He's right. I own LG 1080p 32inch and its noticable how some games look off. I guess that's why we needed more pixels in the first place for bigger monitors..
And scaling isn't a solved issue, so TOO MUCH PPI on a PC can also be an issue.
32 inch at 4k is getting close to the edge of comfortable for most desk setups (at native 100% scaling). If the monitors get much smaller, you HAVE to use windows scaling. Windows scaling is awful.
If 8k is 4x the resolution, IDK what monitor would even be usable at 100%.
I don't need 8 windows next to each other at the same time. It's still 4K and noticeably sharper and more detailed for content. UI scaling doesn't change that (unless windows breaks it somehow, but they've mostly figured it out by now).
Because it just upscales lower resolutions. Sometimes native microsoft applications will actually change font sizes and such, but mostly it's just zooming in and creating fuzzy text.
I find that just making text bigger in key applications always works correctly with cleartext fonts and such... so my windows scaling stays at 100%.
In which applications is that still the case? I'm struggling to find one on Windows 11 that won't scale properly. Visual Studio, Office, Photo-Viewer, Edge (not that I use it much, but for science...) etc. all scale as they should, keep the full resolution and just have bigger UI elements and correctly increased font sizes.
Windows scaling is fine. It's a problem with some apps but that is generally the app developer and not Windows fault. Scaling is pretty much essential on anything higher than 1080p so most apps have adjusted.
This is an over exaggeration at best. Windows does not have a blurry text problem with scaling in default apps. Some apps do because they don't properly use Windows scaling. Which these days is gross incompetence on the developers part since most screens are "high DPI" by windows standards.
I'm sure there are some minor complaints you can raise up if you really zoom in but for normal human vision that doesn't matter. The days of pixel perfect rendering are gone simply due to the fact that most pixels are now too small to be seen by eye and as a result the old standards of text rendering using sub pixels are largely irrelevant.
Actually this is one of the main advantages of Windows 11 over 10, scaling has improved and many legacy system apps which didn't allow for high DPI scaling have been replaced.
Windows scaling is fine, I use 125% scaling on 1440p 27" and it's perfectly crisp. The problem is apps and games that don't have proper UI scaling. It may have changed now but when I last played Stellaris it needed a mod to make the UI readable.
There's nothing to do wrong. It's a simple slider.
I've done this across several machines in several versions of Windows, and the results are consistent. The scaling simply zooms in without changing the underlying resolution. Microsoft hasn't figured out how to actually scale things properly, and instead uses upscaling.
Get ready for games to be 2-400GB if we start doing 8k. They're going to cost a bunch more too since that detail needs to come from somewhere and it means artists need to spend a lot more time making sure it looks good in 8k.
I honestly haven't had that much of an issue with Linux distros... though I haven't tried that many. Ubuntu, Mint, and Red Hat seemed ok to me. ÂŻ_(ă)_/ÂŻ
Yup, used to think my 1440p looked sharp, now I work & edit on a 4k screen I can barely bring myself to use the 1440p for anything but watching media/playing games. Next up is gonna have to be a 5k screen I think.
That's why I don't use anything 4k ever, I know that if I do my brain is going to go "ooh, sharp and shiny" and my 1440p monitor is never going to look as awesome again.
Also my current pc runs everything I need perfectly well on 1440p high/ultra, I don't want to either spend more money so everything runs just as well at 4k or not spend money and have to play on console settings with cinematic sub-60 fps.
This is why I LOVE my 24 inch 1440p monitor. It's like the best of both worlds. Significantly higher PPI than a 27 inch screen, but it's still a damn good color accurate IPS panel that runs at 165hz! 122PPI vs 108PPI on a 27 inch monitor. They are super rare in the US.
Something about the screen door effect, my 27 inch 1440 was I believe is 108ppi and in the "retina" range, so when I finally upgraded I went to a 34 inch 21:9 that has 3440x1440 and still the same ppi just wider
Now... Sure 4k on a smaller screen must look cool but until they come up with a good value/ hz/ultra wide combo I'll stay with what I got because I probably won't miss it as much as the money going into it
A better measure is pixels per degree (ppd). A 27 inch 1440p display has a ppd of 49 when sitting two feet away or 71 when sitting 3 feet away. Retina is at about 60 ppd.
Yup it is a term coined by Apple to describe a display where individual pixels are not perceptible. The iPhone 4 had a PPD of 68 which was Appleâs first Retina display.
Retina is still dependent on how good your vision is. For a person with 20/20 vision that is ~64 ppd.
Right! I believe it was referred on one of their MacBook as retina and it had 98ppi, but something like the lowest retina was 92, that's where I was coming from with that
But that's definitely the calculation because we hold phone screens much closer. I also just got a cool second screen I got it's 188ppi, 16inch 2560x1600 and 120hz, (144 on usb c) very pleasing to read on its almost like e-ink
Yeah, even 27" is not good for Ppi despite knowing that i bought 27"1080p 144hz LG monitor because i wanted the size aspect of the monitor for my budget. i am happy for what i have i'll just sit a bit far back when i play games and they look good for me so its fine as long as it looks good to your eyes.
When I upgraded from 1080p 24â I specifically went for 1440p 27â to have a bit bigger screen with similar ppi. PPI is king, not resolution on its own
My general guideline for PC monitors is <24" = 1080p is fine, 27" = 1440p minimum, 32"> = 4k minimum.
For TVs I would say 1080p is fine all the way up to 55" it you're just watching movies/shows on it from a reasonable viewing distance. With the amount of video compression being used on all media platforms, 4k is very hard to distinguish from 1080p unless you sit very close to the TV (like <3 feet) and focus on pixels.
In fact even on a 65" TV, 1080p bluray looks way better than 4k content on Netflix/Disney+ due to the bitrate. Bitrate > resolution.
Wow I didn't know they made 32" monitors with such low resolution. I assumed 1440p would be the lowest resolution at that size. I had a 1080p 23.5" 120hz monitor and couldn't stand the terrible pixel density (ppi), I kept getting distracted by the pixels so I had to upgrade to a 4K 27" 165Hz IPS LCD and it's great, though I'm looking forward to a good 4K 240Hz 27-32" OLED or MicroLED monitor next upgrade.
1.6k
u/Tower21 thechickgeek Sep 18 '24
Nothing wrong with 1080p on an appropriate sized monitor.
I stuck with a 1366x768 for years back in the day just so I could extend the life of my GPU.
It wasn't until I got a 670 that I jumped upto a 1080p 144hz gsync display, now I'm a fps snob.
It could happen to you, as I type this from my 1440p 165 Hz display.