Showing 1 of 39 conversations about:
ben_r_
64
Mar 14, 2014
bookmark_border
I have been on 30" 2560x1600 monitors for years now and even at that size and pixel density and with my 20x20 vision I have to get a little closer to see everything. Even if this wasnt a terrible 30Hz and TN panel the resolution along in that size display would be WAY too high. This is just a marketing scam to use the 4K name to try and scope up sales before people learn about the other things involved in a monitor more important than a larger number.
Mar 14, 2014
Tracer
18
Mar 14, 2014
bookmark_border
This is for DPI aware OSes. OSX or Windows 8.1 (much improved over 8). I have a high DPI Thinkpad, and until Windows 8.1, it was annoying to use. Now everything is super crisp and clear but at the correct viewing size.
Mar 14, 2014
Tristor
96
Mar 14, 2014
bookmark_border
That has more to do with your configuration than anything. Windows has been able to do DPI scaling for years, but only recently does it automatically. OS X started supporting it with Mavericks, and you can do it under Linux for years as well (although good luck getting anything higher than 30hz at 4K working with xrandr on Linux). With appropriate DPI scaling, objects should appear appropriately sized on the screen while being significantly sharper and still getting a maximization of screen real estate.
Personally, I prefer DPI scaling to be minimized in order to get the maximum screen real estate possible. Small objects on the screen don't bother me, I already force all my icons to their smallest size when working at 1080p, and I very much do NOT have 20/20 vision (I wear glasses to correct). It's partly just getting used to working with higher resolution displays, and partly a need for proper DPI scaling.
Mar 14, 2014
View Full Discussion