4k is buying the Cart before the Horse... (content)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.
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 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)
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!
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 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!
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..
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 :)
oh crap is this actually for your uncle? rofl
My parents would just use 1600x900 if I gave them something 1080p or above.
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..
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? :)
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.
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.
I'm not ok with ANY bad pixels, will take another look at that. Thanks for the heads up.
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.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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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
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!
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.
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.
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 :/
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".
Of course it isn't, but as a general starting point, my numbers are close.
Oh. Then I found http://isthisretina.com/ (http://isthisretina.com/), which gives similar results
Hmmm. I can't fathom that changing my optimal distance too drastically, but it'd seem some more research couldn't hurt.
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.
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"?
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..
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 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.
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
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.
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..
Where's DARPA on thins?
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?
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.
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!
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.
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..
I can't believe you guys are buying those tiny panels, when you can get a 1080p 40" sharp aquos for $250..I guess you either sit 10+ feet away from your monitor, or have like 20/40 vision? (Or both?)
the resolution does NOTHING given distance.. that's the nature of our eye..
I can't believe you guys are buying those tiny panels, when you can get a 1080p 40" sharp aquos for $250..I guess you either sit 10+ feet away from your monitor, or have like 20/40 vision? (Or both?)
the resolution does NOTHING given distance.. that's the nature of our eye..
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.
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.
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.
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.
QuoteThe 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.. then it's quite clear you fall into the , bought - into - a - gimmick category..Dude. You win. I’m not going to argue with you.
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..
Ok.. then it's quite clear you fall into the , bought - into - a - gimmick category..Dude. You win. I’m not going to argue with you.
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..
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.
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 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.
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..Yes. (Also set to very similar color gamut, though with different settings the new display can get more colorful if I want it to.)
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"..You lose. What now?
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..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!
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..
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’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:QuoteThe 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..No comment.
No sources exists. I am that source..No comment.
ONLY the DEAD CENTER of your eye has the acuity to resolve "retina" ppiThe 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.
if you deviate from foveal vision by even 5 degrees, your acuity drops by HALF.. (a very small cone)
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?
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.
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:
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
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
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...
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.
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.
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.htmShow Image(http://www.allscan.ca/ergo/dscreen3.jpg)