 13" laptop at 1080p. and you have 4 of them

>>57610721
With a high quality scaler - no.

>>57620885
>think of it like a 13" laptop at 1080p. and you have 4 of them
Yikes. No one wants to sit that close to the screen anon. I'm almost always at least 2 feet away from my screen.

>>57620862
>You can scale it by 200% and that will essentially give you the same desktop space as 1080p monitor while still keeping everything on screen very sharp and clear.
Not OP but OK... I get that. But can you tell me if you can really notice the difference from 2 feet away?

I have a 24" 1080p screen. I can't see pixels from 2ft away.


Personally, I'd rather have more vertical pixels than having sharper text that I can't really even tell apart.

I'm shopping for a new monitor myself, and it's really hard to decide on anything. 1440 is twice the price of 1080, but 4k is a hair above the price of 1440.

I'd love a bigger monitor than my 22" 1680x1050 though, I'm tempted to "settle" for a 25" though. I like playing games, but i don't play twitchy ones, so high refresh rates are not a priority to me.

>>57609494
This. The exception would be if you are using OSX and using 2x scaling ("retina"), which works perfectly.

File: testimg1.png (3KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 128x128px

>>57622758
>I have a 24" 1080p screen. I can't see pixels from 2ft away.
Please look at my pic on that display. Make sure it's being displayed at native resolution. Measure 2 feet from the panel to your eyes.

If there is a clearly defined gap between the adjacent lines and you can read my tiny message, then you can see every pixel and HiDPI would be a significant advantage.

If you cannot, you may have some form of hyperopia and should consider booking an eye test. I can see every pixel of this when I'm 2ft from a higher-density screen than yours.

>>57624319
>This. The exception would be if you are using OSX and using 2x scaling ("retina"), which works perfectly.
macOS is different. Every Mac application works well with scaling because Apple made sure that all the toolkits work well with it.

Windows is a fucking nightmare when it comes to HiDPI. Linux is also hell.

>>57624540
>If there is a clearly defined gap between the adjacent lines and you can read my tiny message, then you can see every pixel and HiDPI would be a significant advantage.
>If you cannot, you may have some form of hyperopia and should consider booking an eye test. I can see every pixel of this when I'm 2ft from a higher-density screen than yours.
OK anon, I can see the gap between the lines from 2ft away. I csn see vertical and horizontal gaps between the lines.

BUT, would the difference be that great if you also count subpixel rendering? I run Linux and all my text is aliased due to subpixel rendering and I don't see any jaggies.

>>57609195
>However, a buddy of mine told me that there's no way that I'll be able to use 27" monitor at its native resolution because the text will be too small.
What your buddy has failed to consider is the following:

1. It depends strongly on your viewing distance
2. It depends strongly on your eyesight
3. It depends strongly on your font size
4. Even if it were true, it would still improve the quality of the text by allowing you to use higher-resolution glyphs.

Reality isn't as simple as your buddy's self-centric viewpoint is making it seem. He seems like an extremely sort-sighted and narrow-minded person. I would unfriend him at once.

>>57625832
(cont)

One mental model you could use is that, as long as you can make text small enough to hit your minimum comfortable reading size, your working area depends only on the monitor's surface area and not the actual resolution. But of course, in practice you can use smaller glyph sizes more comfortably on a higher-DPI monitor, simply because text retains far more legibility.

If you've ever been hit by pixel-induxed font size limitations on 1080p, which I certainly have, then you would benefit from a higher DPI than whatever you were using. I remember wondering why terminus at 12 pixels couldn't represent bold glyphs, when I realized that the pixels simply weren't available to do so, even though it would look fine on paper / on an infinite DPI monitor.

So higher DPI has an advantage up to a certain point, where the extra DPI buys you no additional font size reduction. At that point, your surface area becomes the only contributing factor to your working area - so buying a larger monitor would be better, independent of whether it's 4K or 5K or 8K or whatever.

Of course, in practice you also have to consider viewing distance, which contributes towards apparently visual size just as strongly as DPI/resolution and display diagonal do. (They're all linear contributors). So moving from 24" to 27" is the same as moving your head back by a few inches.

In practice, people use their monitors at wildly different viewing distances, with certainly far more variation than the measly 10% difference between 24" and 27". So once you factor in the different viewing distances, and differing eyesights, it becomes almost impossible to make blanket statements about this without actually testing it for your situation and your needs.

>>57625903
By the way, this is also a great method of simulating what a 4K or whatever monitor will approximately look for you.

Measure your current viewing distance to your display, then double it. You now know what a display of twice the DPI would look like (assuming your viewing distance remains the same).

You can do the same to simulate pretty much any DPI you want, to within reason (you have to remain within the operating parameters of your eyes' focusing)

Im a programmer and I have a 40 inch 4k tv as a monitor at 60hz, it allows me to see 200 lines of code at once and you can have parts of the same file in different views in sublime text so you never have to scroll, it's amazing.

>>57625951
32" 4K monitor here, I see about 160 lines of code in practice

>>57625951
>Im a programmer and I have a 40 inch 4k tv as a monitor at 60hz, it allows me to see 200 lines of code at once and you can have parts of the same file in different views in sublime text so you never have to scroll, it's amazing.
Which model of the TV anon??? That's my dream setup btw... 40" for 4K is perfect amount of PPI.

>>57625977
>32" 4K monitor here, I see about 160 lines of code in practice
Which model anon?

>>57626102
>Which model anon?
LG 31MU97-b

>40" for 4K is perfect amount of PPI.
Have you actually tested and used a higher PPI setup for any length of time or are you just basing that on what you're used to?

>>57626136
>Have you actually tested and used a higher PPI setup for any length of time or are you just basing that on what you're used to?
I played with a 4K 27" screen at best buy. When I disabled scaling, my eyes were straining after 5 min of use.

>>57626102
my model is samsung ue40ju6400, and exactly, especially with the terminus font 200 lines :3

>>57626195
Did you try moving closer?

>>57626288
its just a screen anon, dont have an emotional breakdown lmao

>>57609195
4Kill yourself

>almost bought a 24 inch dell 3840x2160 till I saw it in person
>nope

...and that's how I got a U3415W instead

>>57626274
does it have croma 4:4:4 or 4:2:2?

>>57626862
>>almost bought a 24 inch dell 3840x2160 till I saw it in person
>>nope
can u pls elaborate anon... was the text too small?

>>57627027

P2415Q

Thought I was gonna like it because of the PPI but I was wrong, was too uncomfortable with the distance I am away from the monitor

>>57609975

Because for some reason they decided to start pushing the DCI cinema standard names on the consumer end.

1080p was FHD on the consumer end, while its DCI cinema standard was 2K which was 2048x1080

4K is a DCI standard of 4096x2160, the consumer version is UHD but the fucking manufacturers felt 4K sounded cooler and pushed that instead.

You'll note that "4K" blurays properly use the term UHD as they are not DCI 4K.

>>57618594
3800 isn't 4000 pixels.

Real 4K is 4096*2304 16:9 or 4096*2560 16:10

>>57609195
If I can fucking use 1080p native on my 13 inch laptop comfortably from 3-4 feet away, you'll be fine.

>>57609195
I think I'm gonna get a 40" 4k TV for my monitor. I also hook it to my consoles.

>>57627936
it says "order of". are you retarded or just some 3rd world shitforbrain?

>>57628103
I sure hope you're not digging any pile of shit from wikipedia.
They can't even state DVD+R correctly.

If it's not 4000+ it's not 4K.
Unless you're too retarded to understand what Kilo means.

>>57627936
>Real 4K is 4096*2304

No, real DCI 4K is 4096*2160

>>57628347
If you knew about 4K before TVs were all over that standard you'd know that real 4K is 4096*2304.
If you search for 4096*2304 you'll notice that most search results dates before the fake 4K 4906*2160 came out.

4K 16:10 is 4096*2560
4K 16:9 is 4096*2304
4K 4:3 is 4096*3072

Another retarded thing that people claim to be a standard nowadays is that 1440p and 1600p suddenly is called 2K when that's a stone age standard that is 2048*XXXX no less no more.

2K on a 4:3 CRT is 2048*1536 for example.

>>57626297
>asks normal question
>[emotional breakdown intensifies]

>>57628509
>If you knew about 4K before TVs were all over that standard you'd know that real 4K is 4096*2304.
There's no such thing as a “real” 4K. The closest thing to a standard that has ‘4K’ in its name, though, is DCI 4K which is defined as 4096x2160

I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to imply as ‘fake’ 4K. There's no such thing as a ‘real’ or ‘fake’ resolution, anon.

>>57628736
>4096*2160
>256:135 aspect ratio

Yeah sure.

4K in 16:9 and 16:10 are as stated, 4096*2560 and 4096*2304

2160p is a vertical resolution used in UHD, NOT 4K.

I have a 40" 4K IPS BenQ, its absolutely gorgeous for movies. Or when you have 4 windows open, It's like having 4 20" monitors. It's quite pricey though at $1000.

>>57628881
>40" 4K IPS BenQ
>BenQ
>40''
Tell us more about this monitor you claim to have.

>>57628797
>>4096*2160
>>256:135 aspect ratio
>Yeah sure.
Got a problem with that?

>4K in 16:9 and 16:10 are as stated, 4096*2560 and 4096*2304
You just pulled that definition out of your ass.

>>57628937
Then show us what vertical resolution a 16:9 and 16:10 will have at 4096 horizontal pixels.

>>57628962
Sigh. You really don't get it.

We've neither agreed that ‘4K’ means ‘4096 horizontal pixels’, nor have we agreed that ‘4K’ implies 16:9 or 16:10.

>>57628936
Nevermind, it's a 32"
Here I'll post the link: http://www.benq.us/product/monitor/BL3201PH

>>57629028
>We've neither agreed

Wrong, 4K means 4096 in terms of resolution, period.

>4K’ implies 16:9 or 16:10.
16:9 and 16:10 are simply ratios in the 4K tier.
just like 1280 have 1280*720 (16:9), 1280*800 (16:10), 1280*960 (4:3) and 1280*1024 (5:4)

Learn some damn resolution standards.

>>57629059
>Wrong, 4K means 4096 in terms of resolution, period.
[citation needed]

>>57629059
>Learn some damn resolution standards.
Learn to fucking present sources instead of pulling definitions out of your ass.

>>57629090
>>57629097
Google it, shouldn't be too hard for you.

>out of your ass.
You type like an uneducated kid age 25 and below.

>>57610068
>I wear glasses

nerd

>>57609195
>7680x4320
>7680
I know that this was inevitable since it has to scale, but the undercutting of the horizontal resolution is finally coming in to bite them in the ass

>>57629140
At least Dell knows how to do 5K properly with their 5120*3200 monitor.

File: dci4k.png (118KB, 847x1080px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 847x1080px

>>57629109
>I can't back up my claims, I'll just insult him
Unlike you, I actually do my research in this area.

By the way, this is the definition for DCI 4K, which is the only standard that I know of which has ‘4K’ in its name.
http://dcimovies.com/specification/DCI_DCSS_v12_with_errata_2012-1010.pdf

I won't reply to further posts unless you actually start presenting links to back up your misbeliefs.

File: dalsaorigin.png (345KB, 1731x1298px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1731x1298px

>>57629172
Incidentally, this is the first camera that was marketed as ‘4K’. It came out in 2003.

File: Untitled.png (22KB, 793x393px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 793x393px

>>57629172
>>57629247
Other 4K

For cameras developed for use in photographing digital cinema, the following resolutions are used [6], but there are multiple formats besides this.
Aspect Resolution
1.90: 1 4096 × 2160
16: 9 4096 × 2304
2: 1 4096 × 2048

Dalsa Origin - 1.98: 1 (4046 × 2048)

Announced in 2003, paid lending business started in October 2006. It is regarded as the first 4K camera that was seriously used in movie shooting [7].

Red digital cinema camera · company red one - 4K (4096 × 2304) 4.5K (4480 × 1920)

It has been used since August 2007, and is used in many movie shooting including Japanese movies.


4096*2304 has always been a 4K standard and is the only 4K 16:9 resolution out there.

3840*2160/UHD or 2160p at 16:9 is will and has never been 4096*2160

>>57629296
>4096*2304 has always been a 4K standard
Then why can't you link me to a standard (PDF) that defines it?

Quoting wikipedia is easy. Look, let me do it too:
>There are two main 4K resolution standards:
>* The DCI 4K resolution standard, which has a resolution of 4096 × 2160 pixels (256:135, approximately a 1.9:1 aspect ratio). This standard is widely respected by the film and video production industry.[5] The DCI 4K standard has twice the horizontal and vertical resolution of DCI 2K.
>* UHD-1, or ultra-high-definition television (UHDTV), is the 4K standard for television and computer monitors. UHD-1 is also called 2160p[6][7] since it has twice the horizontal and vertical resolution of 1080p.[6] It has a resolution of 3840 × 2160 (16:9, or approximately a 1.78:1 aspect ratio). UHD-1 is used in consumer television and other media, e.g. video games.
>[...]
>In the movie projection industry, Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) is the dominant 4K standard. In television and consumer media, 4K UHD or UHD-1 is the dominant 4K standard.

>>57629367
>Then why can't you link me to a standard (PDF) that defines it?
Easy. Because they abandoned a far superior resolution standard that only the highest tier cameras still used at the time.

If you had Googled 4096*2304 and 4096*2560 you'd realize that by now.

>>57629404
>Standards documents stop existing because people abandon them
lmao, you can even find 50-year old standards from the analog color television era age online

If this thing was truly a standard as you seem to insist, you'd have no problem linking me to it. I'm not gonna do your harebrained research for you. Burden of proof is on you for trying to go against the well-accepted definitions.

>>57629490
>burden of proof
Don't go full retard.
You young kids have Google, use it.
You find results, there's your proof AND in physical form.

http://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKMY2LL/A/lg-ultrafine-4k-display

http://www.apple.com/lae/imac/specs/

>>57609494
>a blog post from almost 3 years ago and even here the scaling is fine on most programs.

I don't understand. you say that scaling is bad and then disprove your own argument. what are you doing, Anon?

>>57629516
>A monitor sold on the apple store is a definition of a technological standard
I'm beginning to think you don't even understand what the word ‘standard’ means. A standard is a well-named technical term, published in a document by a standards organization and detailing the exact specifications of a system, technique or otherwise.

DCI 4K is a standard, defined in the DCI DCSS document. UHD-1 is a standard, defined in the ITU-R BT.2020 document.

Your Apple Store URL is not a document.

>in b4 he's a macfag so he thinks apple makes all the standards

>>57609195
I own a 27" 4k Dell panel. It's nigh perfect in terms of pixel density (anti aliasing is almost pointless in games this way) and so far the best way to view 4k media. While viewing text at native resolution with no scaling is possible, it's bordering on uncomfortable. Just a few more inches should do the trick, though. Do not listen to the retards who claim 4k doesn't pay off below a certain screen size. They're the same buffoons who own +60" TVs with obsolete grainy 1080p fecal resolution.

>>57629548
>Apple makes all the standards
You're jumping to conclusions head first into a wall and it shows.

RED ONE have 4096*2304
LG UltraFine 21.5 have 4096*2304
You know why they use 2304?
Because it the only fucking pixel count that is 16:9 at 4096

Topic is 4K monitors
3840 at whatever the fuck vertical pixel count isn't 4K, using refutation isn't gonna help you with your lack of knowledge about resolutions.

>>57618732
I always thought that curved screens were a gimic, but after looking at LGs OLED 55" screens side by side I can honestly say I'd get the curved one every time. It just felt more natural to me.

Not sure what PC monitors would be like though.

>>57629591
you need scaling below 40" so you don't get a 4K desktops worth of space

>>57629606
why does it feel "more natural"?

especially with OLED, OLED has great viewing angles, only shitty LCD would really benefit from it

>>57629608
Bullshit.

>>57629630
This. I've run DSR to immitate 4K on my 30' DELL and 27' at UHD is perfect without scaling.

>>57629620
It's hard to explain. They had the flat and curved screens right next to each other, and after looking at them both for extended periods of time, I just preferred the curve more.
It felt nicer on my peripheral vision.

I suggest you experience it for yourself though, I doubt the curve is for everyone. And size plays a big part of it.

>>57629641
What you mean to say is that colors are way more vivid without feeling forced with tinkering with contrast color boost etc.

Yes, OLED is that much different.
I have an old OLED (HTC Legend) phone and the difference in color is that big.

File: kami-sama.jpg (117KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1280x720px

>>57609195

so does low resolution video look like shit on a 4k monitor? i imagine it does because it will make the pixels even more noticeable like 1080p monitors do with 420p and 720p

Personally i've tried sitting 2 or 3 ft from my 32" 1080 HDTV with my PC hooked up and i honestly can't discern individual pixels, or at least not to an extent that it bothers me, and i typically have pretty decent eyesight.

Is /g/ just exceptionally autistic on this? I get the workspace thing. But the claims that the gaps between pixels haunting them? not so much.

>>57629677
It will look the same.

>>57629677

480p*

>>57629656
No mate, I'm talking about the curve. The colours had nothing to do with it.
When I looked at the flat screen, it didn't feel as good on my eyes as the curved screen.
LGs 55 inch OLED TVs come in curved and flat, at the same price. They are exactly the same apart from the curve.

File: line.png (5KB, 545x423px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 545x423px

>>57629678
Look at this.
Great, now you see that 1080p and it's low PPI isn't enough even a 24' at 3 feet away

>>57629701
antialiasing exists

higher pixel density is not the same as antialiasing, and is not a replacement for it

File: 1413481223185.png (332KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 500x375px

>>57629727
>not a replacement for it

>>57629748
>what is aliasing
>what is nyquist rate

>>57629754
Okay... let me explain it in kindergarten terms.

Daddy have a 60' in plasma screen teevee with 1366*768
Mommy has a new fancy 27' monitor with UHD
Both mom and dad sit at 4 feet away from their screens.
Which screen do you think would show aliasing the easiest.

>>57609494
4k at 150%
Only itunes looks blurry, but i'm not going back to 2k or fhd ever again

>>57629598
>LG UltraFine 21.5 have 4096*2304
wew lad, and LG Digital Cinema 4K monitor has 4096x2160. Your point? Somebody selling a monitor with some meme apple resolution does not make it a standard

>RED ONE have 4096*2304
Camera sensors are typically all over the place. A quick google search:

Panasonic VariCam is 4096×2160
RED RAVEN is 4608×2160 (the others they sell today are even higher res, typically ~6K)
Blackmagic 4K is 3840×2160
Sony AX1 is 3840×2160
Canon EOS C500 3840×2160

If anything, both 3840×2160 (UHD-1) and 4096×2160 (DCI 4K) are the most common by far.

>Topic is 4K monitors
How nice of you to bring up cameras, then.

If you want to talk monitors, why not look at some professional 4K monitors?
https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-hdr/cat-hdr1/product-BVMX300/
>4096 × 2160

I could go on all day. At the end of the day, your anecdotal cherry-picking does not consistite an argument. For every example you show me that supports your claim, I can give you 10 examples that contradict it.

Link me to a standard or stop calling 4096×2304 a “standard”.

>>57628509
>If you knew about 4K before TVs were all over that standard you'd know that real 4K is 4096*2304.

No, and there's no fucking 4K variants for separate aspect ratios either.

2K, 4K, 8K are all standards set by Digital Cinema Initiatives and it's 4096*2160.

>>57629840
If you're so great at "standards" then what resolution does a 4096 monitor have that is 16:9 and 16:10.

>>57629864
>2K
Oh yeah, that 2K thing people say is 2560*1440, what about it...

2K= 2000+ horizontal pixels (example:2048*1536)
4K= 4000+
etc
Ratios are always a factor.

>>57629885
>If you're so great at "standards" then what resolution does a 4096 monitor have that is 16:9 and 16:10.
There's no standard that uses 4096 horizontal pixels and 16:9 or 16:10 resolution. Your question has no answer.

>>57629885
>Oh yeah, that 2K thing people say is 2560*1440, what about it...
At this point I'm legitimately convinced you're either trolling or simply completly braindead. DCI 2K is 2048×1080.

>>57629905
>can't spot sarcasm
Try at least.

>>57629926
>I was just pretending to be retarded!

>>57629932
Okay, you're not smart enough to have noticed people use 2K incorrectly by saying 2560*1440 is 2K.
But amazing how you completely missed the post fucking minutes ago here >>57629885
(example:2048*1536)
(example:2048*1536)
(example:2048*1536)
(example:2048*1536)
(example:2048*1536)

I have an Asus PB279Q 27 inch monitor, it's IPS and I love it. I have not have any issues with text being too small as the Windows scaling has worked perfectly for me (I have it set at 150%). I sit about an arms length from monitor and I can say that what people say online and what you see in person is completely different. I have not had an issue with text sizes for the 6 months that I have owned this monitor.

>>57629960
Also just to add, the pixel density makes images and text look extremely crisp, you won't have any regrets going 4K!

>>57629951
>Okay, you're not smart enough to have noticed people use 2K incorrectly by saying 2560*1440 is 2K.
You mean like you're using 4K incorrectly by saying 4096×2304 is 4K? lmao

Maybe you missed the post at >>57629172

>>57629980
Since when isn't 4096 4K?
4K is the definition of horizontal pixel count.
Just like P is the definition of vertical count.

Maybe you missed the post at >>>/lgbt/

>>57630032
>Since when isn't 4096 4K?
Holy shit this level of dodging and backtracking is insane. 4K is 4096×2160.

This is my last reply to your shitty bait. Good bye and may your name become a curse uttered by somebody after an accident.

>>57630067
Yes, 4096*2160 is 256:135, just one of the many ratios.
You might've heard about 16:9 and 16:10, there's also 4:3 and 5:4 and 21:9
But let's go deeper into 16:9 and 16:10.
You see if you have a ratio of 16:9 with a pixel width of 4096, you get 2304.
And if you have a ratio of 16:10, you get 2560.

4096*2160 256:135 Very stupid ratio used no where
4096*2304 16:9 the most used ratio there is
4096*2560 16:10 second most used ratio still popular among business monitors
4096*3072 4:3 It's a relic but most knows about it, maybe even your dad.
4096*3277 5:4 that ratio was mostly used in the very first TFT monitors.

>>57629772
that's not how it works

>>57630110
Compare a UHD 24' with a 1080p 24' and dare tell us that the 1080p is just as good looking and alias free as the UHD with a straight face.

>>57630129
sure if you increase the pixel density enough you will get a kind of antialiasing effect through the lens of your eye, but that's unrelated to how much detail you can actually see so it's just a massive waste of pixels

File: boixmms.jpg (364KB, 2560x1392px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 2560x1392px

>>57630203
Can't believe I have to post this image to make you understand.

>>57630203
have you ever looked at fonts?

File: tm_1412_ppi_07_8.jpg (102KB, 584x510px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 584x510px

>>57630239
Probably hasn't

File: hdv4k.jpg (127KB, 2560x1392px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 2560x1392px

>>57630218
very bad comparison, both of them are antialiased to begin with, here's a better version

the only difference there is how much detail you can make out given your eyesight and viewing distance

File: not_sure_if_srs.jpg (27KB, 695x316px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 695x316px

>>57630294

File: aliasing2.jpg (326KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1920x1080px

>>57630308
made an even better comparison to show you how little impact it has on aliasing

which side is more aliased? which is more clear? no. the biggest advantage of higher resolution is with a bigger screen

If you buy a 4k monitor but don't necessarily have the performance required to run demanding titles at native 4k with 60+ fps, would it look like shit to run in 1440p (or worst case 1080p) and just 'stretch' it across the 4k monitor?

1080p 'stretched' seems like it would look like shit because it's pretty much a 1:4 pixel ratio, but 1440p is probably close to a 2:3 pixel ratio so it shouldn't look TOO bad, right?

>>57630900
>1080p 'stretched' seems like it would look like shit because it's pretty much a 1:4 pixel ratio, but 1440p is probably close to a 2:3 pixel ratio so it shouldn't look TOO bad, right?
If anything, it's the other way around. 1440p would look like shit because it doesn't fit neatly, while 1080p works out to be exactly 1:4 ratio, so it looks pretty much like it would on a 1080p monitor.

>>57630953
But 1440p is a 16:9 aspect ratio? AKA it fits neatly into 4k as it's also a 16:9 aspect ratio

>>57630965
1440p is only the vertical resolution. The horizontal resolution could be anything.

1440p as a marketing term usually comes in a set aspect ratio, but you could have it in any aspect ratio just like there are some 4:3 720p TVs out there.

Jesus Christ, is this really the technology board? Why does everyone fall for the "p" and "k" marketing ploys and not know the difference between name, aspect ratio and resolution?

>>57630965
You can't neatly split 2160 pixels into 1440 groups. Therefore some of the pixels will be stretched.

>>57630218
I especially enjoy the half pixels in the eyes. Quality bullshot.

>>57619012
>>57619118
I've got that same LG ultrawide, and it's wonderful.

Most games either have native support, or you can use Flawless Widescreen for little tweaks that fix FOV and HUD on games that don't really support it.

You can also use an addon for Netflix that enables 21:9 ratio on letterbox'd movies, but the quality suffers.

It really shines when you get a blueray rip of a movie; very immersive and comfy viewing experience.

HOWEVER

I also have a 27" monitor on the side, and even with the ultrawide, you're still going to want a secondary monitor if you're used to it.

>>57630953
scaling doesn't work that way

>>57630900
it won't look as good as 4k, but it won't look horrible either

File: StarCraftRatios[1].gif (564KB, 683x384px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 683x384px

>>57631069
>Flawless Widescreen
does that work for 16:10 too? 16:10 is even less supported than ultrawide it seems, with many games becoming very claustrophobic because they cut the edges off instead of giving more vertical space like they should

File: ow.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>57630621
What is that shit you're posting?
A youtube rip?

Here is how you do a proper downsampling comparison.
1920x1080 at 1080p 0xAA https://a.pomf.cat/mflthx.png
17280x9720 at 1080p 0xAA https://a.pomf.cat/gkdtgh.png

>>57632896
it's not a downsampling comparison

>>57632896
d.va a shit

>>57632940
The comparison is which look better high resolution vs shit 1080p at the same inch monitor.
raise resolution, pixels become smaller thus aliasing isn't as visible.

>>57632956
>ad hominem
>>/out/

>>57609195
I have an LG 27UD68. Running ubuntu unity with no scaling. Primarily web development in webstorm. Personally have no issues seeing the text from arms length away. I only zoom in on chrome.

4k was the best decision I've made for productivity.

File: 69455.jpg (3KB, 96x96px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 96x96px

>mfw I'll be getting a 15" 4K laptop soon and there is nothing you can do about it

>>57609195
27" is too small for 4k, you'll want a 40" or higher 4k display

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L1cz1Hr6Hs

https://youtu.be/BwS0fftQAFc?t=3

>>57633500
20' is too big for 1080p, so 40' for UHD is obviously too big.

>>57633545
I guess 40 feet isn't bad if you're a few blocks away.

>>57633618
>CTRL+F feet
>20' is too big for 1080p, so 40' for UHD is obviously too big.
>0 Results
Stop being a retard, you're discriminating those that simply act like retards.

>>57633545
>20' is too big for 1080p
You fucking wot m8?

20" is around 110ppi, it's fine for 1080p, though most monitors come in at 22" which is almost exactly 100ppi

42" 4k is slightly over 100ppi, which means you can see all the pixels from a normal viewing angle

>>57633188
i can make fun of you for being such a retard

>>57609195
One 4k monitor is like four 1080p monitors on that picture? Is that real? Wtf

>>57633651
>which means you can see all the pixels from a normal viewing angle
>wanting to see the pixels
I don't even...


>>57633665
It's almost like it's twice the vertical and twice the horizontal size of 1080p, who would've thought?..

File: Quad 4K WoW.jpg (2MB, 10000x1364px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 10000x1364px

>>57633665
and Quad 4k is like 16 times the pixels

>>57633641
Are you retarded?

>>57609494
only people who haven't ever used scaling think it's a good idea in windows.

>>57610012
looks the same as native on a 27" 1440

>>57609195
>Not Dumb
>Still at 1080p
>Devs now design for 4k
>Max games easier because 1080p

lmaoing at ur life

LG 34UM88C or Dell U3415W?
Is it worth it to pay $200 more for the U3415W?

>>57618889
>Curve introduces distortions.
So do our eyes, and air. Fuck you on about?

>>57633641
20' = 20 feet
20" = 20 inches

>>57633982
>nit picking shit in a dated imperial shit system.

File: Capture.png (164KB, 2560x1402px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 2560x1402px

>>57633795
nah

>>57609195
I fell for the 4k meme. Now that I'm a programmer, I don't to look at any screens when I get home.

>>57633992
Why is it people can't deal with being wrong and blow up over a joke?

File: font.png (286KB, 3637x1527px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 3637x1527px

>>57634269

What are some good 21:9 monitors at the moment?

>>57634474
>21:9
>good
yes, yes, buy into the marketing gimmick

>>57634860
from what I can tell it's like dual monitor without an annoying bezel in the middle

>>57609434

Well, don't set scaling to 200%.
Just go with 150% and you have sharp fonts but still get additional screen estate.

>>57634957
GOOD GOY LE MARKETING

Written from my iPhone™

>>57609195
Any 1440p 21:9 will do you just fine, able to see more than just one 4k monitor unless you go TV size with it.