Author Topic: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k  (Read 31019 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Novus

  • Formerly the1onewolf
  • * Exquisite Elder
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 1515
  • Mondai nothing~
Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« on: Sat, 23 August 2014, 22:23:39 »
Thinking of grabbing a new monitor.

I'll be picking between either a
1) 27" IPS Monitor 2560 x 1440 (WQHD)
2) 28" TN Monitor 3840 x 2160 (4K resolution)

The 27" monitor is IPS.
The 28" monitor has more pixel density but it is not IPS. 4k Monitors also seem to have issues reaching a 60hz refresh rate sometimes. Heard many complaints about how these monitors might be locked in 30hz sometimes.

Both Asus and Samsung have similar lineups (27" IPS vs 28" 4K) and these monitors are in a similar price range (within the same brand).

What do you guys think about the IPS vs 4k but not-IPS trade-off?
I'm currently using a Dell 2410 IPS and I'll probably put these monitors side by side or attach them to a mount of some sort (if the new monitor is vesa)
« Last Edit: Sat, 23 August 2014, 22:29:49 by the1onewolf »

Offline FrostyToast

  • Litshoard
  • * Exquisite Elder
  • Posts: 2368
  • Location: Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #1 on: Sat, 23 August 2014, 22:49:18 »
I think that 1440p would offer a much more balanced experience. The IPS really helps as well!
Quote from: elton5354
I don't need anymore keyboards

Offline Hundrakia

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Northwest Territories, Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #2 on: Sun, 24 August 2014, 00:17:15 »
What are you doing with them?

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #3 on: Sun, 24 August 2014, 03:01:58 »
4k is buying the Cart before the Horse...  (content)

And in this case,, the horse hasn't even been born... AND it has to be shipped in, where it might die.. and you'd have to wait even longer...

Don't bother with 4k for now..


If you really think you can use 4k..   Hit up one of the 4k TVs, you can sit way back,, and your eyes will thankyou.

Offline HardCelery

  • Posts: 35
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #4 on: Mon, 25 August 2014, 21:05:14 »
4k is buying the Cart before the Horse...  (content)

And in this case,, the horse hasn't even been born... AND it has to be shipped in, where it might die.. and you'd have to wait even longer...

Don't bother with 4k for now..


If you really think you can use 4k..   Hit up one of the 4k TVs, you can sit way back,, and your eyes will thankyou.
The content really isn't there but the picture quality is real, way bigger leap the SD to HD. I was honestly a bit blown away.

Offline Hundrakia

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Northwest Territories, Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #5 on: Mon, 25 August 2014, 21:31:01 »
If you find you are forever striving  for real-estate, and aren't adamant about playing games with the absolute highest settings, 4k does take the advantage. Else, personally I'm deeply intrigued by 2560x1440. It's been dubbed the sweet spot on many fronts at 24-27"

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #6 on: Mon, 25 August 2014, 21:40:35 »
I'm "monitoring" this thread.

Looking for 27" (@2560 res) or possibly a 30". Also Dell has an interesting 29" widescreen...but want a solid picture to look at since will stream entertainment among other standard text uses.

I'll be using with a Macbook Pro 17" for now and eventually a Mac Mini. I'm also open to used units. But not spending $900, more like around half that.
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline munch

  • Posts: 507
  • Location: Канада
  • !
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #7 on: Mon, 25 August 2014, 21:45:09 »
the korean screens are about half that (or even less) and are fantastic for the price. the only downside is the slightly wobbly stand they come with. I don't know if you can replace it though.
IPS panel, 2560x1440, 27". perfect for what you seem to ask for IMO (@Input Nirvana)

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #8 on: Mon, 25 August 2014, 21:52:17 »
I would put the monitor on an Ergotron/HP desk/monitor arm.
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline Novus

  • Formerly the1onewolf
  • * Exquisite Elder
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 1515
  • Mondai nothing~
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #9 on: Mon, 25 August 2014, 22:16:31 »
the korean screens are about half that (or even less) and are fantastic for the price. the only downside is the slightly wobbly stand they come with. I don't know if you can replace it though.
IPS panel, 2560x1440, 27". perfect for what you seem to ask for IMO (@Input Nirvana)

My friend has a dual side by side Korean 27" setup and they're mounted by some sort of dual monitor arm. 
I think the brand is crossover and they're 2560x1440.
It's a really nifty setup but I'm not used to both monitors being off center.

So I also noticed that ASUS's gaming division has this 27" gaming monitor (2560x1440, 144 hz refresh rate) for 800 bucks. It's 6
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Decisions decisions.

IPS vs 144 Hz TN vs 4K TN
I love when we're in-between technology and need to pick!

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #10 on: Mon, 25 August 2014, 22:20:15 »
the korean screens are about half that (or even less) and are fantastic for the price. the only downside is the slightly wobbly stand they come with. I don't know if you can replace it though.
IPS panel, 2560x1440, 27". perfect for what you seem to ask for IMO (@Input Nirvana)

My friend has a dual side by side Korean 27" setup and they're mounted by some sort of dual monitor arm. 
I think the brand is crossover and they're 2560x1440.
It's a really nifty setup but I'm not used to both monitors being off center.

So I also noticed that ASUS's gaming division has this 27" gaming monitor (2560x1440, 144 hz refresh rate) for 800 bucks. It's 6
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Decisions decisions.

IPS vs 144 Hz TN vs 4K TN
I love when we're in-between technology and need to pick!

I just bought the crossover 27qw for an uncle-puter, with an Overclocked G3258 of course.. this is my 3rd Pentium-fun build in the past month.

It's pretty solid for uncle-puter stuff.. 

Offline Hundrakia

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Northwest Territories, Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #11 on: Mon, 25 August 2014, 22:36:00 »
the korean screens are about half that (or even less) and are fantastic for the price. the only downside is the slightly wobbly stand they come with. I don't know if you can replace it though.
IPS panel, 2560x1440, 27". perfect for what you seem to ask for IMO (@Input Nirvana)

My friend has a dual side by side Korean 27" setup and they're mounted by some sort of dual monitor arm. 
I think the brand is crossover and they're 2560x1440.
It's a really nifty setup but I'm not used to both monitors being off center.

So I also noticed that ASUS's gaming division has this 27" gaming monitor (2560x1440, 144 hz refresh rate) for 800 bucks. It's 6
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Decisions decisions.

IPS vs 144 Hz TN vs 4K TN
I love when we're in-between technology and need to pick!

According to all that I've read about that Asus one, the quality is actually rather decent for a TN. If you're using your monitor for gaming, it's basically the one (raaaaahh!)
Plus, Gsync and ULMB

Offline munch

  • Posts: 507
  • Location: Канада
  • !
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #12 on: Mon, 25 August 2014, 22:37:53 »
I would put the monitor on an Ergotron/HP desk/monitor arm.
then I definitely recommend it! I hope it is possible to detach with the current ones, I honestly don't remember how it was in the back of the one I used to use was. but lovely monitor for sure!
the korean screens are about half that (or even less) and are fantastic for the price. the only downside is the slightly wobbly stand they come with. I don't know if you can replace it though.
IPS panel, 2560x1440, 27". perfect for what you seem to ask for IMO (@Input Nirvana)

My friend has a dual side by side Korean 27" setup and they're mounted by some sort of dual monitor arm. 
I think the brand is crossover and they're 2560x1440.
It's a really nifty setup but I'm not used to both monitors being off center.

So I also noticed that ASUS's gaming division has this 27" gaming monitor (2560x1440, 144 hz refresh rate) for 800 bucks. It's 6
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Decisions decisions.

IPS vs 144 Hz TN vs 4K TN
I love when we're in-between technology and need to pick!

144/120Hz is a biiiit overrated for anything but fast paced gaming IMO. it's lovely and nice on the eyes and all, but IPS colours/viewing angles all day erryday for me. if I could have both then no questions asked.
I'm not too keen on using 4K just yet, unfortunately. the Korean ones are also overclockable so you might even get 96/120 Hz AND IPS - which would be super awesome! ;)

Offline Sniping

  • Posts: 861
  • Location: California
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #13 on: Tue, 26 August 2014, 00:42:48 »
the korean screens are about half that (or even less) and are fantastic for the price. the only downside is the slightly wobbly stand they come with. I don't know if you can replace it though.
IPS panel, 2560x1440, 27". perfect for what you seem to ask for IMO (@Input Nirvana)

My friend has a dual side by side Korean 27" setup and they're mounted by some sort of dual monitor arm. 
I think the brand is crossover and they're 2560x1440.
It's a really nifty setup but I'm not used to both monitors being off center.

So I also noticed that ASUS's gaming division has this 27" gaming monitor (2560x1440, 144 hz refresh rate) for 800 bucks. It's 6
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Decisions decisions.

IPS vs 144 Hz TN vs 4K TN
I love when we're in-between technology and need to pick!

I just bought the crossover 27qw for an uncle-puter, with an Overclocked G3258 of course.. this is my 3rd Pentium-fun build in the past month.

It's pretty solid for uncle-puter stuff..

dood the Qnix is like the same thing but better :)


Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #14 on: Tue, 26 August 2014, 01:28:04 »
The 24" Dell 4k monitor is the one that looks sweetest to me (but a bit pricier).

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #15 on: Tue, 26 August 2014, 01:58:16 »
the korean screens are about half that (or even less) and are fantastic for the price. the only downside is the slightly wobbly stand they come with. I don't know if you can replace it though.
IPS panel, 2560x1440, 27". perfect for what you seem to ask for IMO (@Input Nirvana)

My friend has a dual side by side Korean 27" setup and they're mounted by some sort of dual monitor arm. 
I think the brand is crossover and they're 2560x1440.
It's a really nifty setup but I'm not used to both monitors being off center.

So I also noticed that ASUS's gaming division has this 27" gaming monitor (2560x1440, 144 hz refresh rate) for 800 bucks. It's 6
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Decisions decisions.

IPS vs 144 Hz TN vs 4K TN
I love when we're in-between technology and need to pick!

I just bought the crossover 27qw for an uncle-puter, with an Overclocked G3258 of course.. this is my 3rd Pentium-fun build in the past month.

It's pretty solid for uncle-puter stuff..

dood the Qnix is like the same thing but better :)




I'd consider it if they ever stop compressing images on the web and have 10bit rendering for internet explorer, cuz that's the single program my uncle uses.

Offline Sniping

  • Posts: 861
  • Location: California
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #16 on: Tue, 26 August 2014, 03:07:53 »
oh crap is this actually for your uncle? rofl

My parents would just use 1600x900 if I gave them something 1080p or above.


Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #17 on: Tue, 26 August 2014, 04:05:49 »
oh crap is this actually for your uncle? rofl

My parents would just use 1600x900 if I gave them something 1080p or above.




naw they got dpi scalling

Offline Novus

  • Formerly the1onewolf
  • * Exquisite Elder
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 1515
  • Mondai nothing~
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #18 on: Tue, 26 August 2014, 04:26:47 »
Korean monitors don't have proper scalers though, right?

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #19 on: Tue, 26 August 2014, 04:30:47 »
Korean monitors don't have proper scalers though, right?
They don't have an internal scalar so you can't connect something like a playstation..

But this also benefits PC gaming because not having a scalar greatly reduces input lag.

And also only n00bers game on Console.


Offline Novus

  • Formerly the1onewolf
  • * Exquisite Elder
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 1515
  • Mondai nothing~

Offline Hundrakia

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Northwest Territories, Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #21 on: Tue, 26 August 2014, 17:14:25 »
The 840 EVOs are fast, though.

Offline munch

  • Posts: 507
  • Location: Канада
  • !
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #22 on: Tue, 26 August 2014, 18:59:02 »
I used a Catleap Q270 with HDMI (is that Q271 perhaps? forgot now. :P) on an Xbox 360, most games 720p, some 1080p. no problem at all.
I don't see why it wouldn't work with a Playstation? :)

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #23 on: Tue, 26 August 2014, 20:49:14 »
I used a Catleap Q270 with HDMI (is that Q271 perhaps? forgot now. :P) on an Xbox 360, most games 720p, some 1080p. no problem at all.
I don't see why it wouldn't work with a Playstation? :)

he's talking about the monitor I bought.. the crossover budget monitors..  SOME have scalars, SOME do not.

Generally  Scalars are stupid and for n00b console people.


On top of that Graphics cards usually provide much better quality video scaling and consistently so, vs monitor scalars,  which on budget monitors are always underpowered or uses a ****ty algorithm to compensate for the lack of processing power.

Offline munch

  • Posts: 507
  • Location: Канада
  • !
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #24 on: Tue, 26 August 2014, 21:15:00 »
I see - I just saw Korean monitors mentioned, since I also used a cheaper Korean one. :)

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #25 on: Tue, 26 August 2014, 21:43:45 »
Not to bork this thread but I'm looking for either a 27 or (maybe 30) and looking a look at the Korean jobs. I just started looking for monitors, and I'm open to used ones, I need to keep cost down. I was leaning towards Dell or HP, but may consider a Korean entrant.

Monoprice 27" IPS GLASS ($350 fee ship @ Rakuten) Dunno if I will like the glass panel with anti-fare coating (reflections!)
http://www.rakuten.com/prod/27-ips-glass-panel-pro-led-monitor-wqhd-2560x1440-with-hdmi-1-4-dvi/252439954.html?scid=af_linkshare&adid=18094&siteID=Es5Ekr9eEBk-uzOHcWIW3gWK5hhsj7NFxg
http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=1130703&p_id=10489&seq=1&format=2

If I get really good news in a couple days I'm maybe interested in this:
Monoprice 30" IPS LED backlit ($690)
http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=1130703&p_id=10734&seq=1&format=2

I've always had matte finish screens. My (new to me) 17" Macbook Pro has a glossy screen and although it does make colors pop, reflections are an issue as well. You can deal with it at your home reasonably, but if you're mobile it can be more challenging.
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline dorkvader

  • Posts: 6288
  • Location: Boston area
  • all about the "hack" in "geekhack"
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #26 on: Tue, 26 August 2014, 22:20:36 »
Not to bork this thread but I'm looking for either a 27 or (maybe 30) and looking a look at the Korean jobs. I just started looking for monitors, and I'm open to used ones, I need to keep cost down. I was leaning towards Dell or HP, but may consider a Korean entrant.

Monoprice 27" IPS GLASS ($350 fee ship @ Rakuten) Dunno if I will like the glass panel with anti-fare coating (reflections!)
http://www.rakuten.com/prod/27-ips-glass-panel-pro-led-monitor-wqhd-2560x1440-with-hdmi-1-4-dvi/252439954.html?scid=af_linkshare&adid=18094&siteID=Es5Ekr9eEBk-uzOHcWIW3gWK5hhsj7NFxg
http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=1130703&p_id=10489&seq=1&format=2

If I get really good news in a couple days I'm maybe interested in this:
Monoprice 30" IPS LED backlit ($690)
http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=1130703&p_id=10734&seq=1&format=2

I've always had matte finish screens. My (new to me) 17" Macbook Pro has a glossy screen and although it does make colors pop, reflections are an issue as well. You can deal with it at your home reasonably, but if you're mobile it can be more challenging.

Keep in mind that these usually use the same panel that Apple does in their imac and 27" cinema/ thunderbolt display. So if you like apple displays, you might like this.

I don't mind having a glass glossy display (currently using a 24" apple cinema display: which I don't notice flicker on nearly so much, and can therefore actually use) but I keep it perpendicular to the wall with the windows on it.

The monoprice one is often sold by massdrop at a discount: might want to look out for that, since they are probably due to have another drop for it soon. You'll save a bit of cash.

Also I think you can get a matte screen protector for it, but I don't know for sure for a screen that big.

Offline Lingj

  • Posts: 226
  • Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #27 on: Tue, 26 August 2014, 22:27:34 »
QNIX QX2710 if you don't need to have scalars. $300~ for cinema display quality. You can overclock the refresh rate so stable 96, some monitors can do 120 with little artifacts. QC is dodgy (you may get a couple dead pixels) but I purchased one with no dead pixels.

Offline mkawa

  •  No Marketplace Access
  • Posts: 6562
  • (ツ)@@@. crankypants
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #28 on: Tue, 26 August 2014, 22:32:19 »
if i went 4k at this point, i would only go with an IPS, MVA or PLA panel (not sure if the latter exists). the TN 4Ks they're releasing right now tend to only support 30fps, since most people don't have graphics cards that can push out pixels faster than that anyway.

this means that 4K is _really_ expensive. you need a high end graphics card with lots of computing power you may not even need, and a high end panel which will be _minimum_ 1000$.

imo, 1440p @ 27" is the way to go, unless you're insane and the above doesn't really bother you (eg, me).

(although even _i'm_ waiting it out a bit)

to all the brilliant friends who have left us, and all the students who climb on their shoulders.

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #29 on: Tue, 26 August 2014, 22:32:22 »
I've heard of the matte overlays. Do they work/look same as regular matte screen or is it not quite as good?

Will check Massdrop. But $350 seems like a pretty cheap price. I'll look up the other Korean brands in this thread.

Dead pixels are NOT an option.
« Last Edit: Tue, 26 August 2014, 22:34:06 by Input Nirvana »
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #30 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 00:43:36 »
I've heard of the matte overlays. Do they work/look same as regular matte screen or is it not quite as good?

Will check Massdrop. But $350 seems like a pretty cheap price. I'll look up the other Korean brands in this thread.

Dead pixels are NOT an option.

none of them have perfect pixel guarantee..  they might say pixel perfect, then a huge star next to it, that says... buhhhhh...   dark pixels don't count, there may be up to 5 pixels on the side of the monitor that are xxx, bright sub-pixels don't count..  etc etc..

It's alotta BS...    so... basically if you want PERFECT pixels,  you have to cough up $700-800 for a 27*, $1100-1400 for a 30"   ,  $3000-5000 for a 32" 4k

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #31 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 00:46:24 »
I'm not ok with ANY bad pixels, will take another look at that. Thanks for the heads up.
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #32 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 00:54:19 »
I'm not ok with ANY bad pixels, will take another look at that. Thanks for the heads up.

Look at it this way.. if there isn't something seriously wrong with the panel, it'd end up in the premium monitors for 2x the cost..


for example.. serious backlight bleed,  very uneven panel brightness uniformity,  poor contrast uniformity..


There are SO MANY things that can go wrong making each panel,  this is why they screen in the first place..




Offline Novus

  • Formerly the1onewolf
  • * Exquisite Elder
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 1515
  • Mondai nothing~
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #33 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 01:01:55 »
Their color profiles are also messed up and not "pre-calibrated".
My friend did not buy his two monitors at the same time and the colors were significantly off.

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #34 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 08:42:00 »
Oh, so they are "rejected seconds". Got it. My interest just dropped off the chart. Thanks for that. Moving on to the next thing.
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline dorkvader

  • Posts: 6288
  • Location: Boston area
  • all about the "hack" in "geekhack"
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #35 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 08:53:57 »
I've heard of the matte overlays. Do they work/look same as regular matte screen or is it not quite as good?

Will check Massdrop. But $350 seems like a pretty cheap price. I'll look up the other Korean brands in this thread.

Dead pixels are NOT an option.

none of them have perfect pixel guarantee..  they might say pixel perfect, then a huge star next to it, that says... buhhhhh...   dark pixels don't count, there may be up to 5 pixels on the side of the monitor that are xxx, bright sub-pixels don't count..  etc etc..

It's alotta BS...    so... basically if you want PERFECT pixels,  you have to cough up $700-800 for a 27*, $1100-1400 for a 30"   ,  $3000-5000 for a 32" 4k
The monoprice monitor does carry that garuntee (mainly because they use a+ panel instead of A or A- that most of the cheap korean guys have) You can read up reviews on massdrop of people returning them.

Read the description:
https://www.massdrop.com/buy/monoprice-monitor?mode=guest_open

a+ panel, pixel perfect guarantee.

Now, I'm not saying that monoprice has that policy, 'cause they don't. But even if monoprice won't cover the monitor, massdrop still will. You can see examples of that in the comments.
« Last Edit: Wed, 27 August 2014, 09:02:56 by dorkvader »

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #36 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 09:02:00 »
That's EXACTLY what I read. I'll go on the Monoprice-chat feature to clarify.
I'm not interested in a compromises of that nature.
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline dorkvader

  • Posts: 6288
  • Location: Boston area
  • all about the "hack" in "geekhack"
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #37 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 09:03:59 »
That's EXACTLY what I read. I'll go on the Monoprice-chat feature to clarify.
I'm not interested in a compromises of that nature.

I'm not sure if monoprice has that pixel perfect policy. I think they don't.

Massdrop has stated several times that they do have a pixel perfect policy and will honor exchanges.

Note that you will need a MDP to dual link DVI adapter:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB571Z/A/mini-displayport-to-dual-link-dvi-adapter

Otherwise the resolution is limited. A single DVI link can't handle all the pixels.

http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=6904&format=2
« Last Edit: Wed, 27 August 2014, 09:08:27 by dorkvader »

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #38 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 09:07:46 »
The Monoprice monitor I linked has the pixel guarantee. The "IPS Glass" does, the "Zero-G" does not. Interestingly Massdrop was selling the Zero-G.
I'm now obviously burning bandwidth sending everyone emails in typical Geekwhack fashion, LOL
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline dorkvader

  • Posts: 6288
  • Location: Boston area
  • all about the "hack" in "geekhack"
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #39 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 09:09:09 »
The Monoprice monitor I linked has the pixel guarantee. The "IPS Glass" does, the "Zero-G" does not. Interestingly Massdrop was selling the Zero-G.
I'm now obviously burning bandwidth sending everyone emails in typical Geekwhack fashion, LOL

Massdrop says they have a special deal on that that is not offered to most of monoprice's other customers.

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #40 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 09:16:50 »
If the Zero-G is pixel perfect like the Glass model, I"d be happy to buy it @ $350 or less as well.
Will chat with Monoprice to clarify monitor differences and send Andrew/Massdrop an email as well.
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #41 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 09:54:16 »
If the Zero-G is pixel perfect like the Glass model, I"d be happy to buy it @ $350 or less as well.
Will chat with Monoprice to clarify monitor differences and send Andrew/Massdrop an email as well.

even if they have good pixels.. there are OTHER issues that I mentioned...  and those are not readily apparent.

Offline microsoft windows

  • Blue Troll of Death
  • * Exalted Elder
  • Posts: 3621
  • President of geekhack.org
    • Get Internet Explorer 6
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #42 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 10:32:08 »
Get the 28" monitor because it's bigger. You won't regret it!
CLICK HERE!     OFFICIAL PRESIDENT OF GEEKHACK.ORG    MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN MERRY CHRISTMAS

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #43 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 16:48:46 »
After dealing with Monoprice this morning, they confirmed their 27" IPS Glass Pro has a true pixel perfect/no light bleed guarantee.
From Monoprice website:
"This is a Grade A-1 panel, which means no image defects are allowed. That means no backlight bleed, no dead pixels, no focus issues at the edge, nothing wrong at all."
I should re-contact to verify what "no dead pixels/nothing wrong at all" exactly means.

On Rakuten it's $350+free ship, 1 year warranty and I'm CA so I have tax ($387 total). And $45 additional gets Square Trade 3 year product problem/failure warranty ($437 total).
I read bad things about Rakuten and credit card numbers, I'd just use PayPal/virtual cc# and also make sure I used a unique password on Rakuten. The price is good through Aug. 28 (tomorrow).

Assessment:
Brand new, 2560x1440, multiple inputs, A+ panel, 0 pixel/light guarantee, 3 year warranty, Monoprice/USA...I feel this definitely reduces "taking chances" and possibly wasting a lot of time/hassle with a cheaper monitor purchase (ebay/overseas/etc) for a total of $437. It's ~100 more than some of the other prices I see people posting ($300-ish), but again I'm dealing with Monoprice/USA, extended warranty, A+ panel, panel guarantee and that seems worth ~$100. The worst thing I may have to deal with is returning the panel (at their shipping cost) for replacement one.

I don't wanna stare at a screen with defects, and I don't wanna spend $650 just to have more crisp feeling power buttons, sturdier stand, or a name brand. This seems like a solid compromise. Unless I find MUCH BETTER product for $450 total, this may get purchased. *NOTE: I'm forecasting the value of my time as a cost when dealing with crappy sellers, ****tay product, no coverage, etc. Who wants THAT? I'd rather spend that time doing something that's not unpleasant, like chase girls. It's worth a few bucks up front. And driving around is totally expensive too in an american made gas guzzler truck.

Rakuten
http://www.rakuten.com/prod/27-ips-glass-panel-pro-led-monitor-wqhd-2560x1440-with-hdmi-1-4-dvi/252439954.html?sku=252439954&listingId=295244699
Monoprice
http://www.monoprice.com/Product/?pg_no2=1&c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=1130703&p_id=10489&sortby=&period=&rating=&seq=1&format=4#feedback

EDIT (DEAL ALERT):
This Monoprice Zero-G IPS LED 2560x1440 seems like a darn good deal too (except for the 5 pixel allowance), but it's only $280, you can get Square Trade for $37 (deal through Aug 28, 2014):
http://www.rakuten.com/prod/27-ips-zero-g-slim-monitor-wqhd-2560x1440-dual-link-dvi-vga/254863185.html
« Last Edit: Wed, 27 August 2014, 19:45:59 by Input Nirvana »
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline The Mad Professor

  • Posts: 144
  • Location: Cypress, TX
  • Ex Scientia, Rabies
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #44 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 22:54:42 »
I just got the ASUS PB278Q monitor for use in a portable build. After testing it for dead pixels and looking at it in full 1440p res, I can say that I am quite happy with it. Plus, it's under $500 on Amazon right now.
Mad Science means never stopping to ask "What's the worst that could happen?" - Schlock Mercenary

Offline byker

  • Literally Canada
  • ** Moderator Emeritus
  • Posts: 3136
  • Location: Gone fishin
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #45 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 23:04:26 »
I just got the Qnix QX2710, it arrived yesterday. So far it is amazing. One dead pixel, which you cant actually tell without using a monitor checker..

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #46 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 23:11:40 »
I just got the ASUS PB278Q monitor for use in a portable build. After testing it for dead pixels and looking at it in full 1440p res, I can say that I am quite happy with it. Plus, it's under $500 on Amazon right now.

How is the brightness using 1% lightboost


Offline Hundrakia

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Northwest Territories, Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #47 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 23:22:18 »
I just got the ASUS PB278Q monitor for use in a portable build. After testing it for dead pixels and looking at it in full 1440p res, I can say that I am quite happy with it. Plus, it's under $500 on Amazon right now.

How is the brightness using 1% lightboost

I've been seriously contemplating this monitor. This is good insight, thank you!

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #48 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 23:23:00 »
The Mad Professor:
Your monitor looks amazing. I'm not familiar with PLS screens. Only another $30 more...unless there's also tax and a shorter warranty than 3 years...

I gotta put a break on the budget, but I gotta take a looky!
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline The Mad Professor

  • Posts: 144
  • Location: Cypress, TX
  • Ex Scientia, Rabies
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #49 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 23:31:04 »
I just got the ASUS PB278Q monitor for use in a portable build. After testing it for dead pixels and looking at it in full 1440p res, I can say that I am quite happy with it. Plus, it's under $500 on Amazon right now.

How is the brightness using 1% lightboost



Lightboost only works with 120Hz monitors. The PB278Q is a 60Hz monitor.
Mad Science means never stopping to ask "What's the worst that could happen?" - Schlock Mercenary

Offline The Mad Professor

  • Posts: 144
  • Location: Cypress, TX
  • Ex Scientia, Rabies
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #50 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 23:32:08 »
The Mad Professor:
Your monitor looks amazing. I'm not familiar with PLS screens. Only another $30 more...unless there's also tax and a shorter warranty than 3 years...

I gotta put a break on the budget, but I gotta take a looky!

Now think of it being in a portable briefcase build... That's my plan.
Mad Science means never stopping to ask "What's the worst that could happen?" - Schlock Mercenary

Offline Hundrakia

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Northwest Territories, Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #51 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 23:33:45 »
There's ULMB on the new ROG one, which is not dissimilar to lightboost, as I'm given to understand. It can't be used in conjunction with the Gsync, but outside of gaming it would make things look crispy wispy.

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #52 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 23:50:50 »
There's ULMB on the new ROG one, which is not dissimilar to lightboost, as I'm given to understand. It can't be used in conjunction with the Gsync, but outside of gaming it would make things look crispy wispy.

it's exactly like lightboost..

but i haven't seen the new ROG with the feature in use.. I only saw the monitor itself with internet xplorer loaded


Offline Novus

  • Formerly the1onewolf
  • * Exquisite Elder
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 1515
  • Mondai nothing~
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #53 on: Wed, 27 August 2014, 23:56:20 »
Gsych is supposedly better than ULMB - at least according to some reviewers for the ASUS swift.

I heard there's going to be something new once Display port 1.3 comes out.

Still deciding if I want to go 144 or IPS.
Oh well still have time to dwell.

Also PLS is the same thing as IPS for all intensive purposes.
It's just a marketing spin/copyright thing.
« Last Edit: Wed, 27 August 2014, 23:58:36 by the1onewolf »

Offline Hundrakia

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Northwest Territories, Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #54 on: Thu, 28 August 2014, 00:02:12 »
Gsych is supposedly better than ULMB - at least according to some reviewers for the ASUS swift.

I heard there's going to be something new once Display port 1.3 comes out.

Still deciding if I want to go 144 or IPS.
Oh well still have time to dwell.

Also PLS is the same thing as IPS for all intensive purposes.
It's just a marketing spin/copyright thing.

For all intents and purposes, I'm more excited about Gsync than I am about ULMB for gaming purposes

Offline Novus

  • Formerly the1onewolf
  • * Exquisite Elder
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 1515
  • Mondai nothing~
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #55 on: Thu, 28 August 2014, 00:11:52 »
I think I would rather ULMB win out.
Maybe it's just my philosophy but I don't like being at Nvidia's mercy.

That being said it's nice Vsych can finally go off itself.
« Last Edit: Thu, 28 August 2014, 00:13:54 by the1onewolf »

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #56 on: Thu, 28 August 2014, 08:49:01 »
I don't feel G sync is relevant in face of ULMB,   Like for serial... the smoothness with strobe backlighting is unreal...

ULMB All the way ... total serial

Offline Novus

  • Formerly the1onewolf
  • * Exquisite Elder
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 1515
  • Mondai nothing~
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #57 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 21:04:22 »
I was watching a cs:go twitch stream on my ips and I was like huh she must be using a 144.
I was right.
HUH

Man I'm torn :/

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #58 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 21:17:49 »
I was watching a cs:go twitch stream on my ips and I was like huh she must be using a 144.
I was right.
HUH

Man I'm torn :/

there is no difference between 120 and 144..  get whichever one that supports ulmb..


Also... do keep in mind the First gen 120hz and 144hz monitors were not designed for ulmb, so their gamma under maximum lightboosting  is  a bit off... 


Still looks fine in a darkened room though,  but in the bright open-window mornings, it'll be somewhat dim..



Offline Hundrakia

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Northwest Territories, Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #59 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 21:37:10 »
Wow. I thought optimum viewing distance would be way closer on a 4k 28". Turns out it starts at 22" or more. The 27" 2560 x 1440 are about 32".

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #60 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 21:43:30 »
Wow. I thought optimum viewing distance would be way closer on a 4k 28". Turns out it starts at 22" or more. The 27" 2560 x 1440 are about 32".


The Optimum viewing distance is NOT an exact science as it is currently marketed..


It takes into account only 1080p resolution @ 1 arc minute restriction..

@ 4k,  1 arc minute becomes an issue, because you'd have to sit very close to a very big screen to achieve the ability to discern the pixels..   


Basically....  We then either need to switch to the .5 arc minute restriction,   OR  just  stick with the Natural resting point of vergence...  Which is @ 35-40 inches away from viewing target..


@ any distance GREATER than 35-40"  it does not impact viewing fatigue.

Offline Hundrakia

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Northwest Territories, Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #61 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 21:47:08 »
Of course it isn't, but as a general starting point, my numbers are close.

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #62 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 21:55:50 »
Of course it isn't, but as a general starting point, my numbers are close.

How did you get your* numbers..

Offline Hundrakia

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Northwest Territories, Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #63 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 22:01:35 »
Input numbers on to a website to calculate DPI (I verified the first few, but I did a lot of them)
Then I hit up http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm, which pointed me to 3438 / DPI ~= viewing distance minimum

Offline Hundrakia

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Northwest Territories, Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #64 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 22:02:57 »
Oh. Then I found http://isthisretina.com/, which gives similar results

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #65 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 22:06:32 »
Oh. Then I found http://isthisretina.com/, which gives similar results

ok.. that doesn't give you  viewing distance though... just tells you where the 1 arc minute restriction happens..


viewing distance is a composite of many variables of eye...  which includes  accommodation (lens bending in the eye), Vergence (inward rotation of the eye), AND acuity (receptor density)

Offline Hundrakia

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Northwest Territories, Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #66 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 22:12:42 »
Hmmm. I can't fathom that changing my optimal distance too drastically, but it'd seem some more research couldn't hurt.

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #67 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 22:25:12 »
Hmmm. I can't fathom that changing my optimal distance too drastically, but it'd seem some more research couldn't hurt.

don't bother.. I already did the research


Basically,  ~25x16 resolution on a 30" panel  @ 35-45 inches is  Maximally comfortable..  and that distance is roughly the minimum distance of convergence and accommodation..


Anything that's LARGER,  You're essentially then optimizing for Viewing Angle,  and resolution makes very little difference..

Offline Hundrakia

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Northwest Territories, Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #68 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 22:30:48 »
Wow. I thought optimum viewing distance would be way closer on a 4k 28". Turns out it starts at 22" or more. The 27" 2560 x 1440 are about 32".


The Optimum viewing distance is NOT an exact science as it is currently marketed..


It takes into account only 1080p resolution @ 1 arc minute restriction..

@ 4k,  1 arc minute becomes an issue, because you'd have to sit very close to a very big screen to achieve the ability to discern the pixels..   


Basically....  We then either need to switch to the .5 arc minute restriction,   OR  just  stick with the Natural resting point of vergence...  Which is @ 35-40 inches away from viewing target..


@ any distance GREATER than 35-40"  it does not impact viewing fatigue.

As it stands, I'm building my desk for a 2560x1440 27" monitor, with a distance of 32" to the end of where my keyboard rests. (A point at which I don't go past while using my PC) It will be a standing desk, so these numbers work out well. That also makes me wonder when 4k monitors start being a worthwhile size.

 > 46"?

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #69 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 22:32:29 »
Wow. I thought optimum viewing distance would be way closer on a 4k 28". Turns out it starts at 22" or more. The 27" 2560 x 1440 are about 32".


The Optimum viewing distance is NOT an exact science as it is currently marketed..


It takes into account only 1080p resolution @ 1 arc minute restriction..

@ 4k,  1 arc minute becomes an issue, because you'd have to sit very close to a very big screen to achieve the ability to discern the pixels..   


Basically....  We then either need to switch to the .5 arc minute restriction,   OR  just  stick with the Natural resting point of vergence...  Which is @ 35-40 inches away from viewing target..


@ any distance GREATER than 35-40"  it does not impact viewing fatigue.

As it stands, I'm building my desk for a 2560x1440 27" monitor, with a distance of 32" to the end of where my keyboard rests. (A point at which I don't go past while using my PC) It will be a standing desk, so these numbers work out well. That also makes me wonder when 4k monitors start being a worthwhile size.

 > 46"?


You're thinking too far ahead.. because 4k material is still NO WHERE to be found.. Game textures arn't there yet either..   I can't iterate this enough,   cart before the horse..




Offline Hundrakia

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Northwest Territories, Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #70 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 22:36:00 »
Wow. I thought optimum viewing distance would be way closer on a 4k 28". Turns out it starts at 22" or more. The 27" 2560 x 1440 are about 32".


The Optimum viewing distance is NOT an exact science as it is currently marketed..


It takes into account only 1080p resolution @ 1 arc minute restriction..

@ 4k,  1 arc minute becomes an issue, because you'd have to sit very close to a very big screen to achieve the ability to discern the pixels..   


Basically....  We then either need to switch to the .5 arc minute restriction,   OR  just  stick with the Natural resting point of vergence...  Which is @ 35-40 inches away from viewing target..


@ any distance GREATER than 35-40"  it does not impact viewing fatigue.

As it stands, I'm building my desk for a 2560x1440 27" monitor, with a distance of 32" to the end of where my keyboard rests. (A point at which I don't go past while using my PC) It will be a standing desk, so these numbers work out well. That also makes me wonder when 4k monitors start being a worthwhile size.

 > 46"?


You're thinking too far ahead.. because 4k material is still NO WHERE to be found.. Game textures arn't there yet either..   I can't iterate this enough,   cart before the horse..

I'm aware that many people are interested in 4k, I prefer to stay informed!

The one that has me intrigued now is the 34" 1440p 21:9 curved dealio, but I'd want to see it to believe it.


I should note that I have 3+ things at all times on my desktop open, in it's own monitor normally.
« Last Edit: Wed, 10 September 2014, 22:37:39 by Hundrakia »

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #71 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 22:36:28 »
Wow. I thought optimum viewing distance would be way closer on a 4k 28". Turns out it starts at 22" or more. The 27" 2560 x 1440 are about 32".


The Optimum viewing distance is NOT an exact science as it is currently marketed..


It takes into account only 1080p resolution @ 1 arc minute restriction..

@ 4k,  1 arc minute becomes an issue, because you'd have to sit very close to a very big screen to achieve the ability to discern the pixels..   


Basically....  We then either need to switch to the .5 arc minute restriction,   OR  just  stick with the Natural resting point of vergence...  Which is @ 35-40 inches away from viewing target..


@ any distance GREATER than 35-40"  it does not impact viewing fatigue.

As it stands, I'm building my desk for a 2560x1440 27" monitor, with a distance of 32" to the end of where my keyboard rests. (A point at which I don't go past while using my PC) It will be a standing desk, so these numbers work out well. That also makes me wonder when 4k monitors start being a worthwhile size.

 > 46"?


You're thinking too far ahead.. because 4k material is still NO WHERE to be found.. Game textures arn't there yet either..   I can't iterate this enough,   cart before the horse..

I'm aware that many people are interested in 4k, I prefer to stay informed!

The one that has me intrigued now is the 34" 1440p 21:9 curved dealio, but I'd want to see it to believe it.


once we GET the material..   4k is relevant @ any and ALL distances...    because the restriction on   LARGER screens is the viewing ANGLE  relative to the foveal acuity (denser receptor section @ the center of your eye)..


So basically 4k  will be the Icing on the cake yes,  but you will really only subtley notice it.. limited by comfortable viewing ANGLES..

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #72 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 22:53:41 »
I think you’re really overthinking this. A computer display is useful at different distances than a TV. With a computer screen, for instance when doing design work or looking at a big map, or reading a giant bunch of code, or to be honest doing anything visual, it’s helpful to have a bigger screen, even to the point that it requires some head movement to carefully look at everything. It’s nice to be able to peer in close at the details and also pull back and look at the big picture.

There’s a reason people get multiple 30 inch monitors to do their work – I guarantee you they aren’t all sitting 8 feet back (or whatever).

For the most part the people clamoring for high resolution displays want to use them for work, and don’t give a damn about video games or movies.

If money and current technology were no barrier, I’d have a drafting table made out of a 4 foot by 8 foot 400+ DPI touchscreen, and a similar size/resolution display mounted on the wall behind it.

Anyway, Dell’s 24" 4k display and their upcoming 27" 5120x2880 display are both pretty exciting. I hope that GPUs and display interfaces (displayport &c.) catch up soon, to be able to push enough pixels to draw on them.
« Last Edit: Wed, 10 September 2014, 22:58:10 by jacobolus »

Offline Hundrakia

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Northwest Territories, Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #73 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 22:56:41 »
I think you’re really overthinking this. A computer display is useful at different distances than a TV. With a computer screen, for instance when doing design work or looking at a big map, or reading a giant bunch of code, or to be honest doing anything visual, it’s helpful to have a bigger screen, even to the point that it requires some head movement to carefully look at everything. It’s nice to be able to peer in close at the details and also pull back and look at the big picture.

There’s a reason people get multiple 30 inch monitors to do their work – I guarantee you they aren’t all sitting 8 feet back (or whatever).

For the most part the people clamoring for high resolution displays want to use them for work, and don’t give a damn about video games or movies.

If money and current technology were no barrier, I’d have a drafting table made out of a 4 foot by 8 foot 400+ DPI display, and a similar size/resolution display mounted on the wall behind it.

I went in to overthinking mode to attempt to alleviate eye strain, so I mean putting my 4~ hours of research into it wasn't a terribly large imposition. (I was bored anyways)

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #74 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 22:58:31 »
Oh I mean tp4tissue is overthinking.

Offline DasHHKBProM

  • Posts: 101
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #75 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 23:02:44 »
27" wqhd -- go this route.

At the moment i have a 24 inch 4k and the two games i play the most diablo3 and lol hosted by multibillion dollar co do not support paying a team to create a function for making cursor bigger.
aside from game i use visual studio daily and it looks amazing on a 4k so many lines of code in such clarity is priceless to a coder at least in my experience.

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #76 on: Wed, 10 September 2014, 23:06:07 »
Huge screens with ultra high resolutions....good for up close detail work and seeing the whole picture just like Jacobolus said. I could use that easily looking at engineering plans and drilling down to see details then the overall for relative positioning, counts, etc. Ruins it to have duplicate windows open and flipping back and forth with match lines. Normal res. is ok and works, but 4K or similar will be sweeeeeet when you do work for several hours at a time.
« Last Edit: Wed, 10 September 2014, 23:07:45 by Input Nirvana »
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline jameslr

  • Posts: 516
  • Location: Indiana
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #77 on: Sat, 13 September 2014, 10:29:59 »
If you hold off a while they are bringing 144hz IPS to market.

Source http://www.tomshardware.com/news/auo-144hz-ips-ahva,27615.html
CM Novatouch | Filco MJ2 TKL w/ HID Lib | REΛLFORCE 87U 55g | CM QFR

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #78 on: Sat, 13 September 2014, 10:46:38 »
If you hold off a while they are bringing 144hz IPS to market.

Source http://www.tomshardware.com/news/auo-144hz-ips-ahva,27615.html

Hrrrmmm.. .INterested...  Fingers crossed for ulmb

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #79 on: Sat, 13 September 2014, 11:18:51 »
With those 2 monitors showing up on the scene, it's easy to extrapolate the next 12 months will have several others market available, and by 2016 some sweet pricing. Looks like monitor quality has finally got to the "no compromise" zone. It's about time, the last 10 years has been pretty stagnant.
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #80 on: Sat, 13 September 2014, 11:26:16 »
With those 2 monitors showing up on the scene, it's easy to extrapolate the next 12 months will have several others market available, and by 2016 some sweet pricing. Looks like monitor quality has finally got to the "no compromise" zone. It's about time, the last 10 years has been pretty stagnant.

144hz... 110% adobe rgb... ulmb...  4k resolution LOLOL...

That'd be pretty sweet..   I think that's the tipping point... any more stuff is not useful..

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #81 on: Sat, 13 September 2014, 11:27:52 »
With those 2 monitors showing up on the scene, it's easy to extrapolate the next 12 months will have several others market available, and by 2016 some sweet pricing. Looks like monitor quality has finally got to the "no compromise" zone. It's about time, the last 10 years has been pretty stagnant.

144hz... 110% adobe rgb... ulmb...  4k resolution LOLOL...

That'd be pretty sweet..   I think that's the tipping point... any more stuff is not useful..

Agreed. Maxed out conventionally until completely new technology is created (holographic).

Where's DARPA on thins?
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline The Mad Professor

  • Posts: 144
  • Location: Cypress, TX
  • Ex Scientia, Rabies
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #82 on: Sat, 13 September 2014, 13:10:01 »
Where's DARPA on thins?

Sir, that's classified.
Mad Science means never stopping to ask "What's the worst that could happen?" - Schlock Mercenary

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #83 on: Sat, 13 September 2014, 13:10:11 »
With those 2 monitors showing up on the scene, it's easy to extrapolate the next 12 months will have several others market available, and by 2016 some sweet pricing. Looks like monitor quality has finally got to the "no compromise" zone. It's about time, the last 10 years has been pretty stagnant.

144hz... 110% adobe rgb... ulmb...  4k resolution LOLOL...

That'd be pretty sweet..   I think that's the tipping point... any more stuff is not useful..

Agreed. Maxed out conventionally until completely new technology is created (holographic).

Where's DARPA on thins?

I don't think thin is necessary.. since very few people are THAT limited on space.

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #84 on: Sat, 13 September 2014, 13:11:50 »
With those 2 monitors showing up on the scene, it's easy to extrapolate the next 12 months will have several others market available, and by 2016 some sweet pricing. Looks like monitor quality has finally got to the "no compromise" zone. It's about time, the last 10 years has been pretty stagnant.

144hz... 110% adobe rgb... ulmb...  4k resolution LOLOL...

That'd be pretty sweet..   I think that's the tipping point... any more stuff is not useful..

Agreed. Maxed out conventionally until completely new technology is created (holographic).

Where's DARPA on thins?

I don't think thin is necessary.. since very few people are THAT limited on space.

WAKE UP MAN!!!! It's the COOL factor!
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #85 on: Sat, 13 September 2014, 13:12:51 »
With those 2 monitors showing up on the scene, it's easy to extrapolate the next 12 months will have several others market available, and by 2016 some sweet pricing. Looks like monitor quality has finally got to the "no compromise" zone. It's about time, the last 10 years has been pretty stagnant.

144hz... 110% adobe rgb... ulmb...  4k resolution LOLOL...

That'd be pretty sweet..   I think that's the tipping point... any more stuff is not useful..

Agreed. Maxed out conventionally until completely new technology is created (holographic).

Where's DARPA on thins?

I don't think thin is necessary.. since very few people are THAT limited on space.

WAKE UP MAN!!!! It's the COOL factor!

I'm totally not a COOL guy...

I'm a utilitarian..

Offline Altis

  • Posts: 974
  • Location: Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #86 on: Sun, 21 September 2014, 21:59:45 »
Looking to get a 27" 1440p soon. The Dell U2713HM is on sale locally so I might grab that.

It's about two years old now though... I'm wondering if something better is around the corner (although I suppose it always is).

Searching for the right monitor is an exhausting procedure!
WhiteFox (Gateron Brown) -- Realforce 87U 45g -- Realforce 104UG (Hi Pro 45g) -- Realforce 108US 30g JIS -- HHKB Pro 2 -- IBM Model M ('90) -- IBM Model M SSK ('87) -- NMB RT-101 & RT-8255C+ (Hi-Tek Space Invaders) -- Chicony KB-5181 (Monterey Blue Alps) -- KPT-102 (KPT Alps) -- KUL ES-87 (62/65g Purple Zealios) -- CM QFR (MX Red) -- Apple Aluminum BT -- Realforce 23u Numpad -- Logitech K740 -- QSENN DT-35 -- Zenith Z-150 (Green Alps)

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #87 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 03:05:39 »
Just got the Dell 24" 4k display today.

Wow, the double resolution is so so nice. My laptop can only drive it at 30 Hz, but for everything I want to do, it’s still really dramatically better. Looking at photos, text, maps, etc., everything is super super crisp. At a typical viewing distance of ~2–3 feet I can only barely resolve the individual pixels (whereas on a 24" ~1020p display, the individual pixels are very obvious). Hopefully within the next year sometime I can get a desktop computer that will drive this thing at 60 Hz.

It’s much nicer for e.g. reading PDFs on screen, or editing photographs, or examining fine details of diagrams. But it’s also much nicer for just browsing the web, writing code, drafting emails. After I get used to this, I think it would be pretty hard to go back.

~184 ppi doesn’t sound that amazing compared to modern smartphones, or even laptops, but compared to the 90–120 PPI that’s been common on desktop displays since sometime in the late 1990s (>15 years!?), it’s substantially better. I highly recommend it, even at 30 Hz. (Especially recommended for anyone who spends more time looking at static content than animations.)

Also, for anyone on a Mac, definitely get the 24" 4k display, instead of the 28" or 32" version. (On Windows and Linux, I hear there are some issues with scaled apps, so YMMV.)

I can’t wait until all displays are at least this pixel density (300 ppi would be even nicer, but that’s probably another few years away), and we have large high resolution touchscreens to use drafting table style.
« Last Edit: Thu, 25 September 2014, 03:08:38 by jacobolus »

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #88 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 09:15:28 »
Just got the Dell 24" 4k display today.

Wow, the double resolution is so so nice. My laptop can only drive it at 30 Hz, but for everything I want to do, it’s still really dramatically better. Looking at photos, text, maps, etc., everything is super super crisp. At a typical viewing distance of ~2–3 feet I can only barely resolve the individual pixels (whereas on a 24" ~1020p display, the individual pixels are very obvious). Hopefully within the next year sometime I can get a desktop computer that will drive this thing at 60 Hz.

It’s much nicer for e.g. reading PDFs on screen, or editing photographs, or examining fine details of diagrams. But it’s also much nicer for just browsing the web, writing code, drafting emails. After I get used to this, I think it would be pretty hard to go back.

~184 ppi doesn’t sound that amazing compared to modern smartphones, or even laptops, but compared to the 90–120 PPI that’s been common on desktop displays since sometime in the late 1990s (>15 years!?), it’s substantially better. I highly recommend it, even at 30 Hz. (Especially recommended for anyone who spends more time looking at static content than animations.)

Also, for anyone on a Mac, definitely get the 24" 4k display, instead of the 28" or 32" version. (On Windows and Linux, I hear there are some issues with scaled apps, so YMMV.)

I can’t wait until all displays are at least this pixel density (300 ppi would be even nicer, but that’s probably another few years away), and we have large high resolution touchscreens to use drafting table style.


I can't believe you guys are buying those tiny panels, when you can get a 1080p 40" sharp aquos for $250..


the resolution does NOTHING given distance.. that's the nature of our eye..

Offline byker

  • Literally Canada
  • ** Moderator Emeritus
  • Posts: 3136
  • Location: Gone fishin
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #89 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 10:36:08 »
Just got the Dell 24" 4k display today.

Wow, the double resolution is so so nice. My laptop can only drive it at 30 Hz, but for everything I want to do, it’s still really dramatically better. Looking at photos, text, maps, etc., everything is super super crisp. At a typical viewing distance of ~2–3 feet I can only barely resolve the individual pixels (whereas on a 24" ~1020p display, the individual pixels are very obvious). Hopefully within the next year sometime I can get a desktop computer that will drive this thing at 60 Hz.

It’s much nicer for e.g. reading PDFs on screen, or editing photographs, or examining fine details of diagrams. But it’s also much nicer for just browsing the web, writing code, drafting emails. After I get used to this, I think it would be pretty hard to go back.

~184 ppi doesn’t sound that amazing compared to modern smartphones, or even laptops, but compared to the 90–120 PPI that’s been common on desktop displays since sometime in the late 1990s (>15 years!?), it’s substantially better. I highly recommend it, even at 30 Hz. (Especially recommended for anyone who spends more time looking at static content than animations.)

Also, for anyone on a Mac, definitely get the 24" 4k display, instead of the 28" or 32" version. (On Windows and Linux, I hear there are some issues with scaled apps, so YMMV.)

I can’t wait until all displays are at least this pixel density (300 ppi would be even nicer, but that’s probably another few years away), and we have large high resolution touchscreens to use drafting table style.


I can't believe you guys are buying those tiny panels, when you can get a 1080p 40" sharp aquos for $250..


the resolution does NOTHING given distance.. that's the nature of our eye..

The resolution change is amazing! I am not sure what you are talking about. I have a 1440p as my main display and a 1080p as my secondary and trust me, there is a big difference..

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #90 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 11:29:07 »
I can't believe you guys are buying those tiny panels, when you can get a 1080p 40" sharp aquos for $250..

the resolution does NOTHING given distance.. that's the nature of our eye..
I guess you either sit 10+ feet away from your monitor, or have like 20/40 vision? (Or both?)

If I pay attention, I can easily spot individual pixels on the 183 ppi display. And now you want me to use a 55 ppi display instead? Sheesh.
« Last Edit: Thu, 25 September 2014, 11:32:42 by jacobolus »

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #91 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 13:19:20 »
I can't believe you guys are buying those tiny panels, when you can get a 1080p 40" sharp aquos for $250..

the resolution does NOTHING given distance.. that's the nature of our eye..
I guess you either sit 10+ feet away from your monitor, or have like 20/40 vision? (Or both?)

If I pay attention, I can easily spot individual pixels on the 183 ppi display. And now you want me to use a 55 ppi display instead? Sheesh.

sigh... 

It comes down to viewing distance yes..

I view my 30" 25x16 from 1.7 meters away.. 



I'd PREFER something like a 70" 1080p  @ 10 feet


I was gonna get that last year, but then I tried out the lightboost, and decided, I'm never going to buy any more monitors (for myself) without lightboost / ulmb...


If you put in the numbers (res / scrnsiz)  into retina checker website..   It basically tells you the distance at which that resolution is limited by your eye's receptor density..


For example  a 70" 1080p display is  RETINA at 9 feet..

WHICH MEANS,  any greater resolution is wasted.. both in terms of processing power, and introduces image artifacts due to scaling..


For example.. say you watch a 1080p movie on a 4k screen, the computer need to scale the image..  so the image is no longer True-To-Source, (your bluray)


So.. if you have 2x 70" tv, 1 @ 1080p, and  1 @ 4k...   The 1080p screen @ 9 feet will always produce a better image...


The same is true at closer distances..



The argument that Text is rendered more clearly on a higher res screen...  well, yes that is true, but seriously? You spent all that money on a monitor, just to see slightly (very slightly) smoother curves around your letters ?



People really need to think about these things before they throw away their money on stupid gimmicks..

YES resolution CAN BE A GIMMICK... 

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #92 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 13:24:10 »
For example.. say you watch a 1080p movie on a 4k screen, the computer need to scale the image..  so the image is no longer True-To-Source, (your bluray)
I tend to watch movies from <1980, the 700mb kind found on the internet. Usually on a laptop, or sometimes on a television screen.

So movies are 100% irrelevant for my desk’s computer display.

Quote
The argument that Text is rendered more clearly on a higher res screen...  well, yes that is true, but seriously? You spent all that money on a monitor, just to see slightly (very slightly) smoother curves around your letters ?
That’s not the main reason I got the nicer display. But yes, I would absolutely spend money for that. It lets me fit at least 50% more code in the same amount of space with no difficulty reading it. 10 point type is now super crisp instead of blurry as hell.

It also lets me read PDFs with total clarity with 2 full pages on screen (or one page taking less than half the screen so I can also do something else on the other side).

Mostly though, I care about it for working on maps, diagrams, photographs, and the like.
« Last Edit: Thu, 25 September 2014, 13:28:43 by jacobolus »

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #93 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 13:28:04 »
For example.. say you watch a 1080p movie on a 4k screen, the computer need to scale the image..  so the image is no longer True-To-Source, (your bluray)
I tend to watch movies from <1980, the 700mb kind found on the internet. Usually on a laptop, or sometimes on a television screen.

So movies are 100% irrelevant for my desk’s computer display.

Ok.. then it's quite clear you fall into the , bought - into - a - gimmick category..

I don't want to be so negative about your fine new purchase..   but really...  it's one thing to buy it yourself..  it's another thing to  rave-about and compel others to buy into it solely based on your MOMENTARY-FANCY of your new toy..

Again.. I'm not saying ur toy is bad or that ur dumb..


I am merely trying to keep the science straight...


I do this.. because those topre - fvkers convinced me to buy an 87u   and I will never forget the disappointment...

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #94 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 13:40:09 »


Quote
The argument that Text is rendered more clearly on a higher res screen...  well, yes that is true, but seriously? You spent all that money on a monitor, just to see slightly (very slightly) smoother curves around your letters ?
That’s not the main reason I got the nicer display. But yes, I would absolutely spend money for that. It lets me fit at least 50% more code in the same amount of space with no difficulty reading it. 10 point type is now super crisp instead of blurry as hell.

It also lets me read PDFs with total clarity with 2 full pages on screen (or one page taking less than half the screen so I can also do something else on the other side).

Mostly though, I care about it for working on maps, diagrams, photographs, and the like.


Ok.. regarding the use of monitors for TEXT and Coding..


The science:

The main contributor to Eyestrain is Viewing distance and Light Level

WHY....

When viewing something close up, both your eyes has to move towards your nose..  This is known as Vergence..

This requires your eye muscles to turn your eyeballs inward..   The resting point of vergence is 35 inches..  Which means...  that is the point where your eyes are relaxed and looking forward..


Secondly,  the Eyes has a lens inside, and uses another set of muscles, "ciliary-muscle" to control that lens' shape to focus on close by objects,  This is known as accommodation...


The Resting Point of Accommodation is also ~35 inches...



So you see, your minimum viewing distance SHOULD BE 35 + inches..


@ 35+ inch,  if you're using a 4K   24" monitor   @ 96 dpi...  You can't see ****... ...



Proper coding monitors should be Very Large, and viewed from as far away as possible.

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #95 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 13:45:28 »
Ok.. then it's quite clear you fall into the , bought - into - a - gimmick category..

I don't want to be so negative about your fine new purchase..   but really...  it's one thing to buy it yourself..  it's another thing to  rave-about and compel others to buy into it solely based on your MOMENTARY-FANCY of your new toy..
Dude. You win. I’m not going to argue with you.

You’re right, the higher resolution is completely useless, just a publicity stunt. Might as well rub snake oil all over your eyes and the screen.

You’re right, computer displays (like computers in general), are toys. Anyone working on a computer is basically a child.

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #96 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 13:50:39 »
Ok.. then it's quite clear you fall into the , bought - into - a - gimmick category..

I don't want to be so negative about your fine new purchase..   but really...  it's one thing to buy it yourself..  it's another thing to  rave-about and compel others to buy into it solely based on your MOMENTARY-FANCY of your new toy..
Dude. You win. I’m not going to argue with you.

You’re right, the higher resolution is completely useless, just a publicity stunt. Might as well rub snake oil all over your eyes and the screen.

You’re right, computer displays (like computers in general), are toys. Anyone working on a computer is basically a child.

Read the Science post above ^^^...

you'd see reason  if you read it..

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #97 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 13:59:06 »
You’re absolutely right, it’s science. Anyone using their computer on a desk and sitting in a chair, instead of projecting the image on the ceiling and lying on their back (cf. your other thread) is a child. If the display is closer than 3 feet away, you’ll probably get cancer. And if your eyesight is better than 20/30, then you should take your extra visual acuity and shove it.

Offline byker

  • Literally Canada
  • ** Moderator Emeritus
  • Posts: 3136
  • Location: Gone fishin
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #98 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 14:00:38 »
I think both I and jacobolus can agree that we disagree with you tp4tissue. I love my 1440p monitor and it definitely worth it to me to have that resolution on such a big monitor. I would never go back to 1080p willingly.

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #99 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 14:06:50 »
I think both I and jacobolus can agree that we disagree with you tp4tissue. I love my 1440p monitor and it definitely worth it to me to have that resolution on such a big monitor. I would never go back to 1080p willingly.



i'm not against' high resolution..

I'm against improper use of  Gimmicks  to sell people on something that does not have tangible benefits..



Gimmick 1,  high resolution on tiny monitors..   

Gimmick 2,  IPS for gaming

Gimmick 3,  120hz without lightboost

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #100 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 14:12:10 »
I'm against improper use of  Gimmicks  to sell people on something that does not have tangible benefits..
You’re so right. There is no tangible benefit here. I mean, who cares that when I have two displays open side by side (only 30" from my face, oh no!) with the same content on them, right now, one of them looks amazingly better than the other one. Shockingly better. That’s just a marketing trick. The marketing team at Dell is right now as we speak reaching into my brain and implanting that better view, just so I can “coerce” other people on the internet to buy their product.

Those guys are damn sneaky!
« Last Edit: Thu, 25 September 2014, 14:17:27 by jacobolus »

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #101 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 14:18:36 »
I'm against improper use of  Gimmicks  to sell people on something that does not have tangible benefits..
You’re so right. There is no tangible benefit here. I mean, who cares that when I have two displays open side by side with the same content on them, right now, one of them looks amazingly better than the other one. Shockingly better. That’s just a marketing trick. The marketing team at Dell is right now as we speak reaching into my brain and implanting that better view, just so I can “coerce” other people on the internet to buy their product.

Those guys are damn sneaky!

You are not making a valid comparison..

Are both calibrated to the same contrast and gamma point...

Are they both exactly the same size..

Do they have the same color bezels

Are they sitting at different heights..

Are they facing you at precisely the same angle



You probably did not consider ANY of that before making the statement,  "This is better"..


What you're riding out right now is an Emotionally charged response to having BOUGHT something..


The sneaky person here is your mental disposition..   oneself who needs to affirm his most recent purchase..




If you have something that goes against the "Science"..  that is reason...  What you've put forth THus far is child-like whimsy and excitement over a new bike..


You should enjoy it yes.. Do so.. ..   but let it not corrupt your logic...

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #102 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 14:23:52 »
You are not making a valid comparison..

Are both calibrated to the same contrast and gamma point...
Are they both exactly the same size..
Do they have the same color bezels
Are they sitting at different heights..
Are they facing you at precisely the same angle
Yes. (Also set to very similar color gamut, though with different settings the new display can get more colorful if I want it to.)
Yes (well, one is 16:10 shape and slightly taller; they’re about exactly the same width).
Yes (black plastic).
No.
Yes (both with the displays perpendicular to my face at the center point).

The difference is not the color, contrast, brightness, screen reflectance, or angle. A black-to-white gradient looks basically identical on each, as does a big patch of any particular solid color.

The difference between them is that one is double the resolution in each dimension, and it looks very much sharper. On the 1920x1200 display, even if I scoot back to 40" away, pretty much everything now looks blurry, like I’m looking through a glass plate smeared with vaseline. On the 3840x2160 display, I can still barely make out separate pixels at 36" away, but even if I lean in close everything looks pretty crisp.

Quote
You probably did not consider ANY of that before making the statement,  "This is better"..
You lose. What now?

[For what it’s worth, I’ve spent a great deal of time in the last ~8 years studying human color vision. There’s a shelf full of vision science, color reproduction, and technical photography books behind me right now. I have normal color vision (can score ~0 every time on the Farnsworth–Munsell 100 hue test), and my visual acuity is a bit better than 20/15, maybe 20/12 or even 20/10 (though I’m left eye dominant and I think my right eye is a bit worse than 20/15)? Better than 20/15 vision is actually quite normal among healthy young people. (Sadly however I’ve never been able to fool my eyes into focusing beyond the paper to see one of those magic eye puzzles.) I’m not stupid, and I’m not lying. The display is actually obviously different. It’s not a trick.]
« Last Edit: Thu, 25 September 2014, 15:48:47 by jacobolus »

Offline byker

  • Literally Canada
  • ** Moderator Emeritus
  • Posts: 3136
  • Location: Gone fishin
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #103 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 14:29:21 »
For $300, I cannot think of a better deal then a 27inch 1440 monitor that can be OC'd to approx 90fps at least. Compared to my old 27inch 1200p monitor it is miles ahead. Even the 30fps extra makes a nice difference in reaction-time games. This stuff isn't a gimmick..

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #104 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 16:22:08 »
One last follow-up here. Let’s run the numbers.

For someone with below-average (for a healthy young person) but still roughly normal vision (i.e. 20/20 vision), the fovea can resolve, in medium to bright surroundings, about 30 cycles per degree. For someone with sharp vision (20/12), the fovea can resolve more like 50 cycles per degree.

So for the person with 20/20 vision, the best display resolution they can resolve is (conservatively):
286 ppi at 12 inches
143 ppi at 24 inches
95 ppi at 36 inches

For the person with 20/12 vision, the best display resolution they can resolve is (conservatively):
477 ppi at 12 inches
239 ppi at 24 inches
159 ppi at 36 inches

So for the person with 20/12 or 20/15 vision, they have to put the old 24" 1920x1200 95 ppi display at least 50–60" away before they stop being able to resolve individual pixels. By contrast, the new display is completely sharp at any distance further than about 25–30" away. (And in practice, still looks very good even at a distance of about 18", when you want to lean in and see little fine details.)

These choices end up basically the same for the person with sharp vision:
24" 4k display at 30" away
32" 4k display at 39" away
four 30" 1080p displays in a grid at 75" away

I know which one takes up less space on my desk.
« Last Edit: Thu, 25 September 2014, 16:28:15 by jacobolus »

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #105 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 16:25:42 »
One last follow-up here. Let’s run the numbers.

For someone with below-average (for a healthy young person) but still roughly normal vision (i.e. 20/20 vision), the fovea can resolve, in medium to bright surroundings, about 30 cycles per degree. For someone with sharp vision (20/12), the fovea can resolve more like 50 cycles per degree.

So for the person with 20/20 vision, the best display resolution they can resolve is (conservatively):
286 ppi at 12 inches
143 ppi at 24 inches
95 ppi at 36 inches

For the person with 20/12 vision, the best display resolution they can resolve is (conservatively):
477 ppi at 12 inches
239 ppi at 24 inches
159 ppi at 36 inches

So for the person with 20/12 or 20/15 vision, they have to put the old 24" 1920x1200 95 ppi display at least 50–60" away before they stop being able to resolve individual pixels. By contrast, the new display is completely sharp at any distance further than about 25–30" away. (And in practice, still looks very good even at a distance of about 18", when you want to lean in and see little fine details.)


you fundamentally misunderstand the use of those numbers..


Just because you CAN resolve a certain ppi,  doesn't mean it's at all comfortable to do so ,, regardless of how good your vision is..



Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #106 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 16:59:59 »
you fundamentally misunderstand the use of those numbers..

Just because you CAN resolve a certain ppi,  doesn't mean it's at all comfortable to do so ,, regardless of how good your vision is..
You’re right, sharp images are not comfortable. Youch, you might cut yourself! Better to just keep everything a bit fuzzy. And oh, you can’t read the fuzzy letters without squinting? Too bad!

Offline abdulmuhsee

  • Posts: 196
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #107 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 17:19:08 »
I can't even imagine sitting in front of a 27"+ monitor.  I have a 23" and can just barely see the entire monitor in my field of vision.  I would have to sit much further away in order to use a monitor that big, and at that point, I may as well be using my television.

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #108 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 18:49:52 »
I’ve been looking up sources about optimal viewing distances for reading and/or computer work. Here’s what the Canadian center for Occupational Safety and Health says:

Quote
The viewing range 40 cm to 70 cm (about 15 - 27 in.) provides visual comfort for majority of computer users. In the situation where the recommended viewing distance is too great for the operator to see images clearly it is better to increase the font size (images) than to force a shorter viewing distance.
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/office/monitor_positioning.html

I’m curious to see a reputable source which recommends >36", and discourages people from using displays closer than that.

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #109 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 18:55:36 »
I’ve been looking up sources about optimal viewing distances for reading and/or computer work. Here’s what the Canadian center for Occupational Safety and Health says:

Quote
The viewing range 40 cm to 70 cm (about 15 - 27 in.) provides visual comfort for majority of computer users. In the situation where the recommended viewing distance is too great for the operator to see images clearly it is better to increase the font size (images) than to force a shorter viewing distance.
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/office/monitor_positioning.html

I’m curious to see a reputable source which recommends >36", and discourages people from using displays closer than that.

No sources exists.

I am that source..

Because  Intense computer use is a very NEW phenomenon.... as is the affordability of these Super Large screens..

Only within the past 5 years has the Price of Big TVs fell towards only 2-300 dollars.


How could they have possibly recommended that to people only a few years back.. when it would cost most people $1000-3000 to get such a monitor..

They couldn't possibly do that kind of research


That is to say.. TP4 is the forefront of Visual Ergonomics.. YET AGAIN something I'm super awesome @,


you're welcome internet..


The science based on what we KNOW about  Muscle fatigue...   the MUSCLES IN YOUR EYE  are at rest @ 35 + inches..



Look up resting point of accommodation, and resting point of vergence..   

Stop looking for credible information to support your non existent argument..  or to affirm your mistake of purchase..

You're trapped in a tiny well,  and it has narrowed your focus..  TP4 is trying his best to pull you out.

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #110 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 19:07:58 »
No sources exists. I am that source..
No comment.

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #111 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 19:18:10 »
No sources exists. I am that source..
No comment.

Trust me Jacobolus..

You have witnessed history..  the first person to PUT it all together in the Digital Domain.. the first person to Do it Right, and tell it..

That is I..

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #112 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 19:52:40 »
Jacobolus:

I'm gonna ignore the "science" posted here for several reasons, BUT,

Bottom line:
Your assessment is that the 4K monitor has a pronounced real world improvement even with lowly text graphics?
ie: If you use your new monitor for a couple weeks then go back to standard res, you'd not only notice the downgrade, but be a little bummed for a day or so?

I'm keeping this simple for myself and all parties in this thread. Primarily because I have enough things to do, and in this instance I'm not concerned about the "how" or "why", I just want the benefits.
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #113 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 19:54:09 »
And one more thing on your misuse of acuity..

ONLY the DEAD CENTER of your eye has the acuity to resolve "retina" ppi

if you deviate from foveal vision by even 5 degrees,  your acuity drops by HALF.. (a very small cone)


Which means even if you CAN tiny sharp detailed text DEAD CENTER,  the left and right of that text is actually HARDER TO SEE..

So your vision becomes tunnel-vision..

Which is why having really small text appear on High PPI monitors, is uncomfortable and difficult to see overall..

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #114 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 20:49:15 »
ONLY the DEAD CENTER of your eye has the acuity to resolve "retina" ppi

if you deviate from foveal vision by even 5 degrees,  your acuity drops by HALF.. (a very small cone)
The way you look at stuff, if you’re a typical human, is by moving your eye around, hopping very rapidly from one spot to another and then fixating briefly on that spot. These movements are called saccades. The part of your eye you use to look at details is the very central part of your retina, the fovea. When you read text, for example, you fixate on a word (or a part of a word, or a couple of words) at a time, using your fovea. Or when you look around the room, or examine a painting, or whatever, you use your foveal vision to figure out fine details and textures &c. For the rest of the scene, you get a pretty blurry sloppy picture, and then your brain just remembers what was there and fills it in, so you don’t consciously notice how blurry everything is all the time.

As you say, visual acuity drops dramatically as you get away from the center of the retina, and peripheral vision is pretty blurry overall. But that’s kind of irrelevant to a computer display, since you don’t examine your computer screen using peripheral vision.

Quote
Your assessment is that the 4K monitor has a pronounced real world improvement even with lowly text graphics?
ie: If you use your new monitor for a couple weeks then go back to standard res, you'd not only notice the downgrade, but be a little bummed for a day or so?

Well, I’ve had this display for all of a day, so I can’t tell you what I’d feel about it in a few weeks. However, Having used a 13" Macbook Pro laptop with a 2560 x 1600 pixel screen (227 ppi), I find other laptop displays (or standard 1999–2012-resolution desktop displays) extremely blocky/blurry looking in comparison. It’s a very noticeable difference.

I think it makes a very nice difference for text. Text on my laptop screen, or on this new 24" 4k display, approaches the quality of text printed in books or magazines.
« Last Edit: Thu, 25 September 2014, 20:57:05 by jacobolus »

Offline Altis

  • Posts: 974
  • Location: Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #115 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 20:50:21 »
Jacobolus:

I'm gonna ignore the "science" posted here for several reasons, BUT,

Bottom line:
Your assessment is that the 4K monitor has a pronounced real world improvement even with lowly text graphics?
ie: If you use your new monitor for a couple weeks then go back to standard res, you'd not only notice the downgrade, but be a little bummed for a day or so?

I'm keeping this simple for myself and all parties in this thread. Primarily because I have enough things to do, and in this instance I'm not concerned about the "how" or "why", I just want the benefits.

I'm not Jacobolous, but I was at Canada Computers last night looking at the Dell U2713HM that I'd like to pick up.

While I was there, I had the chance to play with a 28" 4K monitor (to be honest, I don't remember which one), although I do remember it was in the $550 ish range. Either the Samsung U28D590D or AOC U2868PQU.

Holy smokes, the difference is very noticeable. Small text seemed to benefit the most of everything, and the 4K content that they had preloaded on the system looked incredible (including some 4K Timelapse videos).. it was a little mesmorizing. I loaded up a few of the store's own product pages and set them side by side... it was very crisp to read and look at.

The difference is about the same as the Apple products going from standard to "Retina" displays. It's very enticing, and somewhat difficult to go back.

Now, these TN panels didn't have the other picture qualities that the IPS 1440 displays had, and some of the scaling seemed a little off to me... but 4K for less than the Dell U2713HM is certainly a good direction to be heading in.

I'll probably still stick with the Dell as I don't really want to worry about scaling, electricity, GPU power, and TN display qualities, but it sure made me look forward to the future of display technologies.

Just my $0.02 worth of course, but having now used a 4K monitor, I can definitely see the appeal and benefit.

Now I just have to pick a monitor to buy...  :rolleyes:


Edit: Included the possible 4K models.
« Last Edit: Thu, 25 September 2014, 20:53:15 by Altis »
WhiteFox (Gateron Brown) -- Realforce 87U 45g -- Realforce 104UG (Hi Pro 45g) -- Realforce 108US 30g JIS -- HHKB Pro 2 -- IBM Model M ('90) -- IBM Model M SSK ('87) -- NMB RT-101 & RT-8255C+ (Hi-Tek Space Invaders) -- Chicony KB-5181 (Monterey Blue Alps) -- KPT-102 (KPT Alps) -- KUL ES-87 (62/65g Purple Zealios) -- CM QFR (MX Red) -- Apple Aluminum BT -- Realforce 23u Numpad -- Logitech K740 -- QSENN DT-35 -- Zenith Z-150 (Green Alps)

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #116 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 20:56:48 »
Jacobolus:

I'm gonna ignore the "science" posted here for several reasons, BUT,

Bottom line:
Your assessment is that the 4K monitor has a pronounced real world improvement even with lowly text graphics?
ie: If you use your new monitor for a couple weeks then go back to standard res, you'd not only notice the downgrade, but be a little bummed for a day or so?

I'm keeping this simple for myself and all parties in this thread. Primarily because I have enough things to do, and in this instance I'm not concerned about the "how" or "why", I just want the benefits.

I'm not Jacobolous, but I was at Canada Computers last night looking at the Dell U2713HM that I'd like to pick up.

While I was there, I had the chance to play with a 28" 4K monitor (to be honest, I don't remember which one), although I do remember it was in the $550 ish range. Either the Samsung U28D590D or Asus U2868PQU.

Holy smokes, the difference is very noticeable. Small text seemed to benefit the most of everything, and the 4K content that they had preloaded on the system looked incredible (including some 4K Timelapse videos).. it was a little mesmorizing. I loaded up a few of the store's own product pages and set them side by side... it was very crisp to read and look at.

The difference is about the same as the Apple products going from standard to "Retina" displays. It's very enticing, and somewhat difficult to go back.

Now, these TN panels didn't have the other picture qualities that the IPS 1440 displays had, and some of the scaling seemed a little off to me... but 4K for less than the Dell U2713HM is certainly a good direction to be heading in.

I'll probably still stick with the Dell as I don't really want to worry about scaling, electricity, GPU power, and TN display qualities, but it sure made me look forward to the future of display technologies.

Just my $0.02 worth of course, but having now used a 4K monitor, I can definitely see the appeal and benefit.

Now I just have to pick a monitor to buy...  :rolleyes:

Thanks for that.
Making the comparison from non-retina to retina is a tangible experience I can identify. And yes, it makes a worthwhile difference. Of course the difference at what cost is the deciding factor. (if it's tiny improvement + huge cost, then that's where rationalizing and prioritizing occurs). But it sounds like the improvement is more than minor, and the cost is a fluid number.

Thanks
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #117 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 20:59:40 »
Making the comparison from non-retina to retina is a tangible experience I can identify. And yes, it makes a worthwhile difference. Of course the difference at what cost is the deciding factor. (if it's tiny improvement + huge cost, then that's where rationalizing and prioritizing occurs). But it sounds like the improvement is more than minor, and the cost is a fluid number.
The 24" Dell is ~$700–750 depending where you look. Here’s Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HALPPM0

The upcoming 27" “5k” Dell display is even slightly higher pixel density and should be very sweet, but is going to be tough for all but the fastest graphics cards to handle at the moment, and is going to be pretty expensive ($2500) at launch: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8496/dell-previews-27inch-5k-ultrasharp-monitor-5120x2880

Hopefully within a few years, graphics card performance will be better, Displayport/HDMI/etc. buses will have better bandwidth, and the price on full sized ~200+ ppi displays will keep dropping.
« Last Edit: Thu, 25 September 2014, 21:01:43 by jacobolus »

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #118 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 21:03:52 »
You guys need to understand..   Is 4k Better.. YES...   does it really solve the problem of viewing fatigue on a SMALL monitor..  NO.....

That is the point I'm trying to make..  on a tiny 24"   it's a waste of time...    because 24"  @ 96 dpi , the text is hair width @ proper viewing distances of 35"..


The 35" minimum viewing distance is the revelation here.. ..  I am not arguing to NOT buy 4K



I am saying very specifically...  if you buy ANY monitor that's smaller than ~30" .. you have to deal with much closer viewing distance.. and that is a shame, when you could've bought a 40" monitor albeit lower res @ only $250... 



Offline Altis

  • Posts: 974
  • Location: Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #119 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 21:04:26 »
Thanks for that.
Making the comparison from non-retina to retina is a tangible experience I can identify. And yes, it makes a worthwhile difference. Of course the difference at what cost is the deciding factor. (if it's tiny improvement + huge cost, then that's where rationalizing and prioritizing occurs). But it sounds like the improvement is more than minor, and the cost is a fluid number.

Thanks

The cost isn't just the monitor, but having a graphics card to handle it and the extra electricity that it would use (if that is of concern).

My only issue with it is that the TN panel still doesn't look as nice as IPS. So while you gain incredible resolution, the overall picture is better in some ways and worse in others. This assumes you are used to an IPS display (which I am not).

I should clarify that while it's similar to going from non-Retina to Retina, Retina displays were IPS while the standard were TN. So they benefit from both two-fold pixel density and moving from TN to IPS.

With these monitors, you're gaining two-fold resolution but moving from IPS to TN, which is a downgrade (if you're used to an IPS display).

I hope this has been somewhat helpful.
WhiteFox (Gateron Brown) -- Realforce 87U 45g -- Realforce 104UG (Hi Pro 45g) -- Realforce 108US 30g JIS -- HHKB Pro 2 -- IBM Model M ('90) -- IBM Model M SSK ('87) -- NMB RT-101 & RT-8255C+ (Hi-Tek Space Invaders) -- Chicony KB-5181 (Monterey Blue Alps) -- KPT-102 (KPT Alps) -- KUL ES-87 (62/65g Purple Zealios) -- CM QFR (MX Red) -- Apple Aluminum BT -- Realforce 23u Numpad -- Logitech K740 -- QSENN DT-35 -- Zenith Z-150 (Green Alps)

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #120 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 21:07:29 »
You guys are just making **** up now.. the graphics card will be the difference of 5-10 watts to produce desktop resolutions between 1080p and 4k.

and even for gaming..  you'd have to gaming quite  a bit for electrical cost to make much difference..  because even powerful gpus these days will idle within 50watts.

Offline Input Nirvana

  • Master of the Calculated Risk
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area/Best Coast
  • If I tell ya, I'll hafta kill ya
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #121 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 21:10:16 »
Personally, I'm a 24",27/28", 30" guy. May settle on a multi-combination or whatever. I don't need to go 4K today with crazy graphics cards...I'm in the Apple ecosystem and won't be purchasing a Mac Pro. I'm just trying to compile some well informed real world info from peeps I have a feel for and that will help me sort through a sea-of-stuff.

I'd be interested in comparing a couple 24" side by side with text.
Kinesis Advantage cut into 2 halves | RollerMouse Free 2 | Apple Magic Trackpad | Colemak
Evil Screaming Flying Door Monkeys From Hell                     Proudly GeekWhacking since 2009
Things change, things stay the same                                        Thanks much, Smallfry  
I AM THE REAPER . . . BECAUSE I KILL IT
~retired from forum activities 2015~

Offline Altis

  • Posts: 974
  • Location: Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #122 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 21:11:33 »
You guys need to understand..   Is 4k Better.. YES...   does it really solve the problem of viewing fatigue on a SMALL monitor..  NO.....

That is the point I'm trying to make..  on a tiny 24"   it's a waste of time...    because 24"  @ 96 dpi , the text is hair width @ proper viewing distances of 35"..


The 35" minimum viewing distance is the revelation here.. ..  I am not arguing to NOT buy 4K



I am saying very specifically...  if you buy ANY monitor that's smaller than ~30" .. you have to deal with much closer viewing distance.. and that is a shame, when you could've bought a 40" monitor albeit lower res @ only $250...

I understand your point, and I don't disagree with the principle. I do think that having sharper, more accurate text (at the same given size*), would be a little less fatiguing, but you're right that 24" is already pretty crisp at 1080p (and IPS may benefit more than 4K).

35" seems pretty far from a 24" monitor, though. I have a 23" and I'd say I'm probably around 25" from the screen to comfortably see things (at 1080p).

I'm far more concerned with overworking my eyes trying to see text as well as the brightness. Having all-white screens and web pages everywhere will forever be the thing that destroys my vision.

Sidenote: I finally got ChangeColors working again in Chrome, and am so very glad. I can literally feel my eyes relax when I enable it.
WhiteFox (Gateron Brown) -- Realforce 87U 45g -- Realforce 104UG (Hi Pro 45g) -- Realforce 108US 30g JIS -- HHKB Pro 2 -- IBM Model M ('90) -- IBM Model M SSK ('87) -- NMB RT-101 & RT-8255C+ (Hi-Tek Space Invaders) -- Chicony KB-5181 (Monterey Blue Alps) -- KPT-102 (KPT Alps) -- KUL ES-87 (62/65g Purple Zealios) -- CM QFR (MX Red) -- Apple Aluminum BT -- Realforce 23u Numpad -- Logitech K740 -- QSENN DT-35 -- Zenith Z-150 (Green Alps)

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #123 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 21:22:02 »
You guys need to understand..   Is 4k Better.. YES...   does it really solve the problem of viewing fatigue on a SMALL monitor..  NO.....

That is the point I'm trying to make..  on a tiny 24"   it's a waste of time...    because 24"  @ 96 dpi , the text is hair width @ proper viewing distances of 35"..


The 35" minimum viewing distance is the revelation here.. ..  I am not arguing to NOT buy 4K



I am saying very specifically...  if you buy ANY monitor that's smaller than ~30" .. you have to deal with much closer viewing distance.. and that is a shame, when you could've bought a 40" monitor albeit lower res @ only $250...

I understand your point, and I don't disagree with the principle. I do think that having sharper, more accurate text (at the same given size*), would be a little less fatiguing, but you're right that 24" is already pretty crisp at 1080p (and IPS may benefit more than 4K).

35" seems pretty far from a 24" monitor, though. I have a 23" and I'd say I'm probably around 25" from the screen to comfortably see things (at 1080p).

I'm far more concerned with overworking my eyes trying to see text as well as the brightness. Having all-white screens and web pages everywhere will forever be the thing that destroys my vision.

Sidenote: I finally got ChangeColors working again in Chrome, and am so very glad. I can literally feel my eyes relax when I enable it.


that's the issue, 35"  is the Minimum viewing distance to reduce eye fatigue as the result of accommodation and vergence..


24"  is  so 2007...   this is 2014...   


I should probably add,   at any distances GREATER than 35" there is no noticeable reduction in fatigue, because the eye muscles (that can be at rest) are already at rest.




Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #124 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 21:59:16 »
People have been doing their work looking at stuff held in their hands at distances of <36" forever. They’ve been reading and writing books, scrolls, clay tablets, etc. for at least 3000 years. They’ve been looking at maps, engineering diagrams, paintings, and all sorts of other stuff for nearly as long.

Yes, it takes some amount of work for your eye muscles to focus on things that are close. Yes, the closer you focus, the more your muscles need to contract. No, I wouldn’t recommend staring at a single spot 12 inches from your face for 2 hours without moving your eyes at all. But if you look around the room from time to time, giving your eye muscles a chance to relax and reset, you’re going to be just fine looking at a computer display 2–2.5 feet from your face, or even looking at your smartphone screen at 18". (I recommend putting a window with a nice view somewhere nearby; unfortunately this isn’t always possible.)

The “resting state” for vergence and/or accommodation just tells you what your eyes do if you’re not looking at anything in particular. (For instance, when you’re in the middle of fog or it’s pitch black). There’s great variation from one person to another in the resting state of the eyes. Just because your eyes naturally return to some particular focus when you aren’t focusing on anything doesn’t mean you shouldn’t look at things that are closer.

If your eyes feel tired, or you start getting headaches, or you have trouble focusing close, or whatever, by all means move your screen to whatever distance improves your symptoms. But this thing about requiring a screen >36" from your face seems like bunk to me.

Some more useful advice:
- Make sure you blink enough. People who look at computer screens a lot tend to blink less than they would otherwise, and can get dry irritated eyes.
- Don’t make your screen too dim. Our eyes work much better when looking at bright stuff.
- Make sure your screen is positioned well, so you don’t stress your neck out.
- Don’t use your computer/smartphone/etc. too close to bedtime, or otherwise use too much lighting late at night. It’ll screw up your circadian rhythms.
- Get enough sleep. Sleep is really important for most parts of the body, restoring your brain, your immune system, your skin, etc., but it’s also important for eye health. People who are sleep deprived often suffer chronic eye irritation.
- Eat a healthy variety of food, to make sure you get the nutrients your eyes need.

Offline Altis

  • Posts: 974
  • Location: Canada
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #125 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 22:12:15 »
that's the issue, 35"  is the Minimum viewing distance to reduce eye fatigue as the result of accommodation and vergence..


24"  is  so 2007...   this is 2014...   


I should probably add,   at any distances GREATER than 35" there is no noticeable reduction in fatigue, because the eye muscles (that can be at rest) are already at rest.

It's a good point, and certainly something to be conscious of. You need to balance content size so that you aren't straining to see at 35", which is part of why I'd like a 27" monitor.

I've actually had it happen where I've stared at my phone for two or three hours, and I could honestly not focus my eyes closer than about 1m (3') for a while.

It's an awful feeling, but goes to show that your eye muscles are sure working hard without you really being aware.
WhiteFox (Gateron Brown) -- Realforce 87U 45g -- Realforce 104UG (Hi Pro 45g) -- Realforce 108US 30g JIS -- HHKB Pro 2 -- IBM Model M ('90) -- IBM Model M SSK ('87) -- NMB RT-101 & RT-8255C+ (Hi-Tek Space Invaders) -- Chicony KB-5181 (Monterey Blue Alps) -- KPT-102 (KPT Alps) -- KUL ES-87 (62/65g Purple Zealios) -- CM QFR (MX Red) -- Apple Aluminum BT -- Realforce 23u Numpad -- Logitech K740 -- QSENN DT-35 -- Zenith Z-150 (Green Alps)

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #126 on: Thu, 25 September 2014, 22:51:02 »
People have been doing their work looking at stuff held in their hands at distances of <36" forever. They’ve been reading and writing books, scrolls, clay tablets, etc. for at least 3000 years. They’ve been looking at maps, engineering diagrams, paintings, and all sorts of other stuff for nearly as long.

Yes, it takes some amount of work for your eye muscles to focus on things that are close. Yes, the closer you focus, the more your muscles need to contract. No, I wouldn’t recommend staring at a single spot 12 inches from your face for 2 hours without moving your eyes at all. But if you look around the room from time to time, giving your eye muscles a chance to relax and reset, you’re going to be just fine looking at a computer display 2–2.5 feet from your face, or even looking at your smartphone screen at 18". (I recommend putting a window with a nice view somewhere nearby; unfortunately this isn’t always possible.)

The “resting state” for vergence and/or accommodation just tells you what your eyes do if you’re not looking at anything in particular. (For instance, when you’re in the middle of fog or it’s pitch black). There’s great variation from one person to another in the resting state of the eyes. Just because your eyes naturally return to some particular focus when you aren’t focusing on anything doesn’t mean you shouldn’t look at things that are closer.

If your eyes feel tired, or you start getting headaches, or you have trouble focusing close, or whatever, by all means move your screen to whatever distance improves your symptoms. But this thing about requiring a screen >36" from your face seems like bunk to me.

Some more useful advice:
- Make sure you blink enough. People who look at computer screens a lot tend to blink less than they would otherwise, and can get dry irritated eyes.
- Don’t make your screen too dim. Our eyes work much better when looking at bright stuff.
- Make sure your screen is positioned well, so you don’t stress your neck out.
- Don’t use your computer/smartphone/etc. too close to bedtime, or otherwise use too much lighting late at night. It’ll screw up your circadian rhythms.
- Get enough sleep. Sleep is really important for most parts of the body, restoring your brain, your immune system, your skin, etc., but it’s also important for eye health. People who are sleep deprived often suffer chronic eye irritation.
- Eat a healthy variety of food, to make sure you get the nutrients your eyes need.


Jacobolus.. people have been doing many things FOREVER..  but that doesn't make it right...


Resting point is not BUNK.. and while it does vary from person to person,   it doesn't vary by much. That's what an average is....  and even if say you're 2 standard deviations out, what stops you from buying the  70" sharp panels which goes on sale for $999..



It's not a REQUIREMENT.....  it's the BEST option available TO YOU..     It's been known for a long time now, that Looking at things in the distance is Less straining than looking at things close up...

But.. also for that longest of time,  we didn't have the ability to print HUGE 30 inch books,  or even recently, not everyone could afford 30" monitors.. .


The world however HAS CHANGED...  nearly everyone in 'murica can afford the 50" china panel which typically goes for $350...


GIVEN THAT... where do we start...    and that my friend brings me back to 35" 





About Brightness..   Black text upon White background is a throwback to PRINT.....   There is absolutely NO REASON to  have black on white  while using a computer screen..


Many people have already made the switch to Darkness..    Grey text on BLACK background is by far the MOST COMFORTABLE to read...   


Your IRIS , also a Muscle, can relax.. 




Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #127 on: Fri, 26 September 2014, 01:06:51 »
Here’s the most relevant link I can find in support of tp4tissue’s arguments:
http://www.allscan.ca/ergo/vangle2.htm

These guys recommend putting the display further away (especially for older folks), tilting it back so that the top of the display is further away than the bottom, and moving the display downward so that it doesn’t require looking upward to see any part of the display. (Because for nearish objects, we apparently don’t focus completely perpendicular to the eyes, but instead the plane of focus is at an angle, like you’d get by tilting the lens on a view camera, and also because we apparently can more easily focus on near objects when we are looking downward.)

http://www.allscan.ca/ergo/atwork.htm
http://www.allscan.ca/ergo/dscreen.htm
« Last Edit: Fri, 26 September 2014, 02:55:10 by jacobolus »

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 13565
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k
« Reply #128 on: Fri, 26 September 2014, 03:43:08 »
Here’s the most relevant link I can find in support of tp4tissue’s arguments:
http://www.allscan.ca/ergo/vangle2.htm

These guys recommend putting the display further away (especially for older folks), tilting it back so that the top of the display is further away than the bottom, and moving the display downward so that it doesn’t require looking upward to see any part of the display. (Because for nearish objects, we apparently don’t focus completely perpendicular to the eyes, but instead the plane of focus is at an angle, like you’d get by tilting the lens on a view camera, and also because we apparently can more easily focus on near objects when we are looking downward.)

http://www.allscan.ca/ergo/atwork.htm
http://www.allscan.ca/ergo/dscreen.htm
Show Image




all this crap was made before the availability of  some key ergonomic elements..


Ergodox..

LARGE monitors

Working from home..


it's a completely different set of limitations they're working with..


Some of those things carry over..  but those archaic diagrams do not..