SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(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.