mike_j_johnson
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2004
- Messages
- 961
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wide gamut. I think I just heard NCX swearing.
Too small imo
31" will completely fill my field of view from my 60-85cm viewing distance. Perfect size for me.
Good luck reading anything on it without increasing DPI.
And good luck with Windows' (lack of) support for proper DPI scaling.
Good luck reading anything on it without increasing DPI.
And good luck with Windows' (lack of) support for proper DPI scaling.
Guessing you have never drawn, painted, created or carefully photographed anything in your life so you have absolutely no appreciation for the time & effort artists put into their works.
Can't afford one & I will only buy a wide gamut display if it can be hardware calibrated or does not have locked color controls in the sRGB mode.
If the LG is anything like the Asus 4K monitor then my 300$ Qnix is better black level, response time and lag wise. It will likely take a few years for these 4k monitors to catch up to 1440p PLS monitors.
Wide Gamut Only 4K monitors=2007 IPS+S-PVA cycle all over again, can't wait for all of the consumers with too much money to spend to be blown away by 4K display colors like they were when the 2408/Samsung 2x5T/3007, U2410, ect came out. We will once again likely enjoy a period where TN panels have more accurate colors vs. high end (4K) monitors. Exciting!
you guys who say it's too small must be the ones buying 27" 1920x1080 displays
i look at 150ppi on a notebook daily and it's not bad at all imo.
those old t221s were criminally small though.
Vega is correct though higher density is always nice since you can go ultrasharp for entertainment and do pixel doubling for work (like the macbooks do)No, it's that PPI is completely relational to viewing distance when dealing with clarity. I would wager most people's eyes would only be 18 inches away or less from a 15" retina laptop display. No one is going to sit with eyes 18 inches away from a 31" 4K monitor, so you need less PPI.
It's the same thing with high resolution and your living room and how close you sit to the display. You put a 4K 50" and 1080P 50" display at 8 feet away from your eyes you won't even be able to see the difference. That's why most are saying 4K is only really worth it for large 70+ inch sets.
IMO the best size for a 4K computer monitor is in the 35-40 inch range. That allows you to put the display a nice 3 feet or so from your eyes with it sitting further back on your desk, yet large enough to get the immersion and clarity benefits. Sitting really close to a desktop monitor is neither pleasant or ergonomically feasable.
No one is going to sit with eyes 18 inches away from a 31" 4K monitor, so you need less PPI.
No, it's that PPI is completely relational to viewing distance when dealing with clarity. I would wager most people's eyes would only be 18 inches away or less from a 15" retina laptop display. No one is going to sit with eyes 18 inches away from a 31" 4K monitor, so you need less PPI.
It's the same thing with high resolution and your living room and how close you sit to the display. You put a 4K 50" and 1080P 50" display at 8 feet away from your eyes you won't even be able to see the difference. That's why most are saying 4K is only really worth it for large 70+ inch sets.
IMO the best size for a 4K computer monitor is in the 35-40 inch range. That allows you to put the display a nice 3 feet or so from your eyes with it sitting further back on your desk, yet large enough to get the immersion and clarity benefits. Sitting really close to a desktop monitor is neither pleasant or ergonomically feasable.
And as we consider 300dpi to be the minimum for clear text in print at normal reading distance the monitor should have 8k at 30'' or 4k at 15''.No, it's that PPI is completely relational to viewing distance when dealing with clarity. I would wager most people's eyes would only be 18 inches away or less from a 15" retina laptop display. No one is going to sit with eyes 18 inches away from a 31" 4K monitor, so you need less PPI.
No, it's that PPI is completely relational to viewing distance when dealing with clarity. I would wager most people's eyes would only be 18 inches away or less from a 15" retina laptop display. No one is going to sit with eyes 18 inches away from a 31" 4K monitor, so you need less PPI.
It's the same thing with high resolution and your living room and how close you sit to the display. You put a 4K 50" and 1080P 50" display at 8 feet away from your eyes you won't even be able to see the difference. That's why most are saying 4K is only really worth it for large 70+ inch sets.
IMO the best size for a 4K computer monitor is in the 35-40 inch range. That allows you to put the display a nice 3 feet or so from your eyes with it sitting further back on your desk, yet large enough to get the immersion and clarity benefits. Sitting really close to a desktop monitor is neither pleasant or ergonomically feasable.
If this unit is currently in production as they say it is would I be correct in assuming out to public by Xmas? Not sure how tv production times are figured.
And as we consider 300dpi to be the minimum for clear text in print at normal reading distance the monitor should have 8k at 30'' or 4k at 15''.
It depends on what you intend to display.
For the way text and graphics are handled since 1983, barely enough pixels used so we can decipher the blocky image to be a letter or icon, your assessment is indeed correct, and an increase in resolution would have to be accompanied by an increase in monitor size for the content to be comfortable to look at.
For those (like me) that only sit further away from a 100ppi screen (27''&30'') when reading a website like this because of the discomforting effect of seeing the RGB subpixels sparkling about in the textfield I'm currently typing in, 150ppi is a small ray of hope that we are slowly moving towards generation of computer displays that don't look like the image is created by tiled lego-blocks, when comparing it to a cheap newspaper print.
(make a screen-shot of a web-page, print it out and behold the horror of what we are used to looking at)
Seriously, what kind of absurd sight do you have? I can't see the pixels even on a 27" 1080p screen...
Decent Aspect for a bigger movie/TV screen.
But for a Monitor this size, I would much prefer 3840x2400.
Seriously, what kind of absurd sight do you have? I can't see the pixels even on a 27" 1080p screen...
Seriously, what kind of absurd sight do you have? I can't see the pixels even on a 27" 1080p screen...
Here is an interesting chart:
To really maintain all the advantages of 4K, you would have to sit about 2 feet or less for a 31" screen, and around 4 feet for a 65" screen.
That chart seems suspicious.
I can clearly tell diffrence from 480p to 720p 3-4 meters in my living room
That chart seems suspicious.
I can clearly tell diffrence from 480p to 720p 3-4 meters in my living room
Obviously, the world needs more 140 inch 4k monitors.
Firstly, you really can't make a statement like that without giving a screen size. Secondly, a lot of 480 content is really poor versus 720P. So there may be other factors at play in image quality simply besides resolution making the 720P look a lot better.