To 4K or stay with 2K Monitor ?

[ozinga]

I use a Samsung QHD 34 inch wide 1440p non curved.

Cubase looks the worst at normal scale. Not all, but some parts. Like parts of lower zone mixer looks blury and hand drawn. Logic and Live looks better, but overall it was hard to adapt after iMac 5k.
I though there was someting wrong with the unit but then I got used to it.

[machinesworking]

Describe the pixel to me. What does it look like? There is just no way you can see them from a normal working distance, although 1080 on a 28" monitor is probably getting close to the limit, I imagine. That's probably why 27" FHD monitors go for $50 on ebay - ancient tech, although they do seem to remain popular with gamers, swapping pixel density for higher refresh rates.

I'm about two feet or 2/3 a meter from my screens, and I can make them out. I shouldn't have to describe it for you? You're a curious person I would guess. Looks like a matrix of fine dots, and jagged edges around letters. I don't even have that good of eyesight and it's clear as day. At some point I'll replace the 28" 1920x1200, but it works so why bother? the other monitor is a Slate Raven and 1920x1080 is optimum for not messing with touch interfaces.

Point remains, 2.5k is probably the sweet spot for most peoples vision and not seeing burry font etc. Someone with really good eyesight could easily make use of a 4K monitor though, since tiny wouldn't bother them, and it would remain clear.

[BONES]

Sorry but if that's how you are describing it, it is all in your head. I don't know what you do for a living but how things look on screens has been a big part of my profession for most of the last 25 years. I think about it a lot. 15 years ago I got paid to consult on such things (boring work, I steer clear of it these days) and what you describe is in now way how it actually is.

The jump from 1080p to 2160p is pretty noticeable in terms of sharpness.

Not to me. That's close to what I see between my FHD laptop and Surface Pro but it's mostly in the contrast. If I turn the Surface's brightness down to match the laptop, and scale it so that things look roughly the same size, then they look surprisingly similar to my professional gaze.

It's not voodoo magic, high dpi = sharper.

Sure but the law of diminishing returns kicks in very quickly, making the extra density a waste of computing power if you can't run it with 100% scaling.

[echosystm]

Boner keeps arguing that no one can tell the difference between 2k and 4k, despite multiple people telling him that they can. He did this in another thread. Trying to convince him of anything is a waste of time.

I can tell the difference and it is significant. For work, I refuse to use a 2k screen. I have multiple colleagues that feel the same way.

[machinesworking]

Boner keeps arguing that no one can tell the difference between 2k and 4k, despite multiple people telling him that they can. He did this in another thread. Trying to convince him of anything is a waste of time.

I can tell the difference and it is significant. For work, I refuse to use a 2k screen. I have multiple colleagues that feel the same way.

You might be right about this, the Sad part is it's dead easy to take a one centimeter screenshot and enlarge the photo, you, surprise surprise can see the pixels.. exactly like I see them at 1080p. There's no mystery going on here.

[chk071]

IMO, the question is not whether you can tell or not (of course you can), but, if you NEED it or not.

Also, what is a major point of consideration for me is what you want to do with the monitor. For example, I just ordered a gaming IPS monitor. Which I will send back, because, I'm utterly disappointed about the black level. It has better colours than my current TN panel, yes. It also has that fancy frame refresh rate of 144 Hz (which, again, is utterly useless in games, when your PC can't do those frames), many profiles and settings, which I don't need, and it also has an adjustable stand. That all is more or less nice to have, but, it simply fails when I play darker games (which I do a lot). (Now I'm back on my shitty 129 € TN panel, because it does something which is important to me that I don't get from the new 265 € monitor. That's how it can go. )

Same with the resolutions: If you're not doing picture editing, or have a very big screen (32" plus), I doubt that you have any real benefit from 4k, apart from the text being a bit sharper. Which, for me, wouldn't justify shelling out hundreds of € extras.

[antic604]

Same with the resolutions: If you're not doing picture editing, or have a very big screen (32" plus), I doubt that you have any real benefit from 4k, apart from the text being a bit sharper. Which, for me, wouldn't justify shelling out hundreds of € extras.

If you're using a DAW & plugins that are DPI-aware, then it's not just text that's sharper - it's everything: icons, GUI elements like buttons, sliders, knobs, time grids, audio waveforms & automation details, etc.

It's just easier on the eyes. If you're using say 1080p screen at 27'' or more, then your eyes constantly will try to compensate for the inevitable blockiness or blurriness (depending how good the screen is) of the image, attempting to make out the details that are not there. Thus they will tire quicker, because they "work" all the time.

Considering how much time we all spend in front of computer screens, IMO it's definitely worth to spend more money to protect your eyes.

[Googly Smythe]

Whatever, make sure it's 10 bit.
I've got a cheap 10 bit 2k AOC 32" and a cheap-ish 8 bit 1080 (1k?) 23" iiyami and the AOC is way better, in terms of colour. Well, just better all round.

[chk071]

Same with the resolutions: If you're not doing picture editing, or have a very big screen (32" plus), I doubt that you have any real benefit from 4k, apart from the text being a bit sharper. Which, for me, wouldn't justify shelling out hundreds of € extras.

If you're using a DAW & plugins that are DPI-aware, then it's not just text that's sharper - it's everything: icons, GUI elements like buttons, sliders, knobs, time grids, audio waveforms & automation details, etc.

It's just easier on the eyes. If you're using say 1080p screen at 27'' or more, then your eyes constantly will try to compensate for the inevitable blockiness or blurriness (depending how good the screen is) of the image, attempting to make out the details that are not there. Thus they will tire quicker, because they "work" all the time.

Considering how much time we all spend in front of computer screens, IMO it's definitely worth to spend more money to protect your eyes.

24.5" 1080p is perfectly fine though, and, I don't notice any blurriness, or blockiness at all.

I had issues with reading some smaller text on my 21.5" 1080p display that I had before.

[chk071]

Time to quote Jackie Treehorn from the Big Lebowski:

People forget that the brain is the biggest erogenous zone.

The brain can make up for many small flaws that we see or perceive, in general. Everyone has to decide for themselves if a small advantage is worth hundreds of Euros/Dollars/whatever.

Also, people concentrate on some things like resolution, and totally disregard other very important things, like panel tech. Depending on what you want to do, it can be very important whether you choose a TN, IPS, or VA panel. Or OLED.

[antic604]

...Depending on what you want to do, it can be very important whether you choose a TN, IPS, or VA panel. Or OLED.

That I can agree with 100%. My 1080p panel in a laptop is better than a 2K panel in my daughter's laptop, i.e. it's brighter and more "punchy" (saturation, contrast).

[Jolaff]

...Depending on what you want to do, it can be very important whether you choose a TN, IPS, or VA panel. Or OLED.

That I can agree with 100%. My 1080p panel in a laptop is better than a 2K panel in my daughter's laptop, i.e. it's brighter and more "punchy" (saturation, contrast).

Isn't 1080p pretty much 2k ?

[chk071]

It's not much of a difference at least.

[antic604]

Isn't 1080p pretty much 2k ?

Perhaps you're right.

For some time people were referring to screens between 1080p and 4K as 2K

In this particular case I meant 2160x1440 on my daughter's laptop.

[antic604]

It's not much of a difference at least.

But the difference in sharpness between my 1080p and my daughter's 1440p is pretty staggering, also because it's 15'' vs. 13'' respectively. It's much easier to read small details on her laptop, but that screen loses to mine on brightness and color saturation.

If screen panels are of comparable quality, then for me 3-4K wins every time.