Monitors: 27" WQHD OR 28"4k

[The Mad Professor]

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.

[Hundrakia]

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.

[tp4tissue]

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

[Novus]

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.

[Hundrakia]

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

[Novus]

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.

[tp4tissue]

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

[Novus]

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 :/

[tp4tissue]

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..

[Hundrakia]

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".

[tp4tissue]

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.

[Hundrakia]

Of course it isn't, but as a general starting point, my numbers are close.

[tp4tissue]

Of course it isn't, but as a general starting point, my numbers are close.

How did you get your* numbers..

[Hundrakia]

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

[Hundrakia]

Oh. Then I found http://isthisretina.com/, which gives similar results

[tp4tissue]

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)

[Hundrakia]

Hmmm. I can't fathom that changing my optimal distance too drastically, but it'd seem some more research couldn't hurt.

[tp4tissue]

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..

[Hundrakia]

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"?

[tp4tissue]

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..

[Hundrakia]

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.

[tp4tissue]

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..

[jacobolus]

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.

[Hundrakia]

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)

[jacobolus]

Oh I mean tp4tissue is overthinking.

[DasHHKBProM]

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.

[Input Nirvana]

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.

[jameslr]

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

[tp4tissue]

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

[Input Nirvana]

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.

[tp4tissue]

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..

[Input Nirvana]

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?

[The Mad Professor]

Where's DARPA on thins?

Sir, that's classified.

[tp4tissue]

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.

[Input Nirvana]

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!

[tp4tissue]

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..

[Altis]

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!

[jacobolus]

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.

[tp4tissue]

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..

[byker]

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..

[jacobolus]

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.

[tp4tissue]

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... 

[jacobolus]

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.

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.

[tp4tissue]

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...

[tp4tissue]

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.

[jacobolus]

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.

[tp4tissue]

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..

[jacobolus]

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.

[byker]

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.

[tp4tissue]

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