Where are the 30.5" 4K and 5K monitors?

gan7114

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
275
I wonder why we aren't seeing more focus on this particular size from manufacturers.

Windows UI and fonts are based around 96 PPI. Case in point, Microsoft just released the Surface Studio. Why did they choose to make it 28" at a 3:2 ratio, with a 4500 x 3000 resolution? Because that amounts to 192 PPI, which is precisely 200% (2x) of 96 PPI, and allows for clean scaling.

The same can be achieved with 16:9. As it turns out, 30.5" is the ideal size when it comes to scaling Windows using 4K and 5K resolutions at 16:9 aspect ratios (which the vast majority of monitors are these days). So with 4K, a 30.5" equals 144 PPI, which allows for 150% scaling (1.5x). And with 5K, 30.5" equals 192 PPI, again allowing for nice clean scaling at 200% (2x).

Food for thought.
 
I wonder why we aren't seeing more focus on this particular size from manufacturers.

Windows UI and fonts are based around 96 PPI. Case in point, Microsoft just released the Surface Studio. Why did they choose to make it 28" at a 3:2 ratio, with a 4500 x 3000 resolution? Because that amounts to 192 PPI, which is precisely 200% (2x) of 96 PPI, and allows for clean scaling.

The same can be achieved with 16:9. As it turns out, 30.5" is the ideal size when it comes to scaling Windows using 4K and 5K resolutions at 16:9 aspect ratios (which the vast majority of monitors are these days). So with 4K, a 30.5" equals 144 PPI, which allows for 150% scaling (1.5x). And with 5K, 30.5" equals 192 PPI, again allowing for nice clean scaling at 200% (2x).

Food for thought.

Fonts are vector graphics. IOW they are completely indifferent to scaling factor. Only certain fontsets are designed around LCD usage---but most all are not (AFAIK only Ubuntu, Calibri, and Segoe, and Apple's San Francisco all the rest are not) A size 200 letter has the same shape as a size 2.

96PPI didn't even work that well either-remember all the subpixel rendering and ClearType settings? Serif-font rendering on 96PPI LCDs was so bad that when they became the norm Microsoft changed the default typeface in Word from Times New Roman to Calibri (AKA sans).


As for Windows generally....scaling is a mess. Even an even 200% wouldn't make for clean scaling.
 
Fonts are vector graphics. IOW they are completely indifferent to scaling factor. Only certain fontsets are designed around LCD usage---but most all are not (AFAIK only Ubuntu, Calibri, and Segoe, and Apple's San Francisco all the rest are not) A size 200 letter has the same shape as a size 2.

96PPI didn't even work that well either-remember all the subpixel rendering and ClearType settings? Serif-font rendering on 96PPI LCDs was so bad that when they became the norm Microsoft changed the default typeface in Word from Times New Roman to Calibri (AKA sans).


As for Windows generally....scaling is a mess. Even an even 200% wouldn't make for clean scaling.

It can be a mess, but it's not anywhere near what a lot of people make it out to be, especially with Win10. Sure, there's some issues surrounding multi monitor configurations and of course 3rd party legacy software. Win10 AU also fixed many of the big, lingering issues, or added support for mixed scaling.

My point is that in relation to any other size, 30.5" offers the best scaling at 150% for 4K and 200% for 5K. That and 30.5" is (IMO) a comfortable size to use. Not too large, not too small for resolutions like 4K and 5K with scaling.
 
Now that I have a 65" 4K TV, I got to say that I might like something larger than my current 27" 1440p whenever 4K @ 120+ Hz displays become available. With that many pixels something around 30" would be pretty nice.
 
Because the market for it isn't there, similar to why 16:10 is dead.

Continue being stuck in yesterday or move on. Me and the rest of Earth will pick and choose based on current and upcoming offerings without bitching about the rest of the world catering to our inability to adapt.
 
I've been pushing for this for years. It's really good to at least see Microsoft start to design their displays around a 96 DPI base and I hope other manufacturers follow suit.

It's somewhat surprising to me, as display resolution has gradually been creeping up to 110 PPI and beyond, making text smaller and smaller as time goes on.
You would think that as the people in charge of these products are ageing themselves, they would be stricter about their adherence to 96 PPI.
Things are just gradually becoming less comfortable to read and I see a lot more people complaining about eyestrain or headaches when using displays now - but I don't think most people realize that this is a big contributing factor.
 
I've been pushing for this for years. It's really good to at least see Microsoft start to design their displays around a 96 DPI base and I hope other manufacturers follow suit.

It's somewhat surprising to me, as display resolution has gradually been creeping up to 110 PPI and beyond, making text smaller and smaller as time goes on.
You would think that as the people in charge of these products are ageing themselves, they would be stricter about their adherence to 96 PPI.
Things are just gradually becoming less comfortable to read and I see a lot more people complaining about eyestrain or headaches when using displays now - but I don't think most people realize that this is a big contributing factor.

That's why DPI scaling exists. It helps make text more readable as more pixels can be used for rendering each letter.
 
I've been pushing for this for years. It's really good to at least see Microsoft start to design their displays around a 96 DPI base and I hope other manufacturers follow suit.

It's somewhat surprising to me, as display resolution has gradually been creeping up to 110 PPI and beyond, making text smaller and smaller as time goes on.
You would think that as the people in charge of these products are ageing themselves, they would be stricter about their adherence to 96 PPI.
Things are just gradually becoming less comfortable to read and I see a lot more people complaining about eyestrain or headaches when using displays now - but I don't think most people realize that this is a big contributing factor.

Please, dear god. No.


96PPI monitor fonts looks like ass. Seriously. All these subpixel rendering techniques and ClearType kludges are just that. Gags to try and make up for inadequate pixel density to decently render font details like serifs. Why did Microsoft change Office to Calibri and Windows to Segoe UI (From Ye Olde Times New Roman and the like)? Because serifs fonts on 96PPI monitors are unreadable ugly blurs, because 96PPI even with the aforementioned kludges fail to render the font kerning well enough to even be readable nevermind look good.

96PPI NEVER looked good, especially after LCD panels came around. It is an arbitrary standard that needs stabbed with a dull spoon and taken out back and buried.
 
Sorry, I must not have been clear enough in my previous post.
I'm not advocating for 96 DPI displays, I think that displays should be based around 96 DPI.
So: 96/120/144/168/192 PPI for 1.00/1.25/1.50/1.75/2.00x scaling.
DPI scaling barely works acceptably well with non-integer scales as it is, but is even worse if you set a custom scale for some other DPI value.
 
I've been pushing for this for years. It's really good to at least see Microsoft start to design their displays around a 96 DPI base and I hope other manufacturers follow suit.

It's somewhat surprising to me, as display resolution has gradually been creeping up to 110 PPI and beyond, making text smaller and smaller as time goes on.
You would think that as the people in charge of these products are ageing themselves, they would be stricter about their adherence to 96 PPI.
Things are just gradually becoming less comfortable to read and I see a lot more people complaining about eyestrain or headaches when using displays now - but I don't think most people realize that this is a big contributing factor.

Sorry, I must not have been clear enough in my previous post.
I'm not advocating for 96 DPI displays, I think that displays should be based around 96 DPI.
So: 96/120/144/168/192 PPI for 1.00/1.25/1.50/1.75/2.00x scaling.
DPI scaling barely works acceptably well with non-integer scales as it is, but is even worse if you set a custom scale for some other DPI value.

Glad to see one other in agreement here. Judging from other replies, I don't think people understand the argument being brought forth for basing panel size around 96 PPI scaling, which is what Windows is based on for best clarity and proportionality (not just text, but all OS elements).
 
Glad to see one other in agreement here. Judging from other replies, I don't think people understand the argument being brought forth for basing panel size around 96 PPI scaling, which is what Windows is based on for best clarity and proportionality (not just text, but all OS elements).


Only OS GUI elements.


Text has nothing to do with it. Fonts are vector graphics and therefore are infinitely scalable.
 
Back
Top