Search results

This is utterly false. Your eyes are always moving when reading, eyestrain is worse with a large OLED because of how much extra movement they require (not just eye, but head and neck) which flies in the face of every article ever published about ergonomic comfort and eye fatigue. You will not...

Well, people can decide that for themselves I guess. That was my experience with it as the owner of one for over six years.

There's nothing favorable about reflections, and you will still see them at night if you have any light in the room, which you should if you care about your eyes. I'm not sure where you got the idea I had a bad monitor, the Dell I had looked great aside from the reflections, which I got used to...

Listen man, I was die hard on glossy displays and used a Dell S-series monitor for years because it had a glass panel, and when I switched to a modern matte display I never looked back. Even in a light controlled room there are reflections, and I didn't realize how much it was compromising the...

I have an HTPC in there already. You guys seem confused by the fact that not everybody wants a giant TV on their desk.

I have an OLED TV in my living room where it belongs, but thanks.

Plenty of people using TV's as monitors, yeah. I'll pass. Let me know when they make something under 40".

Of course. OLED will never be suitable for the consumer desktop market unless signifigant advances are made with the technology, or another type of emissive panel supercedes it.

That has nothing to do with resolution, it's how the assets in the game were designed.

Resolution is entirely about pixel density. A 100" display and a 20" display that are both the same resolution, the 100" display will look far worse because the same number of pixels are spread out over a much larger surface area. The way your post is worded I feel like i'm missing something here.

Have you looked at the setups people use here?

As far as I know (unless i'm mistaken) there's no way they can actually prove this just from looking at the output of the game, they can only make guesses based on how the pixels look. But hey if i'm wrong then good for consoles. Either way, what matters is how the display looks. On a big...

No console game plays at 4K, the internal render resolution is upscaled to 4K on output from anything as low as 720 based on engine demand and the performance of the dynamic resolution scaling.

There isn't one. Every monitor is a compromise of what features you care about the most and each of the three main panel technologies used in desktop monitors sucks in their own way.

Consoles don't matter, there's a new one every few years and it's a completely different market. 1440p has been an option on consumer displays for a decade at this point regardless of what videogame companies have been doing, and if gets phased out by anything it will be higher resolutions like...

I've tried to solve this question on my own but I haven't been able to get a solid answer. I'm looking at a few Asus monitors that boast "flicker free eyecare technology." Now to me, "flicker free" means no PWM, however according to measurements i've seen from RTINGS these displays are still...

The reason modern displays aren't transparent like they are in sci-fi movies is not because we lack the technology to make them transparent, but because making them transparent is stupid.

Pretty sure that's the point he's making, by today's standards it's not great so it's not going to be on most peoples' radar. The kind of display you want doesn't exist, and things like input lag and refresh rate are important features to a lot of people that are as much of a dealbreaker if they...

Asus ProArt PA278QV - 8bit 100% sRGB/rec.709 w/ ∆E< 2 (this is not wide gamut, if you need wide gamut just check the second one) going from your list it has: full tilt / swivel / height adjustment with the included stand 445cd/m2 sustained max brightness & AG coating DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort...

16:10 is a dead format. Everything else on this list is easily found on any business class or professional display. The only reason you would have any trouble finding a monitor, is because you want 16:10. Nothing else you listed is unique or particularly special.

Trust me there's no point getting into it with a guy who thinks display technology stopped improving 30 years ago.

4K @ 48" is 91ppi, 1080p @ 27" is 88ppi, the pixel density is nearly identical. If "low resolution" is such a concern then you should avoid the CX48 too.

Consider me skeptical that you have it on for 8+ hours a day and have no burn-in. Hiding your task bar won't change the positon of toolbars in editing programs, tabs in your browser, HUD's in your games, etc.

That's not how pixel density works, and 4K is getting easier to drive. If your personal experience is equivocating a 13" laptop screen to a 27" desktop display I suggest rethinking that opinion.

The hell are you talking about? Desktop 4K (3840x2160) has about 8.2 million total pixels, while 5120x1440 would have roughly 7.3 million. Certainly it's not 4K, but it's pretty close and definitely not as easy to drive as say, 1080p (which has about 2 million total pixels for comparison) and...

"Software as a service" is a scam, and Windows 10 continues Microsoft's growing trend of decreasing the amount of control the user has over their own computer. Change is all well and good but some things are just worse. When i'm blocked from removing what Microsoft decides are "core system...

Color reproduction is about more than just coverage, it's about uniformity. Even if a TN panel claims to have 100% sRGB coverage, it will never have the color or luminance uniformity of any decent IPS, this is seen strongly in solid shades of color which tend to change around the top, bottom, or...

This is a difficult choice for me between 32" 4K for pixel density, or 32" 1440p for high refresh rate gaming. I'm interested in seeing what type of displays actually come out because it's nothing but speculation right now, so hopefully i'll make a decision by the time we actually get them. I...

You own it, you should know wether it bothers you or not.

Which one of these is supposed to be a gaming display? Both the BenQ and the LG are billed as professional monitors and cost about the same.

Honestly everything else sounds like a much bigger problem to me than the POST screen. I mean who really cares what the BIOS looks like?

So glad I held out and didn't pay the G-Sync tax.

Nvidia's Adaptive Sync is pretty good. You'll get tearing when you lose frames but it solves the input lag problem and works on any monitor.

It's the norm on consoles because they don't have the power to render 4K at native res, even at 30 frames. (Which feels awful.) There's no demand for it on PC because the only market space it would occupy is people who want to drive 4K displays on mid-tier hardware but hell even the 1070 can do...

My bad.

There are plenty of wide-gamut monitors on the market and few games actually make use of the extended color space, console or otherwise. IPS certainly has its flaws but don't mistake mid-tier 144hz gaming monitors for the kind of IPS performance found in professional monitors. PC gaming is...

There's no legitimate research that has proven any long-term damage, excessive blue light can tire your eyes out faster (and some people are more sensitive to it) but they'll recover with a bit of rest.

Other considerations aside i'd say be aware that 4K @ 27" is going to require a lot of desktop scaling to be usable, and there are varying issues with this since the experience isn't consistent across multiple programs. That also extends to any games that don't offer HUD/UI scaling and those...

Somehow I don't think the phone is the problem here.

Well it's a TV, so finding a clamp-style mount that works with it may be impossible. The issue as you've said is the size rather than the weight and I don't know any that are designed to have the kind of range you'd need. VESA standards may also pose a challenge and you'd have to use some kind...