What's wrong with text-scaling?

[Panel]

I was wondering why there's such a strong push in this community to run 4K monitors at native resolution, without text scaling. I know that in the early days of 4K, Windows scaling was awful, but it's improved a great deal since then. It just got me thinking, is there really any reason to not use small 4K monitors anymore?

I know there's the new argument that larger screens, such as TVs, are simply better due to the immersion factor, but is that really enough?

 

[zone74]

Many people here are dinosaurs that only see resolution as workspace, not detail.

They don't understand that display size should determine workspace, not resolution.

Once 8K gets here, they might begin to understand, since that can display a ton of workspace even while scaling is active.

 

[-PK-]

With 20/20 vision and a view distance of 24" the average human eye can't discern pixel density above 143.5 ppi, which is equivalent to a 30.5" 4k monitor (144.45 ppi).

Windows's 100% scaling is between 96-110 dpi, which is why most people with 15.6" 1080p laptops, would set the scaling to 125% instead of adjusting each individual font size setting to make the text and menus appear normal size (141.25 native screen / 125% dpi scaling = 112.97 ppi).
The same reason some reviewers for 26.5" or 32" 4k monitors say they generally feel more comfortable with the dpi scaling set to 150% or 125%, even though it decreases the amount of workspace in adobe premiere. You can adjust all of the system font sizes and web browser scaling if you wanted to for general purpose, but there may be a few program menu's that don't scale that way.

 

[zone74]

With 20/20 vision and a view distance of 24" the average human eye can't discern pixel density above 143.5 ppi, which is equivalent to a 30.5" 4k monitor (144.45 ppi).

What you describe is the pixel density at which you can still resolve an individual pixel.
An ideal display would have enough resolution that you can never see pixels on the display.
So pixel density should be at least twice what it takes to resolve an individual pixel.

Windows's 100% scaling is at 110 dpi, which is why most people with 15.6" 1080p laptops, would set the scaling to 125% instead of adjusting each individual font size setting to make the text and menus appear normal size (141.25 native screen / 125% dpi scaling = 112.97 ppi).
The same reason some reviewers for 26.5" or 32" 4k monitors say they generally feel more comfortable with the dpi scaling set to 150% or 125%, even though it decreases the amount of workspace in adobe premiere. You can adjust all of the system font sizes and web browser scaling if you wanted to for general purpose, but there may be a few program menu's that don't scale that way.

Windows uses 96 DPI, not 110.
Display manufacturers have kept pushing up pixel density gradually over the years to reduce costs. (smaller panels)

The other issue is that scaling is ideally performed at integer ratios.
When displaying applications that are not DPI-aware, non-integer ratios require bilinear filtering to be applied while integer ratios get nearest-neighbor scaling.

This means that the ideal PC monitor is a 30.6" 7680x4320 display.

1. It is 288 pixels per inch so you should not be able to discern individual pixels on the display.
2. Its pixel density is 3x Windows' base DPI of 96, so items will be displayed at true scale. (just like Microsoft's Surface Studio display)
3. It gives you a 2560x1440 workspace at 3x scale, and the option of a 3840x2160 workspace at 2x scale if you really want/need that. (ideally that would be used with a 45.9" display)

 

[Luke M]

This is a gaming centric forum, that's why. High ppi is an inefficient use of GPU power.

 

[-PK-]

What you describe is the pixel density at which you can still resolve an individual pixel.
An ideal display would have enough resolution that you can never see pixels on the display.
So pixel density should be at least twice what it takes to resolve an individual pixel.

Windows uses 96 DPI, not 110.

You're right, windows native is actually 96 dpi. What I mean is 96-110 ppi is considered the normal range for native scaling without needing to adjust font size, scaling, or moving your head closer to the screen.

I have heard people say 288 ppi before, doubling what it takes to distinguish between two neighboring pixels. I don't really understand why they figure they need to double that. I could understand the argument for a little more just to be sure, but double? Shouldn't anything higher than what you can't distinguish be indistinguishable? I use the Ophthalmologist formula:
1 in*(25.4 mm/in) / ( 24 in*(25.4 mm/in)*2*tan(1 am*(1 am/60 deg)/2) ) = 143.24 ppi

 

[Panel]

This is a gaming centric forum, that's why. High ppi is an inefficient use of GPU power.

This makes literally no sense, at least to me. Higher PPI makes your screen look better, period. Even when you pass the point where you can't distinguish a pixel. Think of it like this... when it comes to frame rate, you'll be able to distiguish individual frames up to a degree. Think of a powerpoint presentation for this. At a certain point, you can no longer distinguish between each frame, and it instead looks like motion. No one can see each individual frame at 60Hz. Yet still, 120Hz clearly looks better than 60. Similarly, higher PPI WILL look better. Thus,games will look better. Thus, for a gaming central forum, there's no con to gaming on higher PPI.

The only con that I can find is text work, which will be too small at native scaling. Hence why I made this thread: to ask what's the problem with using text scaling. I did get some of that, but not a lot. lol

All y'all have really done is try to calculate the best PPI. But all your estimations have been above the point where you can still read without scaling (110). So my point still remains: even if we were to use any of those resolutions, we'd need scaling. So why do people avoid it at all costs?

 

[-PK-]

This makes literally no sense, at least to me. Higher PPI makes your screen look better, period. Even when you pass the point where you can't distinguish a pixel. Think of it like this... when it comes to frame rate, you'll be able to distiguish individual frames up to a degree. Think of a powerpoint presentation for this. At a certain point, you can no longer distinguish between each frame, and it instead looks like motion. No one can see each individual frame at 60Hz. Yet still, 120Hz clearly looks better than 60. Similarly, higher PPI WILL look better. Thus,games will look better. Thus, for a gaming central forum, there's no con to gaming on higher PPI.

The only con that I can find is text work, which will be too small at native scaling. Hence why I made this thread: to ask what's the problem with using text scaling. I did get some of that, but not a lot. lol

All y'all have really done is try to calculate the best PPI. But all your estimations have been above the point where you can still read without scaling (110). So my point still remains: even if we were to use any of those resolutions, we'd need scaling. So why do people avoid it at all costs?

You can use higher ppi's, you will just need to adjust all of the system font sizes and some apps will ignore it. Menu options and dialog boxes will probably be small. Web browsers have their own personalized text scaling options, but you may want to use a default zoom level instead to make pictures larger. You can always set the zoom back to 100% for sites like flickr. All of that will give you more screen space in workstation apps, if you can put up with everything being smaller. Anything that the system doesn't recognize as text will be smaller, including some program menus, options, dialog boxes, mouse cursor, pictures, etc. Trying to write papers or excel spreadsheets and identifying those weird formatting icons while everything is 30-50% smaller will make you want to move your head closer to the screen, but if all you do is video edit and don't mind the video thumbnails being small it could be worth it.

For gaming, higher ppi will look better at the cost of performance. You might have to turn down some graphics settings for a 4k screen resolution, compared to 1440p for the same monitor size. There are also other options like 1440p ultrawide to consider. If you were doing photo production, you'd want a non-curved display.

 

[zone74]

So why do people avoid it at all costs?

I already explained it. Many people here don't understand DPI scaling and think that a higher resolution must mean more workspace.

You can use higher ppi's, you will just need to adjust all of the system font sizes and some apps will ignore it. Menu options and dialog boxes will probably be small. Web browsers have their own personalized text scaling options, but you may want to use a default zoom level instead to make pictures larger. You can always set the zoom back to 100% for sites like flickr. All of that will give you more screen space in workstation apps, if you can put up with the small menus.

Are you not aware that DPI scaling exists?

 

[-PK-]

Are you not aware that DPI scaling exists?

He was asking about using text scaling, instead of dpi scaling on a small 4k monitor.

 

[KG-Prime90]

Hmn. Thinking about it, i have always custom skin my Windows UI and you can change the default font sizes for most UI elements within a skin. Some things are hard coded in Win 10, like perhaps Apps, though i removed all apps and store features from 10 so i don't care, but most general Windows menus font sizes ect can be changed to be larger by default before using any scaling. About programs that don't play nice, for some you can use manifest hacks. It's not ideal but there are at least ways to get things usable in a pinch. There will still be somethings you can't do anything about like legacy games ect. But, then you can run 1080p windowed, or whatever, and or some things you might just have to deal with.

 

[Panel]

Many people here are dinosaurs that only see resolution as workspace, not detail.

They don't understand that display size should determine workspace, not resolution.

Once 8K gets here, they might begin to understand, since that can display a ton of workspace even while scaling is active.

I already explained it. Many people here don't understand DPI scaling and think that a higher resolution must mean more workspace.

I somehow missed this post. Thanks for the info!

You can use higher ppi's, you will just need to adjust all of the system font sizes and some apps will ignore it. Menu options and dialog boxes will probably be small. Web browsers have their own personalized text scaling options, but you may want to use a default zoom level instead to make pictures larger. You can always set the zoom back to 100% for sites like flickr. All of that will give you more screen space in workstation apps, if you can put up with everything being smaller. Anything that the system doesn't recognize as text will be smaller, including some program menus, options, dialog boxes, mouse cursor, pictures, etc. Trying to write papers or excel spreadsheets and identifying those weird formatting icons while everything is 30-50% smaller will make you want to move your head closer to the screen, but if all you do is video edit and don't mind the video thumbnails being small it could be worth it.

For gaming, higher ppi will look better at the cost of performance. You might have to turn down some graphics settings for a 4k screen resolution, compared to 1440p for the same monitor size. There are also other options like 1440p ultrawide to consider. If you were doing photo production, you'd want a non-curved display.

I must commend you on this excellent explanation. Thank you! However, it seems that I misspoke in the thread title. I wrote text-scaling (which you addressed fabulously), but I meant DPI scaling. I honestly didn't realize that there was a difference in the two.

Are there any major cons for DPI scaling, other then the "resolution-is-workspace" that I lot of members hold here?

Hmn. Thinking about it, i have always custom skin my Windows UI and you can change the default font sizes for most UI elements within a skin. Some things are hard coded in Win 10, like perhaps Apps, though i removed all apps and store features from 10 so i don't care, but most general Windows menus font sizes ect can be changed to be larger by default before using any scaling. About programs that don't play nice, for some you can use manifest hacks. It's not ideal but there are at least ways to get things usable in a pinch. There will still be somethings you can't do anything about like legacy games ect. But, then you can run 1080p windowed, or whatever, and or some things you might just have to deal with.

Put simply, you're on the same page as zone. You're pointing out that there aren't that many issues with DPI scaling, and that it's overly avoided for few reasons. Cool, and thanks.

 

[kasakka]

I would use scaling even on my 65" TV at a reasonable viewing distance for the size. The only problem with scaling is that there are some older software and some with custom UI that don't scale properly so you either have something that is hard to read or something that looks blurry, especially for icons which don't have enough resolution.

4K just has so many pixels that running without scaling is not sensible. To me 1440p at 27" is about as large a size and res I would run without scaling. There is quite a bit of range to choose how much scaling you want to employ to get the right combination of readability and desktop space. If desktop space matters to you the most then it is best to go with an ultrawide.

 

[Panel]

I would use scaling even on my 65" TV at a reasonable viewing distance for the size. The only problem with scaling is that there are some older software and some with custom UI that don't scale properly so you either have something that is hard to read or something that looks blurry, especially for icons which don't have enough resolution.

4K just has so many pixels that running without scaling is not sensible. To me 1440p at 27" is about as large a size and res I would run without scaling. There is quite a bit of range to choose how much scaling you want to employ to get the right combination of readability and desktop space. If desktop space matters to you the most then it is best to go with an ultrawide.

I'm not sure I understand. You say that you'd use scaling on a 65" TV (67.78 PPI), but not on a 27" 1440p (108.79 PPI)? I understand that the distance between your face and the screen plays a role, but I still fail to see why you'd need text scaling at such a large ppi (and thus, text size).

I know 4K has a lot more pixels, but as you can see, at 65" there are still a lot less pixels in the same amount of area as compared to 1440p. I'm sure you have your reasons, but make sure not to fool yourself into thinking 4K is something bigger than it is.

 

[kasakka]

I'm not sure I understand. You say that you'd use scaling on a 65" TV (67.78 PPI), but not on a 27" 1440p (108.79 PPI)? I understand that the distance between your face and the screen plays a role, but I still fail to see why you'd need text scaling at such a large ppi (and thus, text size).

I know 4K has a lot more pixels, but as you can see, at 65" there are still a lot less pixels in the same amount of area as compared to 1440p. I'm sure you have your reasons, but make sure not to fool yourself into thinking 4K is something bigger than it is.

Viewing distance is key. A 65" is pretty huge so you have to sit quite a ways from it if you don't want to move your head around. At that distance, without scaling any text is close to unreadable and icons are quite small. I think I used something like 125% scaling with that size so not that much but still some.

 

[Panel]

Viewing distance is key. A 65" is pretty huge so you have to sit quite a ways from it if you don't want to move your head around. At that distance, without scaling any text is close to unreadable and icons are quite small. I think I used something like 125% scaling with that size so not that much but still some.

Ah, so it's that viewing distance increases with size, and PPI required for reading decreases with viewing distance. You need things to be bigger, hence the scalling. Gotcha.

 

[kasakka]

Ah, so it's that viewing distance increases with size, and PPI required for reading decreases with viewing distance. You need things to be bigger, hence the scalling. Gotcha.

Yeah, but I guess it depends on what works for you. Seen several people with pretty big looking TVs using them about as close as my 27" monitor. I could never do that because I don't want to be constantly moving my head to see the corners. On the desktop I would probably not go larger than 30" for a 16:10 aspect ratio and much larger than 32" for 16:9. Those seem quite good sizes for comfortably filling your field of view and then you would use scaling on 4K displays to get the UI element size and desktop space to your liking.

It's also worth mentioning that the more pixels you have for displaying a single letter, the smaller it can be to still stay readable but of course at some point people just don't have good enough vision for it to be comfortable so scaling is necessary. You can easily see this with non-mobile compatible websites on a smartphone, you pretty much had to use zoom a lot on the older smartphones but the current ones with 1080p+ are generally very usable and zoom is more required for hitting UI elements close together.

 

[carlmart]

I'm sorry to drop in with a question that is related to this discussion, I think, that someone might help me deal with more accurately.

Last year I bought a Viewsonic 32" 4K monitor to have more resolution and to increase the size of the text characters on the screen, on all programs.

Things have improved quite a lot, but I still have programs that do not increase character size without some issues.

What I learned to do was lowering the display resolution to 2560 x 1440, and increasing text size by 150%.

I understand there's also a keyboard adjustment I can use on some occasions, which I forgot.

So I wonder if there's anything else I can do, perhaps on the Nvidia setup or somewhere else.

Another thing I would like to know if it's possible to perform some color and contrast adjustment with some precision.

In my video days, where I worked for more than 30 years, you used the color bars and blue screen to adjust color in several areas, like phase, and contrast. Is there an adjustment setup or routine I can use?

Such adjustment I would also like to use on my living room 50" 4K TV, and eventually on my video projector. But I wasn't too lucky looking for such adjustments on the web.

Can someone guide me on where to look for that?

Thanks!

 

[Snowdog]

I'm sorry to drop in with a question that is related to this discussion, I think, that someone might help me deal with more accurately.

Last year I bought a Viewsonic 32" 4K monitor to have more resolution and to increase the size of the text characters on the screen, on all programs.

Things have improved quite a lot, but I still have programs that do not increase character size without some issues.

What I learned to do was lowering the display resolution to 2560 x 1440, and increasing text size by 150%.

This is exactly why I DON'T want a 4K display for my computer. Scaling is still hit and miss, and if you actually running 2560x1440, you have lost any benefit. Running 1440p on a native 1440p monitor is better than running 1440p on a 4K monitor.

 

[kasakka]

I'm sorry to drop in with a question that is related to this discussion, I think, that someone might help me deal with more accurately.

Last year I bought a Viewsonic 32" 4K monitor to have more resolution and to increase the size of the text characters on the screen, on all programs.

Things have improved quite a lot, but I still have programs that do not increase character size without some issues.

What I learned to do was lowering the display resolution to 2560 x 1440, and increasing text size by 150%.

I understand there's also a keyboard adjustment I can use on some occasions, which I forgot.

So I wonder if there's anything else I can do, perhaps on the Nvidia setup or somewhere else.

Another thing I would like to know if it's possible to perform some color and contrast adjustment with some precision.

In my video days, where I worked for more than 30 years, you used the color bars and blue screen to adjust color in several areas, like phase, and contrast. Is there an adjustment setup or routine I can use?

Such adjustment I would also like to use on my living room 50" 4K TV, and eventually on my video projector. But I wasn't too lucky looking for such adjustments on the web.

Can someone guide me on where to look for that?

Thanks!

You don't want to run at a non-native resolution, it's just blurry. It's better to instead use DPI scaling so you have a comfortable UI/text size and if you have problematic software, turn DPI scaling off for those and maybe increase font sizes in the software if it has the option.

For color calibration you would ideally use color calibrator hardware and its software but if you don't want to buy that, the best you can do is run the display calibration (in Windows just search "calibrate"), follow its instructions and use the display OSD settings to adjust colors. http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ has more test images.

PS. Funny looking at my old comments in this thread where I felt that 32" 16:9 would be the biggest I would want. I now run a 49" super ultrawide and feel like that could be a bit bigger and considering the 48" LG OLED.

 

[carlmart]

I tried DPI scaling for a while, and it didn't seem to work for me. But I would be willing to try again if someone tells me how to control it.

Agreed that it's much better to use the native resolution: that had been my idea.

In any case things do not look blurry, apparently, with the resolution I'm using. But if there's a better way I want to try it.

 

[Panel]

This is exactly why I DON'T want a 4K display for my computer. Scaling is still hit and miss, and if you actually running 2560x1440, you have lost any benefit. Running 1440p on a native 1440p monitor is better than running 1440p on a 4K monitor.

I use 1440p scaling on a 5K monitor. It's natively doubled, and looks beautiful. I look forward to 8K so that I can go up to 40" screens or 35"+ ultrawides without loosing clarity.

PS. Funny looking at my old comments in this thread where I felt that 32" 16:9 would be the biggest I would want. I now run a 49" super ultrawide and feel like that could be a bit bigger and considering the 48" LG OLED.

It really is strange how our needs change based on the times. I'm really upset to know that no new OLED monitors came out in that time. They technically did, but nothing realistic. No one's going to be willing to pay $4K for such a small size.