4K Resolution Here Like Mainstream

Davros said:
Why do you consider those sizes important,
4k is a premium thing so you'd want a large screen
Click to expand...

:(
WTH ? Why are you so negative ?
What is the connection between being premium and sizes ? :confused:
17 inch laptop is more premium than anything smaller.
And anyways, we are speaking here about becoming MAINSTREAM !
 
Last edited:
If I was going to get a 4k display I'd want it to be at least same size as my 30" 2560*1600.
The idea of wasting all those pixels on a smaller display is kinda abhorrent.
 
Your choice.

I am different and I would like to jump on 4K for all my devices:

- smartphone with 4K display with extra quality matching my retina
- 4K display for my PC, preferably something compact like 23" or 24"
- 4K TV - perhaps 40-42" would fit perfectly
- 4K 17" laptop
 
At least in my country, mainstream monitors for desktops are all 22-24", and for laptops it's 15".
I'd say 17-20" are about as niche as >27", nowadays.

21:9 curved monitors are really starting to get my attention, though.
 
I think the more important question is not the pixel count, but the resolution (dpi).

I bought a 24" 4k monitor to replace my old 24" 1080p (actually 1920x1200) one, because it's roughly twice the resolution and thus enabled a retina-like experience on my Windows 10 computer, so I no longer feel like looking at pixels when not using my MacBook Pro.

Of course some might want to have even higher resolution, but considering current state of high dpi support on Windows, I think it's simply just too early to do that.
 
By the way, after that I ended up replacing my old motherboard (which doesn't support SLI) and added another GeForce 970 to be able to play games at reasonable frame rates. In this regards I have to say 4k is definitely not mainstream yet (but soon, maybe in a year).
 
Yeah, I'm not going to jump to 4k (or 8k in the future) if there are no 22-24 inch monitors. Then again, I don't have graphics card to support 4k anyway.
 
I'd take a 27" 4K montitor for my PC, but I'd much rather prefer a 24" like I have now. I want the higher DPI. I specifically want a 4K IPS with GSYNC, but I maybe waiting a while still.

But I did make the jump to 4K recently on my bedroom TV, went from an 8 year old 720p LCD to a 43" 4K (Vizio M43). Even though it's only an entry level model, I'm surprised at the PQ increase. I didn't really think I was going to be able to notice the difference between 1080p and 4K content at my viewing distances, but it's there.
 
McHuj said:
I'd take a 27" 4K montitor for my PC, but I'd much rather prefer a 24" like I have now. I want the higher DPI. I specifically want a 4K IPS with GSYNC, but I maybe waiting a while still.

But I did make the jump to 4K recently on my bedroom TV, went from an 8 year old 720p LCD to a 43" 4K (Vizio M43). Even though it's only an entry level model, I'm surprised at the PQ increase. I didn't really think I was going to be able to notice the difference between 1080p and 4K content at my viewing distances, but it's there.
Click to expand...
What kind of 4k content do you watch?
 
pcchen said:
I think the more important question is not the pixel count, but the resolution (dpi).
Click to expand...

Eeerm... resolution = pixel count.
By dpi, I guess you meant "pixel density"?


Actually for videogames in a 24" monitor, I'd like to see the difference between a native 2160p screen and a 1080p one rendering a 2160p virtual resolution.
Performance will be the same, but will the difference be discernible in a fast-paced game?
 
ToTTenTranz said:
Actually for videogames in a 24" monitor, I'd like to see the difference between a native 2160p screen and a 1080p one rendering a 2160p virtual resolution.
Performance will be the same, but will the difference be discernible in a fast-paced game?
Click to expand...

It may vary by person, but I personally find the difference huge. Just like the first time when I saw a retina display Macbook Pro, or the iPhone 4.
And of course it also depends on type of games. Some games do not have much details, but games with outdoor scenes such as the Witcher 3, it's almost life-like when using a high resolution display. Of course, even with a 24" 4k monitor it's still possible to see hint of individual pixels, but it's much less obvious compared to a 1080p monitor.

There are downsides though. While most 3D games are able to scale UI with display resolution, some games can't and will show very small UI or texts. The most serious problem, however, is the cursor size. Surprisingly most games do not scale cursor size with display resolution, thus the mouse cursor becomes very small. Sometimes I have trouble finding the cursor and that can be a nuisance when playing some point-and-click games (e.g. Diablo 3 or Heroes of the Storm).
 
The difference between my 4k monitor at work and my 1920x1200 (even with 4x dsr) monitor at home is night and day. 4k is definitely the future. And yeah the only downside is dpi scaling. Many of my coworkers simply can't use my monitor without some form of dpi scaling. The problem with dpi scaling is at least in Windows if you use two monitors with different dpi scale factors, it's essentially chaos (unusable). Hopefully by the time my eyesight weakens Microsoft can resolve the issue. :mrgreen:
 
tuna said:
What kind of 4k content do you watch?
Click to expand...

Obviously not much yet, but I found myself watching a lot of 4K video of nature (similar to when I first got an HDTV in the early 2000's) also Amazon Instant Video has some 4k content.
 
pcchen said:
The most serious problem, however, is the cursor size. Surprisingly most games do not scale cursor size with display resolution, thus the mouse cursor becomes very small. Sometimes I have trouble finding the cursor and that can be a nuisance when playing some point-and-click games (e.g. Diablo 3 or Heroes of the Storm).
Click to expand...

I have this problem too in Diablo 3. You can use yolomouse to make it more visible. Several popular D3 streamers use it and noone has been banned or anything. It should work in most (all?) games. Here is a vid of it in action.
 
willardjuice said:
Hopefully by the time my eyesight weakens Microsoft can resolve the issue. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

On the plus side when age weakens your eyesight (like my poor old eyes), you can't see individual pixels anymore, and if you get close enough to the screen to see them you won't be able to focus on them without reading glasses. :p

I wish this whole 4k evolution was happening when I was 10-20 years younger. :(

Regards,
SB
 
And I wish for 4:3 or 5:4 ratio monitors, just like when I was 10-20 years younger, but with corresponding "4K" resolutions. But I guess my wish won't be granted.
 
rcf said:
And I wish for 4:3 or 5:4 ratio monitors, just like when I was 10-20 years younger, but with corresponding "4K" resolutions. But I guess my wish won't be granted.
Click to expand...
a 5:4 3840*3072 monitor would be quite nice monitor indeed.
Still use 5:4 as secondary monitor at work and home due it's flexibility.
 
I'm also in the dpi camp. I notice that on my phone with 401dpi, I can still see pixels ... while at the same time, having a Vita side-by-side, for most game stuff, the Vita looks more vibrant and the resolution difference in motion isn't that noticeable. So for static text, the difference is the most important for sure. Ofcourse value of dpi also depends on how close you are to the screen, but my PC screens often aren't that much further away - in fact the bigger the screen, the further you tend to be from it, so in that sense smaller screens should have similar or higher dpi rather than lower versus large screens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
4K displays announced at CES 2011
5 6 7
Replies
128
Views
34K
Silent_Buddha
S
Back
Top