4K Resolution Here Like Mainstream

Quick quiz - if you had two 24" 16:10 displays. Would you prefer them next to each other or on top of each other?
 
I've tried a bunch of different configurations* and prefer side by side in landscape mode. As I game a lot one would be in the center and the other off to the side. I find looking up at screens more tiring and grew to dislike using the upper monitors. Perhaps if my desk were lower and I didn't slouch in my seat so much it wouldn't be so bad.

*4 x 23" 16:9 monitors, side by side, 2x2, mixed rotation, you name it.

My current setup is actually a 16:9 along side a 5:4, which I rarely turn on.
 
Last edited:
homerdog said:
I think widescreen monitors are cheaper to manufacture, which means they can be cheaper for us to buy. That's not a bad thing IMO, and doesn't stop anyone from making more square screens if the demand is there.
Click to expand...
yes this is what it boils down to in the end, greater profits
X inch monitor 16:9 vs X inch monitor 16:12 (4:3) the 16:9 monitor screen is actually 12.5% smaller, thus its cheaper to make, but when a person goes into a shop they both say 20 inch so they think theyre the same size

I Just worked out, a 26" 16:10 monitor is larger than a 28" 16:9 (not much larger @ 2.5 square inches larger but still a person off the street is going to say the 28" one is bigger than the 26" one )

rcf said:
Sure, but people are usually much more limited by available desk space (width) than available space between the desk and the ceiling (height). So we can say that a widescreen monitor and square monitor of the same width will occupy the same space in practice (and the square monitor will give you more pixels and viewable area). But if we choose a widescreen monitor and square monitor with the same height, then the widescreen will in practice occupy more space than the square monitor.
Click to expand...
heres my current setup
4k @ 28" and 1920x1200 @ 24"
desk.jpg

standard sized desk, impossible to fit another monitor there.
I actually saw a cheap 40" 4k monitor today, &due to windows not handling 4k well, Hoping win10 fixes this but from what I've read it doesnt, I could of told microsoft 2 decades ago that DPI will increase.
I'ld be better off with this single 4k monitor instead of my 4k & my 1920x1200 as it gets me an extra 10+% screen realestate
Arwin said:
Quick quiz - if you had two 24" 16:10 displays. Would you prefer them next to each other or on top of each other?
Click to expand...
I used to have a 24" 16:10 & a 20" 16:12 side by side, I turned the 4:3 verticle thus I had 1920x1200 & 1200x1600
unfortunately neither of my current monitors rotate
 
rcf said:
Sure, but people are usually much more limited by available desk space (width) than available space between the desk and the ceiling (height).
Click to expand...
Most people don't just get the tallest portrait orientation monitors that fill the space up to the ceiling, though. And when not particularly constrained by desk space, or even by cost, many will choose to go very wide. Arwin's question really hits on something.
 
rcf said:
Suppose you get a dual monitor setup using "square" monitors that have the exact same width as your current widescreen monitors. Wouldn't you still be able to do exactly what you do on your current setup (but better since you would have more screen area)?
Click to expand...

The integrated graphics in my work PC only supports limited resolutions. It simply can't push more vertical pixels without sacrificing horizontal pixels. Given that I am largely dealing with spreadsheets and data tables, sacrificing horizontal resolution for vertical resolution, even if it meant having more overall resolution, would be a net loss.

At home my PCs are dedicated largely to media consumption, so a widescreen display is a better option there, too.
 
homerdog said:
Displays have gotten much cheaper since going widescreen. I don't think profits on an average LCD are very high at all.
Click to expand...
yes like I said making a X inch widescreen is cheaper to make than a X inch 4:3 screen hence the lower price, sure profits arent gonna be much perhaps $10 per unit but logically the lower the price is the more of something you will sell ergo greater profits
Davros said:
Davros demands Zed post his latest song in the "what are you listening to now " thread ;)
Click to expand...
My last piece http://zedzeek.com/hogan.mp3 (not finished as I need a better orchestral plugin before I mix it down, Im waiting for win 10 then I can buy a proper version of cubase, they actually say ATM when I start up the program DO NOT INSTALL WIN 10 :mrgreen:)
Im working on a rock piece at the moment, featuring words from a user's lifestory post off an internet forum (not these) I'm trying to get him to record the vocals, so you're warned :oops:
 
Im not happy with macluvin, harder to make difficult levels than I thought. I think I should of stuck with the original version where you had to rescue all the astronauts (and pick up fuel) I believe I changed from that because of touch devices (it was too difficult to accurately control, compared to a mouse)
Though I did see that angry birds space came out afterwards which is similar to what I done.
Im regreting buying that 4k 28" a couple of months ago, unless windows fixes high DPI in win 10, Im better off with more screen realestate, thus 4k @ 40". Anyone want to buy a near new 28" 4k monitor? :mad:
 
mrcorbo said:
Does this seem better?
Click to expand...
No, they should NOT scale at all, this leads to blurriness which is what they currently have already.

I'll see if I can explain (which Im terrible at)
Its easiest to visualize with text

SOLUTION = Implement something like webpages, as no doubt youve seen, which are sharp no matter the DPI, the webpage text looks good on your PC monitor at 100dpi and even better on your phone at > 300dpi (at the moment some of my apps look worse @4k then they do @ 1200p i.e. the opposite of what they should be, I can post screenshots if you like)
with scaling like they do currently, eg an app draws something with Arial font size 14pt, on a high DPI it still uses font size 14pt but just scales it bigger
so based on that 150% larger text, it should go 14pt -> 21pt font

OK this could lead to some minor problems in some apps (text leaking out of boxes) but just do like they do now and let the user select if they wanna disable font scaling for that app in the programs compatibility.
 
A picture is 1000 words, This should show what I mean. Left is my high DPI screen, right is same window on my normal DPI screen
After seeing this image noone can argue that scaling is good
cb1.png
cb2.png
 
Pressure said:
The only thing I get from those images are the horrible text rendering and aliasing issues of the OS ;)
Click to expand...
An apple user I suppose, OK windows in high DPI is broken, but apple is not much better, yes I believe they do handle 4k better than windows (still not anywhere ideal though) but they handle multiple monitors worse than windows
 
zed said:
Left is my high DPI screen, right is same window on my normal DPI screen
Click to expand...

I do not understand this - because there is no left and right windows but up and down. The second image shows obviously superior text clarity and higher DPI.

About the 4k 28 monitor - for me it is too large - I'm focusing on something in the line 22 - 23 (although at present they do not offer such) - or 24.
 
zed said:
An apple user I suppose, OK windows in high DPI is broken, but apple is not much better, yes I believe they do handle 4k better than windows (still not anywhere ideal though) but they handle multiple monitors worse than windows
Click to expand...

What issues do you have with multi-monitor support in OS X?

I am on a 5K display though, which is really quite amazing at retina 2560 x 1400 pixels.
 
UniversalTruth said:
do not understand this - because there is no left and right windows but up and down.
Click to expand...
left/right for me (prolly cause my monitor is 4k), for you the right image gets pushed down to the next line due to html formatting
and thus becomes the bottom image, so that means
The second image shows obviously superior text clarity and higher DPI.
Click to expand...
is false (sound of jaws dropping and exclamations of WTF) yes the top image is high DPI the bottom image is normal DPI, this is the whole point behind my posts, windows sucks at high DPI

Pressure said:
What issues do you have with multi-monitor support in OS X?
Click to expand...
Myself?, none since I sold my last mac a couple of years ago but the problems it has I think are due to it having this menu bar at the top of the screen and apple not admitting this was a stopid idea and trying to work around this bad design choice, from what my mac buddies have told me, the 'fullscreen' mode is apple trying to fix it, which doesnt play nice with some apps esp with multiple monitors
 
zed said:
is false (sound of jaws dropping and exclamations of WTF) yes the top image is high DPI the bottom image is normal DPI, this is the whole point behind my posts, windows sucks at high DPI
Click to expand...

What is false ? :confused:

I am telling you that the bottom picture is of higher quality. I checked my eyes and rechecked and then looked again at the images and the second one is way more clear.
 
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