Is 4k even a viable day to day resolution?

D

dreamagain

n00b
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
33
Outside of people working with photos and what not, how about on just a day to day use. Do you guys think it's even viable? I say this because I had the Dell 4k monitor for about a week before returning it and apart from the horrible 30hz, I thought the massive resolution actually hindered a lot of the experience.

You can't even talk to someone on Steam because the text is super small. The Windows desktop is not optimized at all for 4k, even on 150% zoom. Using Chrome was equally annoying.

Obviously the situations that can properly take advantage of that massive resolution make it worth it.. but the resolution doesn't really seem optimized or ready for mainstream consumption yet. What do you guys think?
 
Doesn't sound like it works well on Windows. OS X has amazing scaling options though, I guess Windows needs to catch up.
 
Steam doesn't scale!?

Now I'm massively turned off from 4k.
Thanks for making this thread.
 
It's plausible. I've got a 30" 2560x1600 and it's really too many pixels for most web browsing tasks. You need to move your head to read across the screen.

This is what I'm looking at right now

LAkpsC2.jpg


I do really like it for spreadsheets, and I haven't done any gaming yet but I'm looking forward to trying some at this big resolution. Honestly, though, I think web browsing and that kinda thing would be better with tiled windows horizontally. Then it'd be two 1280x1600 displays.

It still seems like most websites are optimized for 1024x768 or maybe 1280x1024 so having double the horizontal space doesn't add a whole lot.

Maybe once we see 1080p become the minimum mainstream resolution and sites start designing for that, things will be better.
 
It has less to do with what the resolution is capable of, and more to do with badly implemented scaling support at the OS level. Windows in particular is an absolute dog to mess around with when scaling, from ugly, low res window decorations, to menu dialogs spilling out of their window containers. It really is shockingly poor, but I guess so few people care about it.
 
nalc said:
It's plausible. I've got a 30" 2560x1600 and it's really too many pixels for most web browsing tasks. You need to move your head to read across the screen.

This is what I'm looking at right now

LAkpsC2.jpg
Click to expand...

That's cause you've got your screen tipped over on its side! ;)
 
dreamagain said:
You can't even talk to someone on Steam because the text is super small. The Windows desktop is not optimized at all for 4k, even on 150% zoom. Using Chrome was equally annoying.
Click to expand...
You can zoom beyond 150% in the DPI setting in windows, just set a custom value. I don't understand how Windows desktop is not optimized for 4k, when you can set the DPI and text scaling as desired.

One thing is for certain; Windows 8 has an advantage with DPI and text scaling separately based on each monitor (for multiple monitors). I absolutely hate on my work windows 7 laptop that the built-in screen is 1080p at 15.6", and my external monitor is also 1080p but at 24". With the DPI set to the value I like on my external monitor, the built-in display shows everything teeny-tiny. So wish separate scaling was supported in windows 7.

That all being said...I don't think 4k is a viable day-to-day resolution. Thinking about it; if everything on your display is too small using a 4k resolution monitor, the size of the monitor vs. your viewing distance is not matched. If you have to have everything scaling down, you're seeing no benefit from 4k--OP, not you personally, but the royal 'you.'

At home, I haven't bothered to upgrade from my 1280x1024 19" monitor. Because I derive no value from higher res or higher PPI for what I do and where I sit. And it has the added benefit of not requiring a high-end video card to push the various games I play (though I don't tend to play many games anymore--probably been months since I fired up a game).

I even find 1080p for a 24" monitor to be pushing the PPI, size, distance situation. But to each their own, of course.
 
teh_chem said:
You can zoom beyond 150% in the DPI setting in windows, just set a custom value. I don't understand how Windows desktop is not optimized for 4k, when you can set the DPI and text scaling as desired.
Click to expand...

have you even used it? it doesn't work for shit.
 
Scaling works fine in most apps in Windows 7, so I assume it does in Win8 too. There are exceptions, like Steam and Skype. Steam is fixable somewhat via the skin in this thread http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bigpicture/discussions/1/882966057173220589/ but in general you just have to live with this.

Of course, that's for tiny 4k monitors. At 32", I run with 125% scaling and that's plenty in apps that support it. Steam and Skype are a little small since they don't, but they're still completely readable(I use them every day) on 4k @ 32".

So... the answer is it depends on the screen size and on what apps you use. Blaming the OS for this is rather silly, the problem is the applications, not the OS. And yes, this means it's likely it will never actually be completely fixed for every legacy application. Not ever.
 
Sancus said:
So... the answer is it depends on the screen size and on what apps you use. Blaming the OS for this is rather silly, the problem is the applications, not the OS. And yes, this means it's likely it will never actually be completely fixed for every legacy application. Not ever.
Click to expand...


Maybe scaling can be added to future monitors, so it's not needed in the OS. ;)

By the way, I envy your 32" 4k. :D
 
Scaling works like crap in Windows because icons and other assets are often much lower res in many programs so you end up with blurry icons or tiny ones.

OSX has less issues but the icon sizes are fixed at 2x normal size so it's nowhere near as flexible. In the end both operating systems just need better 3rd party support for high res displays. Anything that doesn't use native UI (like Steam, Adobe stuff etc) is going to either not scale at all or scales poorly.

4K would be viable as a replacement for several monitors but it needs to be at a fairly big size for that, curved wouldn't hurt either.

Using anything but big app suites (audio, video, graphics design, 3D modeling, programming IDEs) in fullscreen on high res displays is just silly. Most websites are best with around 1280 px wide browser window.
 
What is it with morons needing to "Turn their heads" with anything greater than 1080p? -_- Use your darned preopheral vision.
 
DVerde said:
What is it with morons needing to "Turn their heads" with anything greater than 1080p? -_- Use your darned preopheral vision.
Click to expand...


I don't quite understand the move your head thing either. I only have to move my head with 3 monitors that are relatively close to me.

That being said you can't really read/focus stuff with your peripheral vision... atleast most people can't... Maybe you just meant keep your head still and move your eyes? Cause that is what I do. I almost never have to move my head when I am using a single monitor.
 
Yeah, there's no way I can read with my peripheral.

houkouonchi said:
That being said you can't really read/focus stuff with your peripheral vision... atleast most people can't... Maybe you just meant keep your head still and move your eyes? Cause that is what I do. I almost never have to move my head when I am using a single monitor.
Click to expand...
 
1080p at 27" or larger FTW. I love having everything gigantic.
 
So 2048x1536 on 9.7" is considered best in class but 3840x2160 at 32" is too small for everyday use? I'd hate to hear what you think about 5" 1920x1080 cell phone screens...

Also, do people really maximize their browsers on large screens? I keep my browser window at about 1280 wide no matter what size screen I'm viewing it on. In fact, about the only programs I maximize a window in are Paint.Net, Visual Studio, or sometimes Excel. Outside that, the benefits of more real estate are being able to run and see multiple things at once. I often have things running in the background while I am surfing the net, so its nice to be able to monitor what is going on while not paying full attention.
 
The problem is a lot of games and applications only work properly if Windows scaling is set to 100% or 150% or less. A lot of games have menus all over the place, or you just look at an empty background if some large custom scaling is used.
 
Keldun said:
I agree, I m using 1280x800 on 30". I just buy the monitors for their real size not their resolution.
Click to expand...

Complete opposite of me... been doing 3840x2400 on 22 inch displays for years simply cause that was the highest resolution display you could buy. I also had 27 inch and 30 inch 1440p/1600p monitors as well but the one I primarily got use out of (especially for work) was my 22 inch 3840x2400 displays.
 
houkouonchi said:
Complete opposite of me... been doing 3840x2400 on 22 inch displays for years simply cause that was the highest resolution display you could buy. I also had 27 inch and 30 inch 1440p/1600p monitors as well but the one I primarily got use out of (especially for work) was my 22 inch 3840x2400 displays.
Click to expand...

What's your work?
 
icor1031 said:
What's your work?
Click to expand...

My official title is 'Lab Manager.' I am the sole person responsible for 14 racks of servers that is a test lab for the development/testing of an open source clustered/distributed file-system. Basically I am half developer and have linux system administrator (so devops-like position).

My workstation setup is now to 4k displays (22 inch + 39 inch seiki) and a 30 inch dell. Back in the older days I was single monitor (just the 22 inch 3840x2400 display) and it was very useful doing sysadmin work being able to have many terminals open on the screen at once which helped with multi-tasking when fixing a large number of issues.
 
4k is a beautiful resolution for desktop work. I have the Dell 24" 4K, the 185PPI makes everything so clear its great on the eyes. I type this on a sub 100PPI display at work and text is just horrid. Really you need Win 8.1's 150 to 200% scaling options to really make it work though. You can also tweak Chrome to scale properly, just need to Google how to do it.
 
Not only is 4k viable for day to day use: It is the future. I tried the 24-inch Dell but wasn't happy with how some of the programs I use looked at 200% DPI. Windows 8.1 itself looked great, but until all of the apps I use look good when scaled it isn't worth it to me. I'm not interested in the extra workspace: I just want the benefits of the higher PPI for fonts to look smoother, and so that I can see more details in my photography.

The panels destined for cheaper sRGB display are supposedly going to be released in a few months, according to tftcentral. That should get the price down low enough that people will start buying them. At that point, developers will have a reason to update their apps. I bet a year or two from now 4k will be more viable.
 
I have a high ppi screen on windows 8.1 and the experience is pretty terrible. I suppose the biggest issue is that I have 2 1920x1200 screens and then the high ppi screen. I can set the DPI scaling to 150% or 200%, but I can't do it on a per-monitor basis. At 100%, the 2 1920x1200 monitors looks great, but I can't read anything on the high ppi screen. As soon as I bump up the scaling, the 1920x1200 monitors look like giant crapola but I can see better on the high ppi screen.

If I use the windows 8.1 200% scaling and just have the high ppi monitor hooked up, I have a lot of the issues you guys are talking about (program ui's don't scale properly). All in all, it isn't ready for prime time.

I found this article relevant to this discussion: http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5178/hidpi-test-high-resolution-windows-a-complete-nightmare
 
If you have to move your head around to see what is on the sides on a 30" 2560x1440 monitor, you either have the retina of a gold fish or have your face buried in to the pixels...

On a seperate note, it is the cheap ass implementation of the screen that is bothering you guys the most.
28inches is way too small for a 4k screen. Since a 4k screen is made out of 4 1080p screens in a 2x2 matrix arrangement a 28inch 4k screen will have the same font issues as a 1080p resolution on a 14inch screen.

Meaning to be able to properly see everything you need to be as close to a 28inch 4 k screen, as you are to a 14inch 1080p laptop screen. In this case an arms length from the monitor wont work. Cut your distance to the monitor in half or more and things will look better.

On the other hand 32" implementation is much better since it is almos the equivalent of an older 16.5 17inch screen at 1080p which should be ok/easy to read from an arms length distance away.
 
dreamagain said:
Outside of people working with photos and what not, how about on just a day to day use. Do you guys think it's even viable? I say this because I had the Dell 4k monitor for about a week before returning it and apart from the horrible 30hz, I thought the massive resolution actually hindered a lot of the experience.

You can't even talk to someone on Steam because the text is super small. The Windows desktop is not optimized at all for 4k, even on 150% zoom. Using Chrome was equally annoying.

Obviously the situations that can properly take advantage of that massive resolution make it worth it.. but the resolution doesn't really seem optimized or ready for mainstream consumption yet. What do you guys think?
Click to expand...
Really it depends on the size of the screen.

I bet your right though. On a smaller display you would want to run lower resolution for desktop (because desktops still needs to be optimized for higher), and higher resolution for games (but you can't because video cards are not fast enough and your limited to 30 htz).

4k would look great with something in the 37" size though. I wish my Westy 37" was 4k :)

As far as moving your head around, that's not true, but your eyes might move a tad more on a larger display. I have been using my 37" for a long time now and still prefer it over my 24's.
 
I'd love a 39" 4K TV made by Samsung, Sharp, or Sony - but the prices are still too much for me. Hopefully I'll have one in a few years. Its like having a 2x2 1080p array of monitors.
 
G3ck0 said:
Doesn't sound like it works well on Windows. OS X has amazing scaling options though, I guess Windows needs to catch up.
Click to expand...

Windows is fine, it is the 3rd party applications that are crap at scaling
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top