Do you use a 4K monitor?

[newjunkcity]

Except the image isn't visibly pixelated at HD res. It just isn't and until Steve Jobs told you that you needed a Retina screen, absolutely nobody had ever complained that it was. Literally nobody.

Unfortunately I'm going to be the somebody that says that's incorrect: I've wanted a 'Retina' display on my computer ever since I got an iPhone 4 (the first phone to have a 'Retina' display).

Whether the image is visibly pixelated on a monitor at 1080p depends largely on your personal eyesight, how close you are to the screen, and how large your screen is. I can tell you that I can see the pixels on a 1080p 24" screen at a comfortable sitting distance, immediately.

With a >=4K / 'Retina display, images look fantastic (if they're large enough), and above all the text looks like a printed magazine. Personally I find that a lot more comfortable for daily use. And yes, my previous 1080p displays were high-quality panels (my first one cost over £600, back when HD was the new thing).

[chk071]

What people always forget is that the sharpness of the picture is also dependant on other factors, though. Loads of filters they use on modern screens, especially gaming monitors. Some are simply unsharp out of the box, and, there's not much you can do about it, unless you want to mess up the picture in the another direction. It's not the resolution in such cases though.

Anyway. Full HD 24.5" is sharp enough for me.

[AnX]

My monitor is HD, but my card isn't, so it's just normal, which is fine here

I hate HD anyway, films look crap imo

[kritikon]

I agree with HD not looking good on films. The Hobbit was a case in point - looked like video rather than film, despite the visual quality being better it just didn't work IMO. Mind you, it didn't help that they were crap films...

[chk071]

?

What looks crap about HD films?

Maybe you mean the special fx?

[thecontrolcentre]

?

What looks crap about HD films?

They just look crap. You can either see it or you can't

[chk071]

[mementus]

I use a 24" 1920 x 1200p

[FapFilter]

not exactly 4k @ 3456 x 2234 on my 16“ laptop screen, but quite close

No complaints whatsoever with my current plugs, but would't dare anything from pre 2010 without scalable GUIs on them

[Synthack]

......

[harryupbabble]

no. i don't.

[EINZO]

No, I prefer using multiple monitors with lower resolution, since not all plugins support 4K. However, I am willing to buy 4K if the majority of the plugins (including the older one) are updated to support 4K.

[BONES]

Unfortunately I'm going to be the somebody that says that's incorrect: I've wanted a 'Retina' display on my computer ever since I got an iPhone 4 (the first phone to have a 'Retina' display).

Yeah, right. I proved conclusively that there was nothing at all special about the iPhone 4's Retina screen. We loaded a series of photos to an iPhone 4 and my Zune HD, which has a screen you'd consider incredibly low-res - 480x272 - and a dozen or so professional graphic artists at work agreed unanimously that the photos looked better on my Zune HD's OLED display than they did on the iPhone 4's Retina. Unanimously, even the guy with the shiny new iPhone. It's all in your head.

I can tell you that I can see the pixels on a 1080p 24" screen at a comfortable sitting distance, immediately.

Absolute bullshit. As I said, it's all in your head.

the text looks like a printed magazine.

That's probably true, given that ink in a magazine bleeds into the paper quite badly, making it way softer than your average computer or phone display.

(my first one cost over £600, back when HD was the new thing).

I paid that much for my first flat panel display and it was only 1280x768. It was NOT a good display.

[chk071]

Yeah, seeing the pixels is definitely BS. If anything, you can see differences in sharpness.

The pixels can only be seen with a magnifier, when you're 10 cm's from the screen.

[newjunkcity]

Unfortunately I'm going to be the somebody that says that's incorrect: I've wanted a 'Retina' display on my computer ever since I got an iPhone 4 (the first phone to have a 'Retina' display).

Yeah, right. I proved conclusively that there was nothing at all special about the iPhone 4's Retina screen. We loaded a series of photos to an iPhone 4 and my Zune HD, which has a screen you'd consider incredibly low-res - 480x272 - and a dozen or so professional graphic artists at work agreed unanimously that the photos looked better on my Zune HD's OLED display than they did on the iPhone 4's Retina. Unanimously, even the guy with the shiny new iPhone. It's all in your head.

I can tell you that I can see the pixels on a 1080p 24" screen at a comfortable sitting distance, immediately.

Absolute bullshit. As I said, it's all in your head.

the text looks like a printed magazine.

That's probably true, given that ink in a magazine bleeds into the paper quite badly, making it way softer than your average computer or phone display.

(my first one cost over £600, back when HD was the new thing).

I paid that much for my first flat panel display and it was only 1280x768. It was NOT a good display.

Yeah, seeing the pixels is definitely BS. If anything, you can see differences in sharpness.

The pixels can only be seen with a magnifier, when you're 10 cm's from the screen.

It's not worth arguing with either of you. Choose to believe my point of view or not, it's of no relevance to me. I know what I likes