What do you think about 4K?

[Mihle]

I can see improvements of 4k even tho it is on a distance/screen size where I can not see individual pixels on 1080p. It still becomes sharper.

 

My PC monitor is 32" 4k, and I would like it to be even higher resolution, for sharper text for one. because text is actually where I find extra resolution is most noticeable.

[Arika]

content consumption: 4k is fine

gaming: 4k is overrated

[Donut417]

13 hours ago, Arika S said:

gaming: 4k is overrated

Never gamed on 4K, but going to 1440p was game changing. However thats on a 34" screen. I wouldn't go much bigger than that. 

[Roswell]

I can immediately tell the difference between 1080p and 4K on my 50 inch TV, even across the room. Same goes for computer use.

 

If improved image quality isn’t desirable for someone for whatever reason, so be it. But that doesn’t mean said improvement in image quality doesn’t exist.

[rikitikitavi]

DPI vs viewing distance vs reality.

 

Movies/TV: atm 1080p is still great. 4K is overrated. Waiting when 4K is fully utilized.

 

Gaming: up to 1440p depending on the screen size is the only reality, cause 4K is not worth the $$$, especially on consoles that lack performance. Waiting when 4K is cheap.

 

Productivity: 720p or 8K - doesn't matter as long as it all looks smooth (DPI vs viewing distance). This is the only REAL (aka fully utilized) usage of very high resolution atm.

[igormp]

44 minutes ago, rikitikitavi said:

(DPI vs viewing distance)

That's only if you scale your resolution. If you only use 100% scale, then more res gives you more work area (as long as you can still read it, ofc).

[Kamina]

Looks great on a monitor and can look great on a TV if your TV is huge.

[rikitikitavi]

5 hours ago, igormp said:

That's only if you scale your resolution. If you only use 100% scale, then more res gives you more work area (as long as you can still read it, ofc).

Let me paraphrase myself...

 

'Smooth' as in adequate/good, so it is purely based on your preference. Resolution by itself doesn't matter (720p on 9" or 4K on 27") - what matters is its ratio to the display size, so DPI. High DPI allows crisp image and makes scaling possible/usable.

As a result, the further you are from the display the higher your DPI tolerance gets, hence 'DPI vs viewing distance'.

This is limited by hardware, therefore CAN NOT be changed.

 

Scaling is somewhat trivial to my point - no one is saying you can or can't do 9"@720p at 20% or at 200% scale or 40"@1080p at 20% or at 200% scale. However, former has at least some wiggle room to look good, while the latter has none.

This is limited by software, therefore CAN be changed.

 

Therefore, productivity benefits from higher DPI, no matter the size or resolution (given that even low-end and 'somewhat modern' hardware can drive high resolution displays).

[Montana One-Six]

5 hours ago, rikitikitavi said:

Therefore, productivity benefits from higher DPI, no matter the size or resolution

No. If you open a spreadsheet on a 720p 9" monitor you 100% cannot see as much content at once as if you would open that same spreadsheet on a 4K 28" Display even though the 720p 9" has a higher DPI. Which means you would have to scroll through the spreadsheet a lot more on the 720p monitor and therefore you would not be as productive as you would be on the 4K display. This will also translate to other programs like Photoshop, video editing, ... .

DPI is meaningless without the right resolution and monitor size if you are looking for increased productivity.

[igormp]

7 hours ago, rikitikitavi said:

Therefore, productivity benefits from higher DPI, no matter the size or resolution (given that even low-end and 'somewhat modern' hardware can drive high resolution displays).

I believe you're thinking only about media work, wheres when dealing with tons of text having a lower DPI is actually preferable.

 

As an example, I have a 43" 4k TV as a monitor as I said before, which has the exact same DPI as a 1080p 21.5" monitor. However, given the extra space and res, my setup is the same as having 4 of those monitors in a 2x2 grid, but without the bezels (when using at 100% scaling, ofc).

Going for a smaller display size at the same res would increase the DPI, but wouldn't change my productivity at all, since I'd still have the same real estate area to open more windows, and this is only doable as long as you can still read the text at 100% scaling.

 

If you go small enough that you can't read the content anymore and are now using higher scaling, then you're sacrificing area/effective resolution, which is counter productive for lots of jobs that depends on reading text, with the only pro being crispier text (which I don't care at all tbh).

[flibberdipper]

I generally think 4K TVs are absolutely where it's at. I can still generally notice a slight boost in clarity up to about 5ish feet away on a 40-something inch set (in gaming at least, content consumption is a bit harder). However for regular ol desktop monitors, regular ol 1440p (or 2560x1600) make the most sense to me as of right now. Don't get me wrong, 4K defo has a larger benefit here since you sit so damn close to monitors more often than not, but with how absolutely godawful scaling is on Windows compared to macOS I'd rather just take a resolution I can run at 100% scaling and not go blind squinting at it.

[Obioban]

3 hours ago, igormp said:

I believe you're thinking only about media work, wheres when dealing with tons of text having a lower DPI is actually preferable.

 

As an example, I have a 43" 4k TV as a monitor as I said before, which has the exact same DPI as a 1080p 21.5" monitor. However, given the extra space and res, my setup is the same as having 4 of those monitors in a 2x2 grid, but without the bezels (when using at 100% scaling, ofc).

Going for a smaller display size at the same res would increase the DPI, but wouldn't change my productivity at all, since I'd still have the same real estate area to open more windows, and this is only doable as long as you can still read the text at 100% scaling.

 

If you go small enough that you can't read the content anymore and are now using higher scaling, then you're sacrificing area/effective resolution, which is counter productive for lots of jobs that depends on reading text, with the only pro being crispier text (which I don't care at all tbh).

It's really nice how DPI and UI element size/text size are unrelated on MacOS. Nice, clear, retina images with no fight against UI element sizing.

 

For a desktop sized (24"+) screen, 4k is completely insufficient for general computing IMO.

[igormp]

3 minutes ago, Obioban said:

It's really nice how DPI and UI element size/text size are unrelated on MacOS. Nice, clear, retina images with no fight against UI element sizing.

Because they abstract the whole resolution/dpi thing away from you, and if you want more options than their default ones you need to use 3rd party extensions. This is the one I used to use: https://easyresapp.com/

5 minutes ago, Obioban said:

For a desktop sized (24"+) screen, 4k is completely insufficient for general computing IMO.

What do you mean? I've used 27" and 32" 4k monitors without issues, and currently use a 43" one because it also doubles down as a regular tv for netflix.

[Obioban]

2 minutes ago, igormp said:

Because they abstract the whole resolution/dpi thing away from you, and if you want more options than their default ones you need to use 3rd party extensions. This is the one I used to use: https://easyresapp.com/

What do you mean? I've used 27" and 32" 4k monitors without issues, and currently use a 43" one because it also doubles down as a regular tv for netflix.

I mean 4k at 24" or larger looks ugly once you're used to high DPI.

[igormp]

28 minutes ago, Obioban said:

I mean 4k at 24" or larger looks ugly once you're used to high DPI.

Then you prefer to sacrifice screen real estate in order to have your stuff looking pretty? Okay, you do you, but other people prefer other stuff.

 

I prefer reasonable DPI with high res and actual extra work area for my stuff.

[Obioban]

15 minutes ago, igormp said:

Then you prefer to sacrifice screen real estate in order to have your stuff looking pretty? Okay, you do you, but other people prefer other stuff.

 

I prefer reasonable DPI with high res and actual extra work area for my stuff.

In MacOS, DPI and UI element size are not the same adjustment.

 

https://i-tec.pro/en-us/scaling-on-macos-2/

[igormp]

27 minutes ago, Obioban said:

In MacOS, DPI and UI element size are not the same adjustment.

 

https://i-tec.pro/en-us/scaling-on-macos-2/

As I mentioned before:

1 hour ago, igormp said:

Because they abstract the whole resolution/dpi thing away from you, and if you want more options than their default ones you need to use 3rd party extensions. This is the one I used to use: https://easyresapp.com/

[Obioban]

8 minutes ago, igormp said:

As I mentioned before:

Sounds like you're making it worse

[igormp]

10 minutes ago, Obioban said:

Sounds like you're making it worse

Worse for you? Maybe, but having constrained space just to have pretty, pixel-dense icons is really useless for me.

It seems that you actually don't make use of screen space and is pretty happy consuming media with the equivalent space of a 720p screen, so good for you.

To each their own, I guess.

[Obioban]

52 minutes ago, igormp said:

Worse for you? Maybe, but having constrained space just to have pretty, pixel-dense icons is really useless for me.

It seems that you actually don't make use of screen space and is pretty happy consuming media with the equivalent space of a 720p screen, so good for you.

To each their own, I guess.

So why not change the scaling and leave the resolution alone?

 

DPI retained, smaller UI elements to fit more on screen.

[rikitikitavi]

2 hours ago, igormp said:

Because they abstract the whole resolution/dpi thing away from you, and if you want more options than their default ones you need to use 3rd party extensions. This is the one I used to use: https://easyresapp.com/

What are you talking about?

 

Hold ‘Option’ and you get more to choose from

[rikitikitavi]

8 hours ago, Montana One-Six said:

No. If you open a spreadsheet on a 720p 9" monitor you 100% cannot see as much content at once as if you would open that same spreadsheet on a 4K 28" Display even though the 720p 9" has a higher DPI. Which means you would have to scroll through the spreadsheet a lot more on the 720p monitor and therefore you would not be as productive as you would be on the 4K display. This will also translate to other programs like Photoshop, video editing, ... .

DPI is meaningless without the right resolution and monitor size if you are looking for increased productivity.

Yes and not exactly. You separate things, so there is always ‘variability’, however if you choose to base it on a criteria that is a function of your ‘tolerance’, then there is no question what you will go for.

 

You choose a screen size that is appropriate to your use case and match it with an appropriate resolution … so you are choosing according to your DPI tolerance… Is you tolerance 220 dpi? Is it 100? Size is ‘irrelevant’.

[rikitikitavi]

6 hours ago, igormp said:

I believe you're thinking only about media work, wheres when dealing with tons of text having a lower DPI is actually preferable.

 

As an example, I have a 43" 4k TV as a monitor as I said before, which has the exact same DPI as a 1080p 21.5" monitor. However, given the extra space and res, my setup is the same as having 4 of those monitors in a 2x2 grid, but without the bezels (when using at 100% scaling, ofc).

Going for a smaller display size at the same res would increase the DPI, but wouldn't change my productivity at all, since I'd still have the same real estate area to open more windows, and this is only doable as long as you can still read the text at 100% scaling.

 

If you go small enough that you can't read the content anymore and are now using higher scaling, then you're sacrificing area/effective resolution, which is counter productive for lots of jobs that depends on reading text, with the only pro being crispier text (which I don't care at all tbh).

No, working with text benefits from high DPI. Please read my previous posts.

[ewitte]

4k isn't necessary with 27 or even 32 inch but sitting 35 inches away from a 48 inch screen it is the lowest acceptable PPI.  Its equal to a 24in 1080p monitor.  1080p on a 27in looks like crap.

[Lairlair]

10 hours ago, ewitte said:

4k isn't necessary with 27 or even 32 inch but sitting 35 inches away from a 48 inch screen it is the lowest acceptable PPI.  Its equal to a 24in 1080p monitor.  1080p on a 27in looks like crap.

I guess it depends on the use you make of it. I play many games in full HD on my 27" monitor and it's perfectly fine. I do appreciate the quad HD definition for media creation and daily use though.