>tfw 4k 27 inch isn't even 300PPI 8k when

>>58748793
And yet people say that 1080p is "enough"

there are some 4k 15.6" laptops
almost 300ppi

File: 31c33905ff47a472c09adc20c1549fb91e3b5d4b.jpg (2KB, 468x60px)

2KB, 468x60px

lol shit

>>58748793
>27 inches
hahhahahahahahahhahahaha

>>58749284
that is the optimal size for a monitor any bigger it's just a tv any smaller it's shit

>tfw just bought a 27" 1080p monitor for casual gayming with a controller from a comfy distance

Part of me wonders if I bought it just to post about it on /g/ to trigger people.

>>58749550
My monitor also has 1920x1200 and is 27". But it's one of the old dell wfp models and already has a massive yellow/orange taint to it. I have it since 2007/8, though. Sitting a meter away and setting the dpi to 108 is enough to not notice any pixels and ii's still comfortable to use. Fuck those "I need everything to be small as fuck for muh +2 lines of text"-fags, I'm even using a tiling wm with that setup and it's a blast.

Will upgrade to 4k this year, though.

>>58748793

>tfw you'll have to push your nose to the glass to see pixels on a 27" 1080p display.

I'm so glad I'm not sensitive to snake-oil like muh pixels.

>>58749823
lol not really snake oil. if you sit in front of a higher res screen all day its a huge difference in screen real estate.

>1080p in 2017 on /g/

>>58749823
I'm with you, old Jenkins. nothing good will come from city folk and their fancy new technologies. what we have is enough.

>>58750081

Actually at work I use two 22" 1680x1050 displays rotated to portrait. I program embedded devices and all I need is to read text so higher resolution doesn't make any sense. With this resolution I can already make my text as small as I like.

File: 1389600720511.jpg (1MB, 1234x1246px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1234x1246px

>>58749518
umad

https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/beta/asset/the-port-of-rotterdam/XAFcyRe5y7Mo7Q

Start looking at high res painting and then tell me you don't need higher ppi you fags

>>58748793
>300ppi
it's a fucking 27" display, you don't use it with face twelve centimeters from it
from one meter, you won't be able to see pixels even on 1440p, and even 1080p won't be painful

>>58752172
This is why a real push to 8k is never happening.

We only have 4k because the tech to make it came down in price to the point it was cheap enough to just replace 1080p at the same sizes without additional cost.

8k will come much the same way, the tech to replace it just kind of happens and no one cares to much about it.

hell, I would get a 4k tv at 40-50 inches just to have more screen real estate if I wasn't so deathly afraid of buying one, finding out the contrast is worse then my current monitor and that there is post processing I can not turn off so its effectively useless even as a non gaming monitor.

at 3-400$ it would cost me more to ship a 4k display back then to just eat the loss.

>>58752263
Got a 4K 40" Samsung last Black Friday for 300 from Best Buy. Not sure where you live where you wouldn't be able to snag one on sale. 300 for a vast workspace is very affordable regardless of post processing etc that you can disable.

>>58748793
>8k when

8k isn't enough. IIRC, we'll need about 12k to reach the limits of visual acuity, assuming that someone is sitting a normal distance away from a 27 inch monitor.

>>58748963
>And yet people say that 1080p is "enough"

There's a surprisingly large number of people who simply don't have the mental skills to (1) search wikipedia to find the smallest angle that the human visual system can detect, and then (2) do the math to figure out how convert that angle into the ppi for a monitor that's a normal distance away.

The AMD team think 16k is the end and there is no reason to go beyond that according to them

>>58748793
>4k 27 inch isn't even 300PPI

High quality magazine printing uses 300ppi. I've never understood why 300ppi is used for a glossy magazine ad that you just glance at briefly -- but yet they think that 300ppi is "too high" for monitors that professionals look at 8 hours every day to get their work done.

>>58752455
>There's a surprisingly large number of people who simply don't have the mental skills to (1) search wikipedia to find the smallest angle that the human visual system can detect, and then (2) do the math to figure out how convert that angle into the ppi for a monitor that's a normal distance away.
Just sit like normal on your pc and see if you can count pixels. If you can count them, go further away and increase fontsize. No need to pull numbers out of some retarded wikipedia article like some autist.

File: app_icon_official_opacity.0.png (2MB, 3072x3072px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x3072px

>>58750578
Where is Vivaldi?

>>58752483
[citation needed]

>>58753792
how about google you fucking retard

http://www.pcr-online.biz/news/read/how-long-until-8k-and-16k-gaming-becomes-the-norm/036791

>>58752355
I have 3 1080p tvs that you can no diable post on and scale horribly, text is unreadable unless you scale everything up, and this is on a 40 inch 1080p

honestly to scared to get fucked like that on 4k and be out money.

and the nearest places to me that have brand tvs on sale are around 100-150 miles round trip.

>>58750578
Safari and chrome are interchangeable. Other than that, spot on.