Reading is fundamental.apoclypse wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2023 12:26 amIt's not about the pixel density it's about UI scaling. 1080P can be really tight if your DAW doesn't support UI scaling internally imo. 1440P gives you more room to work with, 4K give you more flexibility to scale to whatever you prefer (with some caveats on Windows). I would never buy a 1080P screen if I had a choice for DAW work. I would rather have the space.Trensharo wrote: Thu Jul 13, 2023 7:35 pmLeeway in scaling, yes, but most people will settle on something that is basically scaled to 1080p on a panel this size, and any differences in PPI are basically invisible at normal viewing differences.apoclypse wrote: Thu Jul 13, 2023 2:18 am I think it depends on the resolution of the screen really. If it's 1080P, that's a little too small (or big I guess if we are talking about the UI elements) imo. 1440P or 4K screen gives you a bit a more leeway.
So, I'd always take a 120-144Hz FHD Panel on a 14" Laptop over a QHD and especially 4K Panel. I don't even think there is a legit reason to have a 14" 4K Panel in a laptop as it is unusable without extreme upscaling and the machine simply isn't used at distances where you will benefit greatly from it.
It's basically for marketing and to drive profit margins up, while being an efficiency sieve.
100% Scale on my 14" FHD Ryzen Laptop is about the same as "More Space" on my 14" MacBook Pro (the smallest stock scaling setting most people are going to be using).
The difference between the two displays - ignoring the display tech itself (which can be a deciding factor - is the pixel density; how sharp the display looks at normal viewing distances due to the panel's native resolution.
On a 14" display, there is practically no difference in visible sharpness between the FHD Panel on my PC Laptop and the Retina Panel on my MBP. These displays are too small. I'd have to put my face on the screen to see the pixels in the FHD display. I cannot see pixels on either one, and the MBP would not be usable if it were scaled any smaller than "More Space," while also wasting too much screen real estate if scaled up beyond that (looks like a 768p display).
I have a 15.6" Laptop here and I basically can't see the Pixels on it at a normal viewing distance, either. I think you are overestimating how "tight" things are on a 14" FHD display at 100% scaling. That, or your vision is ~20/20. The latter is more of a personal consideration, and not generic.
On 14-15.6" Laptops, I always opt for High Framerate FHD displays (that don't use PWM, as it gives me migraines within 10 minutes of looking at them) because I simply set it to 100% scale and move on with my life.
Of course, whether or not that works for anyone else depends on how good their vision is, which is independent of these facts and will sway their decision appropriately. This is why I inferred that the flexibility in scaling is valid. Because people with less than optimal vision may want to scale up without the display looking pixelated.
I wouldn't even bother getting a QHD panel on a laptop unless it was some 16-17" Juggernaught, and even then I'd still end up scaling it up to look equivalent to a FHD panel because QHD resolution on a 15-16" Laptop is too small to be usable. I'd probably still opt for a FHD panel at that size, since any machine like that is likely to spend 75% of its life docked on a desktop, anyways.
Also have to factor in how the UI assets in the DAW are created. If they're low res bitmap assets, then that comes with its own issues when using any HiDPI displays.