Where are 4k 3840x2400 16:10 monitors???

My t221 has arrived. I took some pics. I will probably make thread for it. It just seems like it deserves a separated thread as there are many unique aspects, good and bad...

Dell 5K and imac retina might have finally trump this monitor in term of total pixels and DPI but it is still the only known 4K 16:10 game in town.
 
My t221 has arrived. I took some pics. I will probably make thread for it. It just seems like it deserves a separated thread as there are many unique aspects, good and bad...

Dell 5K and imac retina might have finally trump this monitor in term of total pixels and DPI but it is still the only known 4K 16:10 game in town.


I've looked at that monitor in the past, but I decided against it, as it is only 22".

I saw little purpose in increasing the resolution only to have to scale everything up and see little benefit from it.

4k for me was a matter of gaining more real estate. At 48" my JS9000 may be slightly larger and slightly lower dpi than ideal. I think it would have been perfect somewhere between 42" and 44" though. Even at 40", IMHO the dpi of a 4k monitor starts becoming higher than ideal for a desktop use.

For typical desktop use - to me - the sweet spot lies at just north of 100dpi. Maybe 105. Anything above that, and all you are doing is scaling.

It's not a phone where I am occasionally going to hold it 4" from my face, so I don't need super high dpi.

And actually, I thought the 1080p LCD screen of the Asus Zenfone 2 looked better than the 1440p OLED screen of my Droid Turbo, despite its much lower DPI.

I feel like the rush to higher dpi is really the new "megapixels" specification.

Manufacturers keep upping the numbers, because of consumer "bigger is better" mindsets, and who in their right mind is going to buy the one with the lower number, when in reality, unless you are printing billboards or doing some extreme cropping, at over 5mp or so, its really the optics that are more important.
 
Zarathustra[H];1042085490 said:
I've looked at that monitor in the past, but I decided against it, as it is only 22".

I saw little purpose in increasing the resolution only to have to scale everything up and see little benefit from it.

4k for me was a matter of gaining more real estate. At 48" my JS9000 may be slightly larger and slightly lower dpi than ideal. I think it would have been perfect somewhere between 42" and 44" though. Even at 40", IMHO the dpi of a 4k monitor starts becoming higher than ideal for a desktop use.

For typical desktop use - to me - the sweet spot lies at just north of 100dpi. Maybe 105. Anything above that, and all you are doing is scaling.

It's not a phone where I am occasionally going to hold it 4" from my face, so I don't need super high dpi.

And actually, I thought the 1080p LCD screen of the Asus Zenfone 2 looked better than the 1440p OLED screen of my Droid Turbo, despite its much lower DPI.

I feel like the rush to higher dpi is really the new "megapixels" specification.

Manufacturers keep upping the numbers, because of consumer "bigger is better" mindsets, and who in their right mind is going to buy the one with the lower number, when in reality, unless you are printing billboards or doing some extreme cropping, at over 5mp or so, its really the optics that are more important.

I always used my T221 without scaling. I have good eyes and sit close, but yeah, I generally agree. If you're scaling 4k then it stops becoming super important.
 
My t221 has arrived. I took some pics. I will probably make thread for it. It just seems like it deserves a separated thread as there are many unique aspects, good and bad...

Dell 5K and imac retina might have finally trump this monitor in term of total pixels and DPI but it is still the only known 4K 16:10 game in town.
So what did you like and dislike about it?
 
Zarathustra[H];1042085490 said:
Even at 40", IMHO the dpi of a 4k monitor starts becoming higher than ideal for a desktop use.

For typical desktop use - to me - the sweet spot lies at just north of 100dpi. Maybe 105. Anything above that, and all you are doing is scaling.

FWIW- the dpi of a 40" 4K is 110, which works out to being nearly equal to a 27" 1440p.

Scaling is mostly a subjective thing. I know for me, I'd settle on using a 27-30" 4K and use 125% scaling (or something near that).
 
FWIW- the dpi of a 40" 4K is 110, which works out to being nearly equal to a 27" 1440p.

Scaling is mostly a subjective thing. I know for me, I'd settle on using a 27-30" 4K and use 125% scaling (or something near that).


Yeah, it's been a while since I did the math, and I forgot the numbers.


IMHO, I thought my 30" 2560x1600 was near perfect from a DPI perspective. That turns out to be 100.6 dpi.

The 27" 2560x1440 always seemed a bit small unscaled to me, at their 108.8dpi

I don't mind the DPI on 23" 1920x1080 and 24" 1920x1200 screens (which turn out to be 95.8 and 94.3 dpi respectively)

My 48" 3840x2160 seems a little bit low to me, and is 91.8 dpi.


It's amusing to me how small differences in dpi it takes for me to start thinking it is too high or too low.

It looks like my tolerance range on the desktop is ~95 to 100 dpi, with closer to 100 being better.



So, based on my tastes, a 3840x2160 screen would be just about perfect at 44", which is about 100.1 dpi

Even better, I'd like to have a 45" 3840x2400 screen, at 100.6 dpi


Don't get me wrong, my 48" JS9000 is absolutely gorgeous as a monitor. I just wish the DPI were just a tad higher, and I wouldn't mind sacrificing a little size to get me there.
 
T221 default desktop icon are too small. I think most people does use scaling. It's really nice though to see near zero pixelation though.

DPI around 110-130 is good for me without having to use scaling and being able to sit within 1-2 ft from the monitor. That works out good for what I have in a 32 in and a 40 in 4K monitor right now.

A perfect replacement for my 30 in 1600p monitor would be a 35 inch 16:10 4K monitor ;)
 
So why is it that in these large 4k display discussions I rarely see the Wasabi Mango UHD420 or UHD430? With the amazing interest in Korean hi-refresh displays (Catleap and so forth) having happened it makes me curious that these don't seem to be catching on.
 
T221 default desktop icon are too small. I think most people does use scaling. It's really nice though to see near zero pixelation though.

DPI around 110-130 is good for me without having to use scaling and being able to sit within 1-2 ft from the monitor. That works out good for what I have in a 32 in and a 40 in 4K monitor right now.

A perfect replacement for my 30 in 1600p monitor would be a 35 inch 16:10 4K monitor ;)
If you use windows 10, 200% scaling will make it look just like a normal monitor without jaggies. Because that would make it have the same UI sizing as a 103 DPI monitor
 
>200 PPI is a significant improvement over <110 PPI.
Text looks awful on standard DPI monitors compared to notebooks with "retina" displays, phones, tablets etc.
Standard DPI displays are looking archaic compared to basically every other device out there now.

The problem is that - right now - displays are not high enough resolution to provide both a large workspace, and high DPI.
The best we have right now is the Dell 5K monitor, which results in a 2560x1440 workspace. 4K only gives us a 1920x1080 workspace which is not enough.

We need 8K to get here so that we can have both a 3840x2160 workspace and 2x DPI scaling.
And we need better scaling support from the GPU manufacturers to handle those sorts of resolutions.
Even 4K60 is too much for most GPUs, so we need proper support for integer scaling to avoid everything becoming a blur when we aren't rendering at the native resolution.
 
Look for an OLED monitor and you'll probably forget about 16x10. I saw an OLED display for the first time last weekend. Wow ---- the proverbial jaw drop to the floor occurred. And I have a good monitor now in the Dell 3014. I just can't any longer say I have the best looking display I've ever seen.

Costly? oh yeah. Way out of my budget until pricing on OLED comes down from the stratosphere. Black levels were out of this world nice.
 
>200 PPI is a significant improvement over <110 PPI.
Text looks awful on standard DPI monitors compared to notebooks with "retina" displays, phones, tablets etc.
Standard DPI displays are looking archaic compared to basically every other device out there now.

The problem is that - right now - displays are not high enough resolution to provide both a large workspace, and high DPI.
The best we have right now is the Dell 5K monitor, which results in a 2560x1440 workspace. 4K only gives us a 1920x1080 workspace which is not enough.

We need 8K to get here so that we can have both a 3840x2160 workspace and 2x DPI scaling.
And we need better scaling support from the GPU manufacturers to handle those sorts of resolutions.
Even 4K60 is too much for most GPUs, so we need proper support for integer scaling to avoid everything becoming a blur when we aren't rendering at the native resolution.

I think text looks just fine on a 95-100dpi desktop monitor. Get down to 90 and it is less pretty though, but still perfectly legible.

I see no benefit at all from increasing the resolution only to scale things up, and am completely uninterested in that.
 
Look for an OLED monitor and you'll probably forget about 16x10. I saw an OLED display for the first time last weekend. Wow ---- the proverbial jaw drop to the floor occurred. And I have a good monitor now in the Dell 3014. I just can't any longer say I have the best looking display I've ever seen.

Costly? oh yeah. Way out of my budget until pricing on OLED comes down from the stratosphere. Black levels were out of this world nice.

I have no experience with large OLED displays, but phone wise, I think the 1080p LCD screen on the Asus Zenfone 2 looks BETTER than the 1440p OLED screen on my Droid Turbo.

On my Turbo, by comparison, things don't look as cruspt, and everything is over saturated.

Also, OLED screens have image retention problems, don't they?

Because of this I prefer LCD screens on my devices.
 
Zarathustra[H];1042086284 said:
I think text looks just fine on a 95-100dpi desktop monitor. Get down to 90 and it is less pretty though, but still perfectly legible.
I see no benefit at all from increasing the resolution only to scale things up, and am completely uninterested in that.
Well you don't just "scale things up" - you render at a higher resolution wherever possible.

&#8804;110 PPI - typical for PC monitors - looks awful.
~220 PPI is standard across virtually all of Apple's desktop and notebook ranges.
200 pixels per inch is low compared to mobile and tablet devices. They are in the 300-500 PPI range now.
 
&#8804;110 PPI - typical for PC monitors - looks awful.
~220 PPI is standard across virtually all of Apple's desktop and notebook ranges.
200 pixels per inch is low compared to mobile and tablet devices. They are in the 300-500 PPI range now.

Yeah, but you don't hold a desktop monitor 4 inches from your face...

At least I don't :p

In my standard seating position at my desk, sitting straight up, if i stretch my arms straight forward, I don't reach my screen.
 
I've been using a 27 2560x1440 along with a 27" 1920x1280 (I think).

I feel like I enjoy reading on the 1920 more so than the 2560 display even though it cost around 4x the price.

What would be the logical upgrade for 2016? I don't game much. Generally a workstation.
 
Last edited:
I've been using dual 25.5 1920 x 1200 monitors - NEC 2690WUXI2

What would be the logical upgrade for 2016? I don't game much. Generally a workstation.

Dual 30 in 2560 x1600. Should be able to get them for around 300 each on ebay. I recommend HP 3065. I have 4 of those and they are nice.
 
Umm. you can accept less screen size and less resolution, but i'm most certainly not going to! Speak for yourself!

Its people like you that don't understand aspect ratios and how they relate to screen sizes that has caused the "winning" of a lame aspect ratio. Just because the majority "voted" for something, doesnt always mean its the right call. Especially when it comes to tech.

In the real world, it ain't happening. Might as well deal with it.

And like others have said, at 4k, it doesn't even matter anyway. There's so much real estate at 4k+ resolutions.

If you look at it historically, weird, non-standard aspect ratios have always been a failure.

New PC games such as Dragon's Dogma STILL don't work with 21:9 properly. NO. I'm not going to spend the majority of my life dealing with bullshit because I bought some weird, non-standard hardware that nobody wants to support. It's the same thing for 16:10. Nobody's going to support it. Everyone's targeting 16:9. There are places for customization, but this isn't one of them yet. The reality is that we live in a world that prefers standardization because it's easier, developers are going to be as lazy as possible, and anything but the most common setup is going to be supported worse than the standard.

You can spend the rest of your life bitching that X game doesn't work with your novel aspect ratio, but I'm going with the flow on this one.
 
At 4K can one of these 40" TVs be used or is the resolution not sufficient ?

I think the Samsung TV's are great.

I have a 48" JS9000. the DPI is a tiny bit low for my tastes. Ideally a 44" screen would be perfect for me, giving me the same DPI as a 30" 2560x1600 screen. Unfrotunately none of them came in this size.

A 40" model may be slightly better if you like higher dpi.
 
I have the 40 in Samsung un40ju6500 and the size and DPI is good for a monitor. DPI is same ballpark as 30in 1600p.
 
I strongly believe 16:10 is the closest we have to a "golden ratio" for portrait-landscape-portrait configurations for mixed productivity and media. I use the famous 3:4, 16:10, 3:4 PLP configuration.

There is a reason this setup has endured: it most closely conforms to the arrangement of human anatomy. Anything wider or taller requires impractical amounts of head swivel or tilt. Anything narrower or shorter discards useful pixel placement. This is the case for my anatomy and that of most humans. Sadly the industry has pushed the 16:9 aspect ratio because they think that it is easier to sell a monitor that is "just like a movie!" even if it objectively inferior for productivity use.

So if you want a 16:10 monitor in the center of a PLP setup, you have to use older lower resolution monitors, such as the venerable 2560x1600.
 
I strongly believe 16:10 is the closest we have to a "golden ratio" for portrait-landscape-portrait configurations for mixed productivity and media. I use the famous 3:4, 16:10, 3:4 PLP configuration.

There is a reason this setup has endured: it most closely conforms to the arrangement of human anatomy. Anything wider or taller requires impractical amounts of head swivel or tilt. Anything narrower or shorter discards useful pixel placement. This is the case for my anatomy and that of most humans. Sadly the industry has pushed the 16:9 aspect ratio because they think that it is easier to sell a monitor that is "just like a movie!" even if it objectively inferior for productivity use.

So if you want a 16:10 monitor in the center of a PLP setup, you have to use older lower resolution monitors, such as the venerable 2560x1600.

This is why 30 in 16:10 monitors are also popular. Two 20 inch 1600 x 1200 in portrait is almost equivalent in display size and pixels to a 30 inch 2560 x1600 in landscape.

I might have to pony up to buy two 20 in 1600x1200 with tilting to do the 3:4, 16:10, 3:4 like you :). So beside using two 20 in in portrait mode along with a 30 in, is there any other similar configuration?
 
So beside using two 20 in in portrait mode along with a 30 in, is there any other similar configuration?
40" UHD's size and resolution makes up for its 16:9 aspect ratio compared to basically any other monitor configuration.
Would it be nicer to have a 16:10 panel instead? Sure. Does it matter? Not really...

40" UHD vs 30" 16:10
30-inch-16x10-vs-40-i5bry2.png


I would definitely prefer to see a return of 100 PPI (or 200 PPI HiDPI) 30" 16:10 panels, instead of the 27" 16:9 panels that we have today - since they are a lot smaller - but 40" UHD still gives you a lot more workspace than anything else available.
 
Still nothing has such a perfect fit together like two 20 inch (1600x1200) in portrait mode together with a 30 inch (2560x1600) in landscape mode. It's almost like that's a perfect marriage that's meant for each other ;)
 
Still nothing has such a perfect fit together like two 20 inch (1600x1200) in portrait mode together with a 30 inch (2560x1600) in landscape mode. It's almost like that's a perfect marriage that's meant for each other ;)
Eh, bezels are kinda large for putting them next to each other.
 
Very few 16:10 panels are made anymore, as they require a different manufacturing process then the more common 16:9 panels, thus raising costs. It's been that way for a while now.
 
I created an account just for this discussion. I'd love a bigger 16:10 screen, however I still haven't seen it. I do know that Philips has a 43" UHD screen, the BDM4350UC/00 (since I am new I'm not allowed to post a link) which would have a DPI of around 102. I now use a HP zr30w which i love, but would like more real estate. I'm waiting for reviews for the Philips but I doubt that the quality will be on the level of the HP.
 
Quality of monitor is defined by quality of the panel. Neither Philips, nor HP are panel vendors.

I don't see what that has to do with my post. I'm talking about two specific monitors which, regardless of the panel vendors, have a certain quality. All I know is that the zr30w works well for me and colors are displayed correct, which, as was the message I was trying to get across, I don't know about the BDM4350UC/00.
 
To the OP - out of curiosity what do you do?

I frequently work with a number of word docs and PDF files open at the same time and I've learned over the years to adapt to however much screen real estate I have. Sadly we have standard 1080p monitors at work so I either have to alt-tab a lot or have tiny windows, but on my 40" 4K (Philips) at home I'm able to have lots of stuff open at 100%. My documents are often 100s of pages long so I'm used to scrolling - not a game changer to be able to see the whole page at once.
 
http://www.web-cyb.org/images/lcds/4k_21x9_2560x-27in-and-30in_1080p_same-ppi.jpg
4k_21x9_2560x-27in-and-30in_1080p_same-ppi.jpg


The 4k in the example comes out to be around 40.8". Mentioning that for reference since someone was talking about 4k ppi getting too large vs screen sizes. At 40.8" or less, 4k is equal to or greater than a 2560x ~27"/30" 's ~ 108.8ppi.

I like 4k for the desktop real-estate. Some 4k tvs can accept 1080p at 120fps-hz native input for gaming as well. However they lack variable hz currently (g-sync, freesync), and have no modern gaming overdrive (or better yet, variable rate overdrive with g-sync).

Once you have a large enough desktop(with enough resolution), if you are running apps you can size your windows and apps however you want, in whatever aspect you want. Apps like displayfusion will remember size and monitor position per app too. You can also define it specifically by coordinates per app or shortcut if you want.
In the future I'd like a whole wall of resolution (with augmented vr glasses perhaps someday), with virtual screens, windows/apps, virtual objects, people, creatures, devices.. anywhere I want, in whatever aspect and size I want.

For gaming at a desk I think dp 1.3 gpus on dp 1.3 , 21:9, 3440x1440, high hz with variable hz monitors would be superior in the near future. Of course you have to consider the graphic horsepower needed to get even to 100fps-hz average on very high or "very high+" custom settings with sli at 2560x1440 and 3440x1440, let alone 3840x2160.. Going forward, the arbitrary graphics ceiling cutoffs for "ultra" will only get higher so that isn't going to change how difficult it will be to hit 100fps-hz ave or higher for long even with the next gen of gpus. Once you throw HDR into the mix, 4k not only is going to be the lowest frame rates (and thus highest blur and lowest motion definition) vs graphics detail settings outside of multi monitor gaming setups, but again will be limited to 60fps-hz max if using HDR on a HDRange capable monitor.
For a monitor dedicated to desktop/apps alone, a decent sized 4k with large desktop real-estate would be the way to go though imo.

A7QjyOz.png
 
Last edited:
You probably are.

I use a PLP setup for work with two 1600x1200 21" screens and a 1920x1200 24" screen in the middle. I would happily swap that for the Philips 16:9 40" 4K screen though.

As for future home screen, I will either go for the Philips 40" or one of the new 34" 21:9 screens.

No he isn't
If you google it you can find thousands of people looking for professional monitors for working instead of just monitors to watch movies.
And 16:10 or taller monitors are ideal for that tasks (programming, using microsoft office, surfing the Internet...)
 
Necro alert. thread dead since April/2016
and i doubt there are thousands of people looking for monitors to work with more vertical resolution than one present in 3840x2160.
 
Zarathustra[H]

I have been thinking about getting a mic (with pop filter) for making better skype calls. -- I was wondering if you like your setup for making phone calls, or do you still your phone for these things. (facetime, skype calls etc)
 
Zarathustra[H]

I have been thinking about getting a mic (with pop filter) for making better skype calls. -- I was wondering if you like your setup for making phone calls, or do you still your phone for these things. (facetime, skype calls etc)


That microphone died a while back. I got a CAD U37 to replace it. Yes, I do use it for calls and it seems to work well. I haven't bothered with the pop guard lately though, as I haven't been doing any recordings.
 
Back
Top