Okay, i'm confused as hell (re: resolution)

StormClaw

StormClaw

Gawd
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
565
Help me understand this:

43" display at 4k
49" display at 4k

Icons and text are supposed to look bigger at the 49" display, right?

If not, then why?
We got same resolution but bigger screen area = things should look bigger. No?
 
A bigger screen only looks bigger if you still sit at the same distance.
If you need to sit further away because its too big then it may not appear a different size.
However, further away is easier on the eyes, that might be an advantage.

At 4K res the bigger the better if you sit a long distance away.
Even with a 120" projector at 3m away, it wont be big enough to see all the new detail.
You will need to sit 2.3m (7.5ft) away!
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
 
I'm even more confused now.

If i want shit on my screen to look bigger (icons, text, at native rez without scaling), do i need more DPI or less DPI?
 
Change in DPI is a change in resolution or scaling. Less DPI on the same screen = larger dots = larger icons.
DPI = Dots Per Inch.
None native resolution doesnt usually look as good so best not to change that unless your particular screen is known to be ok at the res you want to use.

In Windows you can make icons bigger by changing the scaling. Less will fit on the screen but it will be bigger.
But this doesnt affect games or text in games.


The best solution if money allows: If your current screen is not big enough, get a bigger one.
If you still dont understand, go look at some screens in use.

In basic terms.
Bigger = bigger.
 
Last edited:
Nenu said:
Change in DPI is a change in resolution or scaling. Less DPI on the same screen = larger dots = larger icons.
DPI = Dots Per Inch.
None native resolution doesnt usually look as good so best not to change that unless your particular screen is known to be ok at the res you want to use.

In Windows you can make icons bigger by changing the scaling. Less will fit on the screen but it will be bigger.
But this doesnt affect games or text in games.


The best solution if money allows: If your current screen is not big enough, get a bigger one.
If you still dont understand, go look at some screens in use.

In basic terms.
Bigger = bigger.
Click to expand...

I have an old ass Dell 3007WFP 30" (it's like 10 years old), and the size of text and icons is perfect on it at native 2560x1600

Now i have Asus 34" widescreen 1440p and LG 38" 1600p and stuff (icons and text) is actually smaller on them, while the screens are bigger.

Why is that? Does it have to do with old Dell 30" having less DPI ?
 
You have 2 screens with exactly the same resolution (2560x1600).
30" and 38"
You are saying that the icons and text are smaller on the 38" than the 30".

The sensible thing to do is think about how that is possible.
Either the smaller screen is running at a lower res. ie things look larger.
Or the smaller screens icons have been scaled larger. ie things look larger.
 
Your operating system (which we have not been told) may be detecting the resolution of the display, and the OS maker has told the OS that if it detects that resolution, to set the DPI a certain way.
 
StormClaw said:
I have an old ass Dell 3007WFP 30" (it's like 10 years old), and the size of text and icons is perfect on it at native 2560x1600

Now i have Asus 34" widescreen 1440p and LG 38" 1600p and stuff (icons and text) is actually smaller on them, while the screens are bigger.

Why is that? Does it have to do with old Dell 30" having less DPI ?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what half the people on this thread are trying to say, but to answer your question:

The Dell has a PPI (or DPI, same thing in this context) of 100.63 PPI.
The Asus has a PPI of 109.68 PPI.

Stuff will look smaller on the Asus. Simple, right?

Now there's another thing: As things move farther from your face, they get smaller. So if you get a giant 49" TV and keep if really far from you face, stuff may STILL look small despite actually being bigger than on the Asus and the Dell.
 
Panel said:
I have no idea what half the people on this thread are trying to say, but to answer your question:

The Dell has a PPI (or DPI, same thing in this context) of 100.63 PPI.
The Asus has a PPI of 109.68 PPI.

Stuff will look smaller on the Asus. Simple, right?

Now there's another thing: As things move farther from your face, they get smaller. So if you get a giant 49" TV and keep if really far from you face, stuff may STILL look small despite actually being bigger than on the Asus and the Dell.
Click to expand...

The asus is a bigger screen with a lower resolution, no way it has more ppi than the dell.
 
Luke M said:
No, it's correct. You missed that they are "widescreen" monitors.
Click to expand...
Did you mean to say ultrawide?
Better yet, why not list the aspect ratio? i.e. 16:9, 16:10, or 21:9.

If you're talking about 3440x1440 at 34" that would be 110 pixels per inch.
3840x1600 at 38" would also be 110 PPI.
2560x1600 at 30" is 100 PPI.

Lower pixel density means that items will appear larger on-screen, assuming that everything else is equal - so the OS DPI scale and viewing distance.
When you start changing viewing distance and/or DPI scale, which monitor will display things bigger can change.
The advantage of DPI scaling is that you retain legible text sizes while rendering at a higher resolution, so everything appears much sharper and more detailed even though it appears the same size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this
Panel said:
I have no idea what half the people on this thread are trying to say, but to answer your question:

The Dell has a PPI (or DPI, same thing in this context) of 100.63 PPI.
The Asus has a PPI of 109.68 PPI.

Stuff will look smaller on the Asus. Simple, right?

Now there's another thing: As things move farther from your face, they get smaller. So if you get a giant 49" TV and keep if really far from you face, stuff may STILL look small despite actually being bigger than on the Asus and the Dell.
Click to expand...
If you are going to call people out, at least make sure you are right.

He claims it looks smaller on the LG as well which is what I commented on.
Because the LG has the same aspect ratio as the Dell and is a larger screen, there is no way the LG should look smaller unless he has changed the resolution or scaling.
This is what I pointed out.
Trying to get him to understand the fundamentals first without confusing him further by adding ultrawide to the mix.
 
Nenu said:
He said only one screen is widescreen.
Click to expand...

No he didn't, but anyway, obviously the LG is a "widescreen". You have to apply a little context and background knowledge to understand imprecise language.
 
Nenu said:
If you are going to call people out, at least make sure you are right.
Click to expand...
I was right.
Nenu said:
the LG has the same aspect ratio as the Dell and is a larger screen
Click to expand...
The LG doesn't have the same aspect ratio as the Dell.
Nenu said:
He said only one screen is widescreen.
Click to expand...
Luke M said:
No he didn't, but anyway, obviously the LG is a "widescreen". You have to apply a little context and background knowledge to understand imprecise language.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I happened to know that both the 1440p 34" Asus and 1600p 38" LG were ultrawide displays, thus I calculated their PPI as ultrawide displays.
 
Nenu said:
If you are going to call people out, at least make sure you are right.

He claims it looks smaller on the LG as well which is what I commented on.
Because the LG has the same aspect ratio as the Dell and is a larger screen, there is no way the LG should look smaller unless he has changed the resolution or scaling.
This is what I pointed out.
Trying to get him to understand the fundamentals first without confusing him further by adding ultrawide to the mix.
Click to expand...

38" LG is widescreen 1600p and icons look a bit smaller than on 30" dell 2560x1600p that i've had for 10+ years and got used to.
 
StormClaw said:
38" LG is widescreen 1600p and icons look a bit smaller than on 30" dell 2560x1600p that i've had for 10+ years and got used to.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't be smaller because the screen has a lower pixel density. Are you sure you didn't use any scaling on the dell?
It could be that your operating system automatically adjusted the scaling for you.
 
my windows 10 insider preview sets the dpi scaling automatically. maybe your windows did just detect the new display and adjusted it for you. you could hook up each and see what the dpi scaling does.
 
leadays said:
They shouldn't be smaller because the screen has a lower pixel density. Are you sure you didn't use any scaling on the dell?
It could be that your operating system automatically adjusted the scaling for you.
Click to expand...
Guys, you're legitimately starting to piss me off with the amount of misinformation. The LG has a HIGHER pixel density than the Dell, because it is 3840x1600 compared to the Dell's 2560x1600.

The LG is at 110 PPI.
The Dell is at 100 PPI.

This has been stated multiple times by multiple people in this thread, yet no one seems to be paying attention.
 
Panel said:
Guys, you're legitimately starting to piss me off with the amount of misinformation. The LG has a HIGHER pixel density than the Dell, because it is 3840x1600 compared to the Dell's 2560x1600.

The LG is at 110 PPI.
The Dell is at 100 PPI.

This has been stated multiple times by multiple people in this thread, yet no one seems to be paying attention.
Click to expand...

How did you come up with that? " The Asus has a PPI of 109.68 PPI. "
Can you also explain how can a "38" LG is widescreen 1600p " have a resolution of 3840x1600 ?
 
leadays said:
How did you come up with that? " The Asus has a PPI of 109.68 PPI. "
Can you also explain how can a "38" LG is widescreen 1600p " have a resolution of 3840x1600 ?
Click to expand...
This is from background knowledge. Yes, the monitor's resolution was never stated, but the only 38" 1600p monitor LG has released is a 3840x1600 display. I am merely putting 2 and 2 together based on this fact. There's no way the LG could be 16:9 or anything else.
 
The ONLY 38 inch LG monitor with 1600 pixels of vertical height is an ultrawide - ergo 3840x1600. http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38UC99-W-ultrawide-monitor

Slap that resolution and 37.5 inch viewable into https://www.sven.de/dpi/ You get 110 PPI.

Do that with the 34 inch 3440x1440, you get 110 PPI as well. Do it again for the 3007wfp you get 100 PPI.

At equivalent scaling - screen elements, icons and text will look larger on the 3007wfp, about 10% larger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this
leadays said:
They shouldn't be smaller because the screen has a lower pixel density. Are you sure you didn't use any scaling on the dell?
It could be that your operating system automatically adjusted the scaling for you.
Click to expand...
I am sure. (no scaling were ever used, i despise it)

I also measured the Dell screen height with a measuring tape, and it's a bit higher than the LG. I had the (wrong?) impression that 1600 is 1600 and the screen height should have been the same.

I guess it has to do with a lower PPI on the Dell.

Funny that most people would prefer higher PPI since it looks better, but i prefer lower, because it's easier to see.
 
Last edited:
Decibel said:
The ONLY 38 inch LG monitor with 1600 pixels of vertical height is an ultrawide - ergo 3840x1600. http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38UC99-W-ultrawide-monitor
Click to expand...
Correct, that's the one.



Decibel said:
Slap that resolution and 37.5 inch viewable into https://www.sven.de/dpi/ You get 110 PPI.

Do that with the 34 inch 3440x1440, you get 110 PPI as well. Do it again for the 3007wfp you get 100 PPI.

At equivalent scaling - screen elements, icons and text will look larger on the 3007wfp, about 10% larger.
Click to expand...


Yes, you nailed it down. I guess i just enjoy lower PPI (because it gives a bit larger picture.

So the 49" 4k TV is gonna have 89.91 PPI, and that would make it closer to the 3007wfp picture that I like? Is my train of though correct?
 
StormClaw said:
So the 49" 4k TV is gonna have 89.91 PPI, and that would make it closer to the 3007wfp picture that I like? Is my train of though correct?
Click to expand...
Exactly! It should get a decent bit bigger than on the Dell, so you may be able to push the TV a bit further and still read everything perfectly. (y)
 
StormClaw said:
So the 49" 4k TV is gonna have 89.91 PPI, and that would make it closer to the 3007wfp picture that I like? Is my train of though correct?
Click to expand...

A 43" 4K has the same dot pitch as the 30". Text on the 49" will be 10-15% larger at the same distance.
 
Panel said:
The KS8500, right? Speaking of, did you ever get the chance to swap it out for the curved version? And if so, does the curve add immersion while gaming?
Click to expand...
Yes, 49KS8500. I swapped flat for the curved version. I like the curved version MUCH MORE. At this close distance and such a big screen you NEED the curve.

Flat panel was uncomfortable to look at. Curved is fantastic.
 
StormClaw said:
Yes, 49KS8500. I swapped flat for the curved version. I like the curved version MUCH MORE. At this close distance and such a big screen you NEED the curve.

Flat panel was uncomfortable to look at. Curved is fantastic.
Click to expand...
Do you think the curve will be necessary at 43"?
 
Stormclaw,

Same resolution but bigger screen size = bigger pixels and lower PPI. I have a 4K on a 40" monitor at normal scaling and it works just perfectly. The only reason I went bigger was to avoid using scaling / tiny icons as much as possible. Plus the immersion is better since you have more screen in your peripheral vision.

I think an easier way to look at this is to go look at a 1080p screen on a 13" laptop. At normal scaling, every icon is super tiny.

Now look at a 1080p screen on a 17-18" laptop (at native / normal scaling). Same relative thing will happen when you go up to a 30" vs a 40" as far as icon sizes go.

Aside, that's why I cringe when I see tiny ass laptops offering 4K screens ...
 
dvsman said:
Aside, that's why I cringe when I see tiny ass laptops offering 4K screens ...
Click to expand...
The point of those displays is that you enable DPI scaling so that text and images remain the same physical size, but appear much sharper and more detailed due to the increased pixel density.
4K on a 13.3" screen is intended to be used at 3x scale, giving you a 1280x720 workspace and text/icon size the same as a typical 110 PPI display.

If you care more about workspace than text/icon size, you have the option of reducing the scale which wouldn't be there if they used a 1280x720 native panel.
 
Zone74, I understand it's for scaling but as a Windows user, I'll be the first to admit that Windows just plain sucks ass at scaling. I won't blame Microsoft 100% since it might be app developers at fault by not adhering to whatever standards that are in place, but as an end user, it's still a pain in the butt to deal with.
 
dvsman said:
Zone74, I understand it's for scaling but as a Windows user, I'll be the first to admit that Windows just plain sucks ass at scaling. I won't blame Microsoft 100% since it might be app developers at fault by not adhering to whatever standards that are in place, but as an end user, it's still a pain in the butt to deal with.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I didn't realize this until recently, but I found out recently that scaling still has many, many kinks to work out. Still, if something is at exactly twice the PPI you want to run it at, you can use 200% scaling, which should work quite well (at least in theory). That's what Microsoft did with their 3:2 surface studio.
 
While the OS-level scaling is not yet perfect (multi-monitor setups with mixed scales have issues) it's rarely ever the OS at fault now.
I've set up my display to 16x its native resolution using DSR and 400% scaling, so that the workspace is unchanged but everything is scaled.
And nearly everything I've tried so far just works. Applications which have issues are the ones which report that they do support scaling, but actually do not support it properly.
When I change the compatibility mode for those applications so that the system handles scaling rather than the application, it fixed most issues.
The new System (enhanced) option works less frequently, but when it does you get native resolution text in otherwise system-scaled applications. (which is bilinear for non-integer scales, and nearest neighbor for integer scales)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this
Scanling freaking sucks and should only be used as last resort.

That's my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top