from the surgically-grafted-to-the-inside-of-the-eyelids dept.
The top google hits say that there is little or no benefit to resolution above 4k. I recently bought a 40" 4k tv which I use as a monitor (2' viewing distance). While this is right at the threshold where I'm told no benefit can be gained from additional resolution, I can still easily discern individual pixels. I'm still able to see individual pixels until I get to about a 4' viewing distance (but I am nearsighted).
I did some research and according to Wikipedia the Fovea Centralis (center of the eye) has a resolution of 31.5 arc seconds. At this resolution, a 4k monitor would need to be only 16" at a 2' viewing distance, or my 40" would need a 5' viewing distance.
Now the Fovea Centralis comprises only the size of 2 thumbnails width at arms length (2° viewing angle) and the eye's resolution drops off quickly farther from the center. But this tiny portion of the eye is processed by 50% of the visual cortex of the brain.
So I ask, are there any soylentils with perfect vision and/or a super high resolution set up, and does this match where you can no longer discern individual pixels? Do you think retina resolution needs to match the Fovea Centralis or is a lesser value acceptable?
My 40" 4k at 2' fills my entire field of view. I really like it because I have so much screen real estate for multiple windows or large spreadsheets, or I can scoot back a little bit for gaming (so I don't have to turn my head to see everything) and enjoy the higher resolution. I find 4k on high graphics looks much nicer than 1080p on Ultra. I find the upgrade is well worth the $600 I spent for the tv and a graphics card that can run it. Have you upgraded to 4k and do you think it was worth it? I would one day like to have dual 32" 8k monitors (not 3D). What is your dream setup if technology and price weren't an issue?
Written from my work 1366 x 768 monitor.
Related discussions: First "8K" Video Appears on YouTube
LG to Demo an 8K Resolution TV at the Consumer Electronics Show
What is your Video / Monitor Setup?
Microsoft and Sony's Emerging 4K Pissing Contest
Related Stories
A video with a 4320p (7680×4320) playback option has appeared on YouTube. According to the video description for "Ghost Towns in 8K", it was "Filmed on the RED Epic Dragon 6K in Portrait orientation and then stitched together in Adobe After Effects. Some shots simply scaled up by 125% from 6.1K to meet the 7.6K standard."
Very few people on the planet will be capable of playing the upscaled video in its full glory. The NHK and Panasonic plan to trial 8K broadcasting during the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Perhaps YouTube should add an intermediate 5K (5120×2880) option for Apple and Dell users.
Original Submission
LG will show off a "Super UHD" 98-inch 8K resolution (7680×4320) TV set at the upcoming Consumer Electronics Show (Jan. 6-9). It will also launch three 4K sets with high dynamic range (HDR) capability:
The super-slim design of the UH9500-series TVs have almost invisible bezels and a screen depth of just 6.6mm-that's less than a quarter-inch at its thinnest points. Screen sizes of the 4K models range from 49 to 86 inches. In addition to the three models, LG will also offer a standalone, attention-grabbing Super UHD TV with a huge 98-inch 8K screen.
[...] All sets will also include LG's IPS panel – noted for its advanced off-axis performance – further enhanced by two new LG technologies called True Black Panel and Contrast Maximizer, aimed at improving IPS' typically underwhelming black levels by reducing reflections and maximizing contrast by separating objects from their backgrounds, according to LG. The TVs also include SDR-to-HDR conversion to deliver near-HDR quality from standard sources.
It's been a while since we ran a story about some facet of people's home computer systems and I got to wondering what kind of monitor setup other Soylentils have at home. (If you have multiple systems, feel free to enumerate each setup.)
For example, I run Win 7 Pro on a Dell laptop which has a Mobile Intel Core 2 P8700 Duo processor and which sports NVIDIA Quadro NVS 160M graphics. Instead of using the built-in laptop display, I have a several-year-old Gateway monitor with 1920x1200 resolution @ 59Hz and 32-bit color. I do not do any gaming, so I don't need the latest graphic card/monitor.
Some time down the road, though, I'd like to get a new computer and am thinking about a multi-monitor setup. I'd like at least 1920x1200 across 3 screens, though I'd not mind it if I could afford 3 x 4K screens. I'd like it to be compatible with some flavor of Linux or *BSD, preferably without systemd. Does anyone here have experience with that kind of setup? What OS do you use? What graphics card? What monitors and resolutions do you run?
I know there are some gamers on the site, as well. Here's a chance to brag a bit about your rig!
And, of course, please share any horror stories and/or triumphs, too!
Get ready to endlessly debate the value of "native 4K" on consoles
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/09/microsoft-and-sonys-emerging-4k-pixel-pissing-contest/
Sony's PlayStation 4 Pro (launching in November) and Microsoft's Xbox One Scorpio (launching late next year) are giving the pixel-counters out there a new, 4K-sized battlefield to fight over. Now, Microsoft is drawing a line in the sand in that developing battle, with Microsoft Studios Publishing General Manager Shannon Loftis telling USA Today that "any games we're making that we're launching in the Scorpio time frame, we're making sure they can natively render at 4K."
The word "natively" is important there, because there has been a lot of wiggle room when it comes to talking about what constitutes a truly "4K" game these days. For instance, according to developers Ars has talked to, many if not most games designed for the PS4 Pro will be rendered with an internal framebuffer that's larger than that for a 1080p game, but significantly smaller than the full 3840×2160 pixels on a 4K screen (the exact resolution for any PS4 Pro game will depend largely on how the developer prioritizes the frame rate and the level of detail in the scene). While the PS4 Pro can and does output a full 4K signal, it seems that only games with exceedingly simple graphics will be able to render at that resolution natively.
-- submitted from IRC
Good news for anyone looking to overwhelm their fovea centralis with pixels: Dell has announced the first "mass-market" 8K (7680×4320) display, which will be sold for around $5,000 beginning in March:
Dell introduced the industry's first mass-market 8K display aimed at professional designers, engineers, photographers and software developers. The UP3218K will be available this March, but its rough $5,000 price tag will be rather high even for professionals dealing with content creation. That being said, $5K or so was the price that the original 4K MST monitors launched at in 2013, which perhaps makes this display price more palatable. On the other hand, right now an 8K professional display is such a niche product that the vast majority of users will have to wait a few years to see the price come down.
Up to now, 8K reference displays were available only from Canon, in very low quantities and at very high prices. The displays were primarily aimed at video professionals from TV broadcasting companies like NHK, who are working on 8K (they call it Super Hi-Vision) content to be available over-the-air in select regions of Japan next year. A number of TV makers have also announced their ultra large 8K UHDTVs, but these are hardly found in retail. Overall, Dell is the first company to offer an 8K display that can be bought online by any individual with the money and be focused on the monitor market rather than TVs.
At present, Dell is not publishing the full specifications of its UltraSharp 32 Ultra HD 8K monitor (UP3218K), but reveals key specs like resolution (7680×4320), contrast ratio (1300:1), brightness (400 nits), pixel density (280 ppi) as well as supported color spaces: 100% Adobe RGB and 100% sRGB.
Google and LG will show off an OLED display for virtual reality headsets that could have a resolution of around 5500×3000:
Google and LG are set to present an 18-megapixel 4.3-inch OLED headset display with 1443 ppi and a higher refresh rate of 120Hz during the Display Week 2018 trade show in late May. The display will have a wide field of view and high acuity. The advanced program for the expo was spotted by Android Police via OLED-Info.
Those specs make the forthcoming headset better than most of what's on the market. Screens like the new HTC Vive Pro and Oculus Rift only boast total resolutions of 2880 x 1600 and 2160 x 1200, respectively.
From the Display Week 2018 Symposium Program:
The world's highest resolution (18 megapixel, 1443 ppi) OLED-on-glass display was developed. White OLED with color filter structure was used for high-density pixelization, and an n-type LTPS backplane was chosen for higher electron mobility compared to mobile phone displays. A custom high bandwidth driver IC was fabricated. Foveated driving logic for VR and AR applications was implemented.
The competing "Pimax 8K" uses two 3840×2160 panels to hit 7680×2160 with a 200° field of view. Shipments of that headset have been delayed to April or later. A 2017 StarVR headset used two 2560×1440 panels for a 210° field of view. Two of the panels from Google and LG could add up to around 11000×3000 (based on The Verge's guess), 12000×3000 (36 megapixels), or 11314×3182 (36 megapixels, 32:9 aspect ratio).
Recall that AMD has envisioned VR resolution reaching 16K per eye (a grand total of 30720×8640, or over 265 megapixels).
Also at UploadVR and Android Authority.
Related: Is Screen Resolution Good Enough Considering the Fovea Centralis of the Eye?
AU Optronics to Ship 8K Panels to TV Manufacturers in H1 2018
(Score: 4, Funny) by caffeine on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:29AM
His view was that eyesight really has a wide range of performance. A few people can see quite a fair bit better than the average.
I had messed with his mind a little at that point. Before he entered the room, I had memorised the fine print copyright statement on the bottom of the eye chart. When doing the test, just said "how about we skip to the hard line, and repeated the copyright statement".
(Score: 4, Funny) by FatPhil on Wednesday January 11 2017, @11:56AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Funny) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday January 11 2017, @04:58PM
No, the OP didn't say any of that. Can't you follow? There was a 3rd person in the room who actually did the test, i.e., "just" said it, not the OP. I can only assume his name was actually Justin or something, but those cool kids these days, with their nicknames and refusal to use capital letters....
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:34AM
I for one am glad the computer monitors are no longer apparently limited to 1920x1080x24bppx60Hz (I blame HDMI and DRM for that)
Of course, I will be using 1200x1024x24bpp monitors for the foreseeable future. One I can push above 60Hz. (Two are technically not limited to 24bpp, but pretty sure the video card is.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @04:24PM
I've never owned a 1920x1080 monitor and am not sure of the limit you speak of.
I went from 640x480 to 800x600 to 1024x760 to 1280x1024 to 1920x1200 and then regressed to to 1680x1050, then to 2560x1440 and finally to whatever 4k is that isn't really 4k.
Only the cool kids I thought were using TVs for their computers, like what I did back when I had a commodore 64.
Even nvidias card naming after HD Television I thought was just a gimmick to help sell cheap shit at high prices? true 1920x1200 monitors nowadays are not inexpensive. It's like the 16:10 went away with the economy in 2008. Everything got cheap but that didn't make any of it better.
All the reviews about stuff on 1080 on "ultra" Well no shit, that resolution isn't even as good as what we were trying to get beyond even 10 years ago. I hope it runs well because if it ran worse then why are we paying for this garbage. The NVidia new cards are impressive, yes, but to market them after something that sucks... I guess that is what happens now that my hobby is now mainstream. I thought the "1080" was a low end card until I was informed of my mistake. I guess no one will make a 1200 or 1440 because they sound like modem bit rates for geeks.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:29PM
I thought the "1080" was a low end card until I was informed of my mistake.
Like the $800 price tag didn't give it away? Or that fact that anyone who knew anything about nvidia knew that the GTX 1080 was just a next generation 980 which was a successor to the 780 which was several generations newer 280...
If the GTX 1080 was 'named after HD TV' then it was one of the longest marketing buildups in history to get there, all be undone by next years GTX 1180.
Wait... I'm being trolled right?
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:35AM
The unofficial standard for computer displays is 96 DPI. A 24" monitor at 1920x1080 (2k) will be close to that figure, and everything will be about the right size at the default scaling level in the OS.
With 4k, you want to double that 96 DPI and come out somewhere near 190. That way you can have nice 2x scaling and everything looks good. 1.5x or 1.75x scaling looks terrible as pixels get smeared, and not all apps support native high DPI display properly.
So at 24" 4k is ideal, you can set scaling to 200%, everything is the same size as it was at 2k but sharper. If you want to go up to 27", you need 5k.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:40AM
I would like to point out that 192dpi is close to fine fax resolution. Remember those?
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:52AM
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:54AM
Another thing to consider is a larger monitor is going to require more physical real estate. My poor little TV cart is already maxed out with a 24" 16:9 and a 19" 4:3. I guess I could wall mount up to a 50" or so but anything bigger than that and I'd have to relocate everything.
Oooh, a 50" mounted on the wall above the two I already have... that could work...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by EvilSS on Wednesday January 11 2017, @11:57AM
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Thursday January 12 2017, @12:14AM
Back in the day, the best cheap and rugged workspace was an interior door (knobs and hinges removed) laid across a pair of two drawer file cabinets.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Thursday January 12 2017, @02:11PM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @03:43PM
40" 4k screen is basically four 20" 1080p monitors stacked in a square without a bezel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @12:56PM
The unofficial standard for computer displays is 96 DPI.
You mean Windows displays.
I run something called X, which has handled DPI settings correctly for text for at least a decade. Graphics is up to the applications, so if you get too far from the norm (e.g. outside the 50-200 DPI range), you may be unhappy with the results.
Mac used to be 72 DPI, but has had full DPI scaling (including graphics) at least since the introduction of OSX.
Where as on Windows, even running at 105 DPI will make elements disappear outside the bottom/right edge of dialog windows, which are either not resizable, or resizing simply moves the problem elements along with the edge of the window.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday January 11 2017, @01:54PM
DPI issues have more to do with third-party software than anything else. On standardized environments like Windows and OS X, whether the software can scale well depends on the quality of the tools used to build the interfaces.
Windows tools have long made it difficult to do anything correctly without a med-school level of study in Microsoft documentation. As a result most people just hard-coded pixel dimensions to position stuff, which doesn't work at all when DPI changes.
I can't speak to OS X, but definitely since "Retina" hit the iPhone and later the MacBooks, their tools have been very much focused on making everything scalable. Apple tends to be a lot more opinionated in general, and I'd expect that to affect interface design and make it difficult or impossible to do anything outside of the blessed method.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by andersjm on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:36PM
That's funny, I've been writing adaptive MS-Win programs for a decade, without breaking a sweat. The tools I've used for that are wxWidgets/wxPython with sizers, but that's just one of many toolsets that could have solved that problem.
Just stop using poor tools. You really don't have to. Not even on MS-Win.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 11 2017, @01:53PM
I donno about all this scaling business. My .emacs.d/init.el has
(set-frame-font "Terminus-24")
.Xdefaults has something like
URxvt.font:xft:Terminus:size=24
and like 20 years ago I have foggy memories of using like monospace-12 or something.
For a long time I've used fonts to get a hundred-something columns and two or three dozen rows.
I like a high res display with large fonts because the result is so beautiful especially if there's UTF-8 stuff in the comments like some dude's name in kanji characters.
I'm old enough to have survived the 9 pin dot matrix MX-80 type era so high res fonts are quite a nice luxury.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:50AM
Is Screen Resolution Good Enough Considering the Fovea Centralis of the Eye?
Or are you just sitting too close to your screen?
I recently bought a 40" 4k tv which I use as a monitor (2' viewing distance). While this is right at the threshold where I'm told no benefit can be gained from additional resolution, I can still easily discern individual pixels
That's because most people don't watch 40" TVs from 2' away.
If you really want a 110 degree viewing experience, you're using the wrong equipment in the first place. Personally I don't know you can stand the distortion or the neck/eye strain (you're going to have to move one or the other to see anything outside of the middle 10% or so).
(but I am nearsighted).
I'm not surprised!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday January 11 2017, @01:35PM
So what affordable equipment could he use instead of the TV to achieve the desired results at an equally high resolution? I'm genuinely interested.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 11 2017, @02:10PM
Both at work and home I have three monitors in a semicircle ish shape on my desk. The combined res in X is better and in Y is worse, but its OK. At home each monitor has a separate machine because they have separate jobs to do and frankly it works better and faster and in freebsd using a NFS home directory scheme isn't exactly rocket surgery. At work I've experimented with various combinations of multi-machine and multi-output video cards.
The neck/eyestrain thing is pretty bogus as I'll look at the middle screen most of the time but the side screens will be showing some kind of data sheet or howto or ebook or video or email. Trying to use all that space as one six foot wide emacs window that wraps around would be quite agonizing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @03:19PM
OP here, sorry I don't have an account.
40" 4k is basically four 20" 1080p, stacked in a square, without a bezel. Like I in the submission, so much room for activities. 2' viewing distance is just standard for monitors.
I really prefer turning my head to having to scroll / switch windows. Neck strain? No. Not that I've experienced. It is no wider than dual monitors, which people seem to have no problem with.
If you get eye strain from looking outside of the center 10% of your vision, then I'm sure you enjoy your 10" monitor.
I became near sighted in high school, which was a long time ago. Nearsightedness runs in my family. My eyesight has degraded linearly with time (increased prescription by -0.5 every few years) despite the various changes in my life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:50PM
This here.
I have just moved to the same setup from a 3 monitor setup with a 4k 49" TV. (NB: not all TVs are as good for this as others, for a guide try this one: http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-usage/pc-monitor/best [rtings.com] )
Less neck strain, better quality and more desk space.
Also I use an app called Displayfusion to move general windows easily from a square 2x2 (i.e. 4 seamless 1080p windows) to a 3x1 (central window slightly larger) window configuration depending on whether the extra length is needed for reading. (contrary to popular opinion I have found from experience extra length is not always needed)
These can mix an match easily and I find it very productive and MUCH less annoying.
For programming and music recording I set up the IDE in several layouts for the context. You can mix the above to get a 1/3 window in the middle and 6 potential windows around the edge. Using your IDE/DAW's windowing options you can change easily to any number of configurations.
Don't anyone tell me this does not work or is bad: you have no idea what you are talking about!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:55AM
you can pry my tandy monitor from my blind electrocuted hand
(Score: 3, Touché) by mhajicek on Thursday January 12 2017, @12:02AM
I'm so sorry that your hand is blind.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Rivenaleem on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:04AM
I played around with an Occulus Rift one day and used it for gaming and watching 360 videos. However one thing that was also really interesting is the ability to create multiple virtual screens of almost any size you wanted, place them where you liked (even above or behind you). Now there'll be practical limitations, like keyboard and mouse positioning and neck strain, however I imagine with the right set up (a swivel chair with arms for a wireless keyboard and mouse) you could make a full 360 desktop environment work. The VR headsets currently and definitely in the near future, have sufficient resolution that stop seeing pixels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:44AM
My dream setup if price weren't an issue. A practical and powerful VR/AR system. With features like adjustable transparency so that you can see/"see" all/parts of the outside world when desired. But they don't have high enough resolution for now.
What is your dream setup if technology and price weren't an issue?
Of course if both technology and price weren't an issue my dream setup would be one of the better[1] Iron Man suits with a working friendly JARVIS AI.
[1] Some of the later models were crap - they got destroyed by trucks or low-level super-humans, while the earlier models could survive getting shot by tanks and last more than a few seconds in battles with Thor.
(Score: 4, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:59AM
See, being a videophile is one thing but bitching about the resolution of actual physical objects is just over the top.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by EvilSS on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:15AM
And yes, it's well worth it. Games look amazing at 4K. I'm sampled quite a few but I can't actually play at that resolution since I'm using a 780ti right now. Framerates are too low obviously, but they look awesome visually when messing around. It's not just games though, everything looks so much better. Text is razor sharp. Like printed in a book sharp. You just don't understand until you work with a high DPI monitor for a while. Plus all the screen real estate! Being able to work in a document and see the entire page at 100% (or even higher if you want), and have another full size doc or a good bit of a spreadsheet next to it is something I never want to give up. 4K video, real high bitrate 4K not crappy low bitrate smartphone or streaming 4K from Netflix, looks stunning as well.
As for a dream setup? My wishlist right now is for a 4K equivalent curved ultra-wide monitor. Like 5184x2160.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:34AM
But price isn't.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:56AM
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday January 11 2017, @12:15PM
This is one thing I don't understand. When I see a match on a telly in the pub, the TV image quality is barely better than analogue was 20 years ago, and sometimes far worse. There may be more pixels, but half of those pixels are just showing blocking or scaling artifacts, worse both. OK, there might be a few "HD" channels that live up to the name, but it seems like the majority is just garbage transmitted like the garbage that it is. So I think this change is driven more by simply pushing the tech onto the market rather than it actually being demanded.
1080p 46" 60Hz TV as primary monitor, viewing distance 60" - 150" depending on what I'm doing - works great for my needs.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:31PM
720p and 1080p came out well ahead of widespread content availability as well. As consumer adoption rates continue to rise, if through nothing else than attrition as older sets fail and are replaced, the content will continue to grow.
I'm surprised HD adoption, especially in sports, is so poor over there. In the US our sports tend to be the technology leader when it comes to broadcasts, especially our football (US football, not rest of the world football) games.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Bot on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:47AM
nearsighted people see near things magnified.
Got me a 3 K monitor once, but the white balance was off, and the KKK wanted it back immediately (curious bunch of people).
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:13AM
I chortled at that.
Just today I ordered a second 4K screen for my office, because the first has just been too awesome for the antiquated 24 inch wide screen to remain alongside it. I've heard of Windows 10's quartering feature; how can I get the same on Linux or Windows 7?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:44AM
Looks slightly ancient, but useful and customizable.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Wednesday January 11 2017, @01:06PM
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 11 2017, @11:03AM
Considered a tiling window manager? If you're completely anal^W^Wparticular about your window placement that really may be the thing for you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Marand on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:03AM
In Linux you can just use a tiling window manager like TMB suggests. The most popular flavour is dynamic tiling, where the windows split automatically as you add more, but I tend to prefer static tiling. My everyday driver lately has been Notion [github.io] across four screens, though I've also spent some time with herbstluftwm [herbstluftwm.org].
I have a basic set of splits set up the way I tend to want them, can have multiple windows in a single frame (notion does tabs as well as tiles), and can alt-tab to swap between tabs within a frame. If I need more fine-grained splitting there are hotkeys and mouse shortcuts to do it, same with removing a split when done. Plus each monitor has its own set of virtual desktops, so I can use multiple sets of splits. Meta+[0-9] swaps workspaces, so it's easy to have a program that needs a lot of space in a single-frame workspace (equivalent to 'maximising' a window) while still using the normal splits for everything else.
They take a bit more work up-front than a traditional stacking window manager, but it pays off long-term because you don't constantly have to futz with moving and resizing windows because the window manager decided to "help out" and put shit in a dumb place.
I don't use Windows, so I can't say much there, but try searching for "Windows 7 tiling window manager" and filter out the search engine's inevitable deluge of Linux options, maybe you'll find something useful. I can't speak for the quality of anything, but a couple first-page hits were bug.n [github.com] and aquasnap [nurgo-software.com]. It looks like they're cheating a bit by trying to work around the normal Windows WM's behaviour, so it won't necessarily be as nice as a proper tiling WM but could give you something similar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @03:23PM
Using the edge of my glasses to compare between corrected and uncorrected, I can tell you the image in my glasses is somewhat smaller than uncorrected.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday January 13 2017, @06:09PM
Yes I meant the uncorrected is magnified. That's why the stellar Donald Pleasence in The Great Escape could spot little details in forged documents.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by engblom on Wednesday January 11 2017, @11:19AM
I have always wondered why people are so obsessed with the total resolution of a screen when all that matters is PPI? PPI is a better measurement as it takes the screen size into account.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @01:10PM
For a TV, total resolution makes sense because your viewing distance will typically be proportional to the diagonal (you're sitting much closer to a small screen than to a big screen). Note that what ultimately matters is the angular resolution, which is proportional to PPI/viewing distance, and thus under the above assumption proportional to PPI/diagonal, which is proportional to pixel resolution.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:35PM
You are quite incorrect, that's why.
The PPI tells you if you will see the pixels from a certain viewing distance.
The total resolution tells you how much stuff you can display.
High PPI/DPI makes things nicer, but does not increase how much data you display.
I am typing this with my eyes about 3 feet from a 4K 40-inch monitor. I see the text as well as with the old 20' 1080p monitor. But I see 4 times more stuff.
My browser is in a corner, two columns of code with over 120 lines each are taking less than half the screen, allowing me to also see two oversized terminals monitoring my prototype AND the two-up datasheet that my code is written against.
Courtesy of my 4K monitor, I finally have a real desktop. As much simultaneous information and workspace as if I was spreading papers on a desk (plus I still have my desk for printouts).
It's wonderful, and it's the 4K low-PPI big panel that does it. 8K twice-the-PPI would look nicer and sharper, but not really improve how much I see and do.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Wednesday January 11 2017, @11:44AM
You have two hyperacute optical sensors (fovea) that run in tandem from slightly different angles.
This means they will pick up on obscure things like the depth of the pixels as well when close enough, and this in addition to the spacing.
With training you'll learn to spot the artefacts this produces even if you don't see the direct defect itself. (Kinda like how modern video compression sucks for those of us that have learned how to spot the defects introduced).
So, to answer the questions:
(Is 4k good enough at close range)
Untrained, motion - yes,
Trained, motion - varies
Untrained static - varies
Trained, static - no.
My dream setup - 96dpi (or ppi) with about 0.75dots bleed (the smearing will reduce sharpness to about 50dpi, but remove the mesh/screendoor effect)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Wednesday January 11 2017, @11:57AM
How about writing some software that objectivity measures your sensitivity.
I saw this a few years ago, but with modern tech. should be easy to copy.
Make central focus on the screen and have randomly appear blue(say) objects that you click the keyboard to acknowledge.
you might need to capture 50-100 observations, but when plotting time-vs-reaction-vs-XY, you should get a gaussian surface.
Change the colour, you can get some photo receptor distribution information...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:38PM
OP here, sorry I don't have an account.
I'm not sure what you're trying to test. You look at what you want to see. Central vision is only 1% of the view area of your eye, but 50% of the visual cortex processes this information from this area. How far away can something be that if you're curious about it, you don't move your eye to see it? For me, my eye follows the cursor within a character or two while I'm writing this.
I could write a program and do a test like you say, but it is easier to trust the observations of people who have dissected the eye and counted the number of rods and cones in different locations. Go read the Wikipedia page I linked. They even talk about color acuity.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @01:13PM
"I have an enormous penis."
"Actually, I've got a bigger penis by far."
"Sorry, but my penis is staggeringly vast."
"Look, I'm massively well-endowed!"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by acid andy on Wednesday January 11 2017, @01:47PM
I'm occasionally tempted at considering a similar setup myself. There used to be a very clear physical difference between a computer monitor and a television - for a long while televisions remained analog but even after digital switchover monitors had the edge for a while and typically had different connectors up to DVI.
CRT monitors supported a wide range of resolutions where CRT televisions didn't. Now every LCD has only one native resolution (scaling doesn't count) and monitors are more often than not connected with HDMI just the same as TVs.
So is there any practical reason now for choosing a device marketed as a "monitor" rather than a "television"? Are the only remaining differences price and marketing spin (and maybe the presence or absence of a DVB decoder)? I struggle to see any difference myself. Also, why can I buy a large OLED TV but not a large OLED monitor?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 11 2017, @02:03PM
My MiL found it impossible to buy a TV that wasn't "smart" so it takes like 30 seconds to boot up or switch inputs or do much of anything. Smart TV UIs always suck. Thankfully it doesn't nag her about her lack of internet access.
I would imagine there are interesting differences in standards for stuck pixels. In the oldest days of LCD displays there certainly were.
When I set up my TV in my living room the fad at the time was to provide the user with an infinite number of video processing features that mainly degrade the experience, eventually I figured out that "game" mode was pretty much pass thru unmolested but it took some work. Monitors don't have that anti-feature, do they?
They seem to put a lot of effort (for a widely varying result) into the audio for TVs.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @03:34PM
OP here, sorry I don't have an account.
The TV I bought is "smart". But is has a gaming mode which is what I use. I do have a 20" 1080p monitor on the side (for when I'm using full screen applications) that has my shortcuts and task bar, and I don't use often but is convenient to always have uncovered. Anyways, they perform pretty much identical. So yes, IMHO you can use a tv as a monitor (or vice versa). I priced monitors when I bought but they were more expensive for larger sizes (and still don't go as big as tvs).
The 40" 4k is basically four 1080p monitors stacked in a square without a bezel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @04:26PM
when did hdmi connectors on PCs become normal? I had to struggle to find something to connect a raspberry pi i bought tom because I dont have any hdmi anything.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:49PM
About 2006 with the release of Windows Vista and the Protected Media Path.
Me Bitter?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @02:13AM
Differences between TVs and Monitors include how quickly it refreshes depending on the input port (e.g. is there a 100ms response time to display input data with a noticeable lag for tracking a mouse but not noticeable when watching a continuous movie?), multiple available ports (e.g. displayport?), and ergonomic position adjustments on the stand. There are also "smart" TV negatives like typically long bootup times. So, it depends on what your priorities, the specifics of the TV (some can turn off filtering that causes lag), and your finances.
(Score: 2, Informative) by toddestan on Thursday January 12 2017, @04:45AM
Monitors for the most part just display what's input into them. A lot of TVs muck around and process the incoming signal, and while it may be OK-ish for video sources, it can result in a very noticeably worse picture for things you use a computer for. Plus some TVs like to overscan or rescale the input, for reasons I don't really understand. It can be a bit of a crapshoot whether or not you can turn this stuff off. Some TVs will disable it, but only for some inputs such as the "PC" input, aka analog VGA but not the HDMI inputs. I wouldn't buy a TV for a monitor without researching it very carefully.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 11 2017, @02:22PM
What is your dream setup if technology and price weren't an issue?
Given what they pay me, if a blank check resulted in a $10K invoice, if it increased my productivity by 10% (which seems on the very low side of what it actually does) it would pay for itself in mere months, assuming I'm producing significantly more than they're paying me which seems likely. Its hard to find investments in the business world that pay for themselves so quickly. Also its technically possible to drop $10K but my setup at work was only maybe $2K even counting the snazzy aftermarket monitor stands. I mean I could buy color corrected CAD/radiology grade monitors but it wouldn't really help so why bother.
Written from my work 1366 x 768 monitor.
Yet companies do dumb things all the time, see also the open office concept. Sure its like taking half your labor budget and throwing it away WRT productivity, but its just so trendy and cool ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @02:32PM
1366x768 is woefully inadequate for business use unless you enjoy using several virtual desktops, chunky pixelated fonts (ok, it gives the IDE a retro look), and keeping your windows near-maximized at all times so you can see an appreciable amount of what's in them.
Then again the habit of virtual desktops is a great one to get started on :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @03:40PM
OP here, sorry I don't have an account.
They spent $160 on this monitor, and got it new for me. I bought 1080p monitors for $100 each back in '13. My dual screen in the laptop on the docking port. Sure it works. Not as convenient with the large spreadsheets I work on (engineer), but I didn't really have a choice in matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @04:33PM
1366x768 is not only inadequate, but with the new skype for office, you lose 50% more screen real estate because cloud tablets!
(Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Wednesday January 11 2017, @03:44PM
On my 3200x1800 15" laptop (actual viewing screen size is about 2-3 inches less) I couldn't really tell the difference between a video in 1080p vs 4k resolution. Granted the screen isn't quite full 4k. Whereas the difference between standard def and 720p or 1080p was much more noticeable. I imagine though that on a larger screen (like my 55" tv) that the difference would be much more pronounced. Prices have come down a LOT recently on the 4k tvs. A friend of mine just got a 55" 4k for like $550 for xmas. Since I recently got a graphics card that can actually run things at 4k it makes me itchy to get an upgraded tv.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @04:23PM
I got crappy eyesight, and the optometrists keep under-correcting my eyeglasses using every excuse they can find (they have years of experience on that) so that I have to keep coming back to their shop.
I'm not going to pay extra for resolution my eyes can't use.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:47PM
I'm sorry to hear you have poor corrective lenses. I would recommend changing eye doctors. Or be extra careful when they ask you which image looks clearer.
Always ask for your prescription when you get an eye exam. You can then take it online and order glasses that are stronger/weaker to your content. I have used zennioptical.com for years and been happy and can typically get 4 pairs of glasses for $25 with shipping, if I'm not picky about style and prescription is not extreme. I'm sure there are other websites too. What I mean is there are affordable options for you to try different prescriptions and self adjust as you see fit. Sometimes my eyes are more tired and I need a stronger prescription (or time has past and I know how my eyes evolve).
(Score: 1) by dierdorf on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:05PM
People who buy ultra-high resolution devices (i.e., those beyond the capability of the human eye to discern) presumably are also the market for $5,000 HDMI cables, $10,000 USB cables made from certified ultra-pure copper, headphones which can reproduce 100KHz, etc. In other words, people who have much more money than sense. (Note that this market overlaps the people who own a Bentley used only to go back and forth to the local grocery. Actually, that's not fair -- they are quite likely to also use it to go to church.)
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:52PM
How else should I ensure that all those ultrasound tracking mechanisms [soylentnews.org] work for me? ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday January 12 2017, @12:29AM
Thing is that 4k is still discernible: at close (monitor) viewing distances.
4k for a TV viewing distance is probably a waste of time though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @02:44AM
Congratulations! You win the internet for today! Go grab yourself a cookie.