Any love for ANA2?

[BONES]

I have a Full HD monitor, but I can understand why some people decide to use 4K, more screen space.

This is a perfect example of the stupidity/ignorance of people - 4k monitors are not designed to give you more screen space, they are designed to give you a sharper picture. They are designed to run scaled, so that the screen real estate you have remains the same as it is for an HD screen. That's why people run into these issues, which they solve by making the GUI bigger, which also reduces their available screen space, making the entire exercise a waste of time.

Since 4k is starting slowly to become a standard

No it isn't. If anything, it seems to be on the wane. There aren't nearly as many new laptops in 2020 with a 4k option as their were last year. This year we are seeing more high quality Full HD screens, which makes way more sense to me.

[nIGhT-SoN]

For a moment a thought you know what you are talking about, but now it's obvious you don't. Maybe this will illuminate you - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

Pixels are pixels, you get blurry image only if you stretch it. 4k has more pixels, which can fit in a larger space. If you try to fit a full HD resolution picture on a 4k screen, you'll get a blurry picture. So 4k was made for a sharper picture? Wrong! Was made to get a larger screen without losing picture quality.

Of course you don't need 4k on a laptop. Why would you use 4k on a 15 inch screen? You'll have to scale it to be able to read something.

[BONES]

Why would you need more picture quality on a larger screen? Do you realise that most digital cinema projectors are only 2k? That's a 100 foot screen with just 2048 pixels across it, yet nobody complains about the picture quality at the cinema. The reality is that the bigger the screen, the further you sit away from it, so the apparent pixel size, generally speaking, remains pretty constant. e.g. If I look over the top of my 17" laptop screen to my 32" TV mounted on the far bulkhead, it actually appears a bit smaller, which means the apparent pixel size is smaller, even though the pixels themselves are almost twice the size. That's how it works and 4k doesn't improve anything but sales figures.

4k is about selling more TVs, pure and simple - "everyone's got a big screen TV and sales have dropped off, what are we going to do?" "Simple, we come up with an easy to market new format and convince them all they need to upgrade." That's what 4k is about. And because they are making 4k TV panels, they make them for laptops and monitors as well. Now we are starting to see the first 8k TVs, how long do you think it will be before we see 8k monitors? How useful are they going to be? Yet I can guarantee there will be idiots around here who buy them for the extra screen real estate.

Trust me, we got to try out both 4k monitors and 2.5k monitors, both 27" jobbies, at work and every one of the 20 or so people in my department agreed that the 2.5k monitors with no scaling were preferable to the 4k monitors running at 150%. Everything looked better and worked better without 4k, so that is what we're all getting when we move to our new facility in a few months.

It's a marketing con, that's why it creates these sorts of issues. After all, you could run a CRT at 20k if you had a good enough graphics card, but nobody did because there was no point. If you want more screen real estate, buy a bigger monitor, not just one with more pixels. I'd want to get to at least a 27" monitor before I went beyond Full HD and I'd want a 40" screen before I'd even consider 4k. Otherwise you end up scaling everything, which just makes your graphics card work harder for no benefit.

[AnX]

That's a 100 foot screen with just 2048 pixels across it, yet nobody complains about the picture quality at the cinema.

i do, it's horrendous

also, the screens are physically too big (you can't see the whole screen without moving your head) and it's way too loud

i very rarely go to the cinema these days, it's not enjoyable

[nIGhT-SoN]

Trust me, we got to try out both 4k monitors and 2.5k monitors, both 27" jobbies, at work and every one of the 20 or so people in my department agreed that the 2.5k monitors with no scaling were preferable to the 4k monitors running at 150%. Everything looked better and worked better without 4k, so that is what we're all getting when we move to our new facility in a few months.

Of course you won't see a difference, blur wise between 4k and 2.5k on a 27 inch display, that's really small display for it. 4k is best when the display is big, over 32 inch. If you use 4k material on a 70" displays, one with native 4k and the other 2.5k, you'll see the mother of blur.

But, let me give you an example where higher resolution can help. I have a 15.3 inch display on my laptop, it's a Full HD. By default Windows sets the scaling to about 150%, that means, everything will show by 50% larger than it actually is. If I set it to 100%, sure everything will be smaller, but I'll have more space on my screen, meaning instead o showing 1 plugin at a time, I can put 2 plugins side by side. The same thing comes into play with 4k. If you set both 4k and 2.5k, on that 27" monitor, to 100% scaling, you'll see on the 4k you have more screen space to work with.

As for cinema image quality, I can't say that's great quality, but as you said, it's harder to nice when you stay far away from the screen and it's projected image, not an actual screen with leds. But when it comes to a monitor, you stay really close to it so resolution matters, especially if it's a large display.

[pierb]

Why would you need more picture quality on a larger screen? Do you realise that most digital cinema projectors are only 2k? That's a 100 foot screen with just 2048 pixels across it, yet nobody complains about the picture quality at the cinema. The reality is that the bigger the screen, the further you sit away from it, so the apparent pixel size, generally speaking, remains pretty constant. e.g. If I look over the top of my 17" laptop screen to my 32" TV mounted on the far bulkhead, it actually appears a bit smaller, which means the apparent pixel size is smaller, even though the pixels themselves are almost twice the size. That's how it works and 4k doesn't improve anything but sales figures.

4k is about selling more TVs, pure and simple - "everyone's got a big screen TV and sales have dropped off, what are we going to do?" "Simple, we come up with an easy to market new format and convince them all they need to upgrade." That's what 4k is about. And because they are making 4k TV panels, they make them for laptops and monitors as well. Now we are starting to see the first 8k TVs, how long do you think it will be before we see 8k monitors? How useful are they going to be? Yet I can guarantee there will be idiots around here who buy them for the extra screen real estate.

Trust me, we got to try out both 4k monitors and 2.5k monitors, both 27" jobbies, at work and every one of the 20 or so people in my department agreed that the 2.5k monitors with no scaling were preferable to the 4k monitors running at 150%. Everything looked better and worked better without 4k, so that is what we're all getting when we move to our new facility in a few months.

It's a marketing con, that's why it creates these sorts of issues. After all, you could run a CRT at 20k if you had a good enough graphics card, but nobody did because there was no point. If you want more screen real estate, buy a bigger monitor, not just one with more pixels. I'd want to get to at least a 27" monitor before I went beyond Full HD and I'd want a 40" screen before I'd even consider 4k. Otherwise you end up scaling everything, which just makes your graphics card work harder for no benefit.

I won't event bother refuting all the crap you've just written...

Here's the simple truth: if someone can't tell the difference between reading text on a 1080p vs a 4K monitor at the same size they clearly need to have their vision checked. This is extremely obvious even on small 13'' monitors.

Oh and btw, IMAX has had 4K laser projectors since 2012. Not only that, in 2018 they started rolling it out to all their theaters. Dolby Cinemas have had Christie 4K projectors since 2015.

[Jkist]

I like my 1080p for gaming because I can run higher frame rates. However, I eventually want to get a really big monitor. like a 50" for music stuff. Try having 15 plugins open all over the place on a 50" 1080p, and then try doing the same thing on a 50" 4k monitor. The difference is literally night and day. I notice the pixel density difference between my 24" 1080p and my 27" 1080p. BONES, you really shouldn't speak on this subject man.

[Echoes in the Attic]

Yeah I like Ana2 too.

[sqigls]

[v1o]

Instant ban

[chk071]

I like my 1080p for gaming because I can run higher frame rates.

Same here. It's an issue when your monitor runs 4k and 144 Hz or higher... double, triple, quadruple the performance hit.

[BONES]

Of course you won't see a difference, blur wise between 4k and 2.5k on a 27 inch display, that's really small display for it. 4k is best when the display is big, over 32 inch. If you use 4k material on a 70" displays, one with native 4k and the other 2.5k, you'll see the mother of blur.

Only if you sit as close to it as you would a 27" monitor. Which you wouldn't. Which is my point. Most of the time I can't tell the difference between SD and HD on my 32" Bravia because I sit a couple of metres away from it, just as it is designed for. It's only when I walk past it and am a few inches from the screen that the differenc e becomes obvious, which makes it irrelevant.

But, let me give you an example where higher resolution can help. I have a 15.3 inch display on my laptop, it's a Full HD. By default Windows sets the scaling to about 150%, that means, everything will show by 50% larger than it actually is. If I set it to 100%, sure everything will be smaller, but I'll have more space on my screen, meaning instead o showing 1 plugin at a time, I can put 2 plugins side by side. The same thing comes into play with 4k. If you set both 4k and 2.5k, on that 27" monitor, to 100% scaling, you'll see on the 4k you have more screen space to work with.

Except that everything will be too small to be usable, which is why these clowns all complain about GUIs being too small. That's the whole point of my argument - 4k screens are designed to be scaled, not used at native res. If it were otherwise, laptops would be set to 100% out of the box but, as you point out, even full HD screens are sometimes set to 150%.

As for cinema image quality, I can't say that's great quality, but as you said, it's harder to nice when you stay far away from the screen and it's projected image, not an actual screen with leds.

Your laptop screen or computer monitor is not a bunch of individual LEDs, either. It is an LCD matrix that uses LEDs as a backlight source. A projector will always have better contrast than an active screen because black will be as black as the room you view it in. I have a $70 projector that we use outdoors and the contrast blows any backlit screen out of the water. Even though it's only SD resolution, DVDs and Blu-rays look amazing, more like an OLED screen than anything (which is individual LEDs per pixel).

[BONES]

Anyway, back on topic. I have an ongoing issue with ANA in a song, where it doesn't seem to find the license and operates in demo mode. That means bursts of noise all the time. I've tried adding a second instance, copying everything across and deleting the original and use the "Merge" feature of Orion to add it into a new, blank song. In both cases it seems to work when you do it but next time you open the song, the registration info is gone again. In every other song I use it, it's fine but this one song always reverts to demo mode.

Anybody else experienced this? The stupid thing is that I never even tried the demo, I just bought it when it was cheap, so it would never have been used in demo mode.

[Jkist]

WTF? What DAW are you using?

[damayor]

Anyway, back on topic. I have an ongoing issue with ANA in a song, where it doesn't seem to find the license and operates in demo mode. That means bursts of noise all the time. I've tried adding a second instance, copying everything across and deleting the original and use the "Merge" feature of Orion to add it into a new, blank song. In both cases it seems to work when you do it but next time you open the song, the registration info is gone again. In every other song I use it, it's fine but this one song always reverts to demo mode.

Anybody else experienced this? The stupid thing is that I never even tried the demo, I just bought it when it was cheap, so it would never have been used in demo mode.

Been using Ana for a long time never had that happen, but your in the wrong thread this is a 4k TV vs monitor thread.