To 4K or stay with 2K Monitor ?

Plug-in hosts and other software applications discussion
KVRAF
21979 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from not here

Post Mon May 17, 2021 7:25 am

Not a lot of gain to argue with anyone who does "You won't because nobody ever, ever saw the pixels until Steve Jobs told them they could." and "a lack of critical thinking on your part. Try and find an article that..." in the same paragraph.
"Try and find an article that..." is a fair illustration of the fallacy argument from ignorance. There is one point to a post like that, an opportunity arose to insult all Mac users.

Suspended
2638 posts since 15 Feb, 2020

Post Mon May 17, 2021 7:39 am

My 5K 27 iMac looks all good apart from some plugins which are teeny tiny. For them I just use the handy Cmnd + mouse scroll which zooms the whole screen, very handy. What's the 'Doze equivalent for me to use at work? Never found one.

I have it at 'Default Setting" but System Prefs doesn't actually say what that is. Is it set at native res? Typical dumbed down Mac BS lol.
jancivil wrote:
Mon May 17, 2021 7:25 am
an opportunity arose to insult all Mac users
"You Mac users are all blah blah" etc.
I lost my heart in Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

KVRAF
21979 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from not here

Post Mon May 17, 2021 8:00 am

under Scaled in Sys Prefs/Displays there are pictures! pictures of differently sized text.
I'm glad I never really had to worry about it

KVRAF
28514 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany

Post Mon May 17, 2021 8:30 am

revvy wrote:
Mon May 17, 2021 7:39 am
My 5K 27 iMac looks all good apart from some plugins which are teeny tiny. For them I just use the handy Cmnd + mouse scroll which zooms the whole screen, very handy. What's the 'Doze equivalent for me to use at work? Never found one.
Sounds like an accessibility feature. There's a magnifier tool in Windows which does that. You can start it with Windows key + plus key, and then magnify with the same key combination.
Plugins and a DAW. On an operating system. Which runs on a computer.

KVRAF
1617 posts since 16 Jan, 2013 from USA

Post Mon May 17, 2021 8:38 am

Pixel density isn't the only criteria for a good display. But all other things being even, the more dense the better. I tried going back to 1440 after a 5K iMac and it was a bummer. Gave up and bought another.
Last edited by jonljacobi on Mon May 17, 2021 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

KVRAF
28514 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany

Post Mon May 17, 2021 9:14 am

jonljacobi wrote:
Mon May 17, 2021 8:38 am
Pixel density the only criteria for a good display.
Did you forgot the word "isn't" there?
Plugins and a DAW. On an operating system. Which runs on a computer.

KVRist
128 posts since 24 Oct, 2006

Post Mon May 17, 2021 12:25 pm

Here is some actual science, which debunks Boners arguments. If you sit 30 inches from a 28 inch screen, below are the pixels per degree of various resolutions.

FHD: 43
QHD: 51
4K: 87

60ppd is the level at which someone with average vision (20/20) can see individual pixels. Thus, all but the 4K screen fall below that level. Keep in mind that many people have better vision than this and a lot of people sit closer to their screens, both of which swing the argument further in favor of 4K screens. Also keep in mind that 60ppd isn't the level at which things look good; it is the level at which things will look bad, unless anti-aliasing is applied. The PPD must be some level above 60, in order to actually look good.

Another issue is that bitmap images don't scale well, unlike vector images and text. If you want larger text on a QHD screen and scale bitmap images proportionally, the images will look horrendous. This is why "Retina" screens exist; you can scale both text and bitmaps at a multiple of the original resolution. Even if scaling is not performed with an integer multiplier, the upscaling process will have more pixels to work with and still result in a better image.
Last edited by echosystm on Mon May 17, 2021 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

KVRAF
1617 posts since 16 Jan, 2013 from USA

Post Mon May 17, 2021 1:35 pm

chk071 wrote:
Mon May 17, 2021 9:14 am
jonljacobi wrote:
Mon May 17, 2021 8:38 am
Pixel density the only criteria for a good display.
Did you forgot the word "isn't" there?
Yup. Thanks!

KVRAF
28514 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany

Post Mon May 17, 2021 1:36 pm

echosystm wrote:
Mon May 17, 2021 12:25 pm
60ppd is the level at which someone with average vision (20/20) can see individual pixels.
I really wonder what that is supposed to mean TBH. "See individual pixels".

Unless you're using a magnifying glass, you won't be able to see individual pixels.
Plugins and a DAW. On an operating system. Which runs on a computer.

KVRist
128 posts since 24 Oct, 2006

Post Mon May 17, 2021 1:59 pm

chk071 wrote:
Mon May 17, 2021 1:36 pm
echosystm wrote:
Mon May 17, 2021 12:25 pm
60ppd is the level at which someone with average vision (20/20) can see individual pixels.
I really wonder what that is supposed to mean TBH. "See individual pixels".
The pixels are large enough that you can see each one, individually. For example, if you had a pattern of alternating black/white pixels, you would see it as a checker box pattern. With higher pixel density, you would see the same pattern as a solid gray color.

Put another way, it's impossible to have a curved edge appear smooth, at 60ppd or below; you will see a jagged edge, where the curve is snapped to the nearest pixel. Antialiasing and subpixel hinting can make this less painful, at the expense of making the edges appear blurry.

KVRAF
28514 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany

Post Mon May 17, 2021 2:01 pm

Are you saying that I'm supposed to see the individual pixels on my 24.5" 1080p display? Because, I can assure you that that is not the case. And, I also can assure you that that is also not the case on a 27" 1080p display.

Text appearing smoother or more sharp is a different thing.
Plugins and a DAW. On an operating system. Which runs on a computer.

KVRist
128 posts since 24 Oct, 2006

Post Mon May 17, 2021 2:23 pm

chk071 wrote:
Mon May 17, 2021 2:01 pm
Are you saying that I'm supposed to see the individual pixels on my 24.5" 1080p display? Because, I can assure you that that is not the case. And, I also can assure you that that is also not the case on a 27" 1080p display.

Text appearing smoother or more sharp is a different thing.
Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. The text has harsher edges because of this. You may not be conscious of it, but that is what is happening.

On my old 24" 1080p screen, I can clearly see the individual pixels and anti-aliasing in a curve.

I don't understand why this is receiving so much debate. I don't even have good eyesight and it's very obvious to me.

If you put a 28" 4K screen next to a 28" non-4K screen, you will be shocked at how much clearer text is.

KVRAF
28514 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany

Post Mon May 17, 2021 2:29 pm

echosystm wrote:
Mon May 17, 2021 2:23 pm
On my old 24" 1080p screen, I can clearly see the individual pixels
What you are seeing is a slightly coarser display of the stuff displayed on your screen, not individual pixels...

Get a magnifying glass, and put it on your screen. Then you will see the individual pixels. You won't see them just by looking at your screen.
echosystm wrote:
Mon May 17, 2021 2:23 pm
If you put a 28" 4K screen next to a 28" non-4K screen, you will be shocked at how much clearer text is.
Yes. As I said, that is something different than "seeing individual pixels".
Plugins and a DAW. On an operating system. Which runs on a computer.

KVRist
128 posts since 24 Oct, 2006

Post Mon May 17, 2021 2:41 pm

A screen is made up of pixels (and sub pixels). If something looks jagged, it is because the pixels are too large, relative to the distance you are viewing it from, and you can see them. Hence, "seeing the individual pixels". If you couldn't see the individual pixels, the edge wouldn't look jagged.

The fact that antialiasing and subpixel hinting even exist should be proof that pixel density matters.

Regardless, it seems like we are debating language more so than the actual phenomena.
Last edited by echosystm on Mon May 17, 2021 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
GRRRRRRR!
11619 posts since 14 Jun, 2001 from Somewhere else, on principle

Post Mon May 17, 2021 7:02 pm

jancivil wrote:
Mon May 17, 2021 7:25 am
"Try and find an article that..." is a fair illustration of the fallacy argument from ignorance. There is one point to a post like that, an opportunity arose to insult all Mac users.
Except there are more PC users falling into the same marketing trap than Mac users, in case you hadn't noticed. But your response perfectly illustrates my point - it's all about you and facts be damned.
echosystm wrote:
Mon May 17, 2021 12:25 pm
Here is some actual science
Care to provide a link to your source? You won't take my word for it but you expect me to take your word that this is "actual science"? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
NOVAkILL : Dell G7 Core i7, 32GB RAM, Win10, Zoom U24 | Studio One | JP6K, Hexeract, bx_oberhausen, ARP Odyssey, TRK-01, Vacuum Pro, Knifonium, Thorn, Equator, VG Carbon | Uno Pro Desktop, Uno, Analog Keys, Ultranova, Rocket.

Return to “Hosts & Applications (Sequencers, DAWs, Audio Editors, etc.)”