Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Lenovo 4K computer monitor announcement

Marc Wielage said:
And everybody but Apple.
Click to expand...

Given that, I am wondering if they will even bother given how many competitors they would have in such a market and whether or not they could release something that people are going to want to buy with the Apple premium price on it. Overall, their displays haven't had a great track record as a long-term investment with the quality control and build issues. I am just glad that 4K support on Linux should be ready by the beginning of Summer, which means I will be buying a new monitor or two for my latest workstation build.
 
Perhaps Apple is about to launch the world's Smartest TV.

4K (or 5K) Resolution
iTunes like delivery service to your TV with content up to 4K
Sync TV to ipad, iphone, etc and use all your favorite apps (perhaps with some enhancements for the display)

Who knows, anything is possible.
 
L. Langer said:
Given that, I am wondering if they will even bother given how many competitors they would have in such a market and whether or not they could release something that people are going to want to buy with the Apple premium price on it. Overall, their displays haven't had a great track record as a long-term investment with the quality control and build issues. I am just glad that 4K support on Linux should be ready by the beginning of Summer, which means I will be buying a new monitor or two for my latest workstation build.
Click to expand...

Now that I'm working with a couple 4K displays here, I can say that I really don't want Apple to launch a 4K monitor. Definitely not a 3840x2160 UHD thing. It's not a bad working size at 32", but it just feels a bit off to me.

I want a 26 inch to 30 inch display that is 5120, or even better 6144, pixels across. And let it run in high DPI mode as we do with our other "retina" screens. And with 1:2 scaling, everything would look nice and it would still give us the same amount of workspace as we have on current 27~30" 2.5K displays, and even a bit more if we get a full 6K out of it. Plus the ability to access the finer pixel structures for higher detail when needed.
 
That's exactly why I begin to think that they will wait until the next generation of DisplayPort/Thunderbolt to launch any displays. In looking at the 39-inch ASUS - which we'll probably never see since nobody is making a quality panel at that size - I think a larger size than 32 is the way to go and 39 seems like it just might be right with the professional/enthusiast crowd while Apple can release a 24/28/32-inch iMac design to sate the majority of Mac buyers who want desktops with decent hardware.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
It's not a bad working size at 32", but it just feels a bit off to me.
.
Click to expand...

Can you define the potential cause(s) of the feeling ?

PPI, FOV, software UI appearance, perceptive habit...
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
Can you define the potential cause(s) of the feeling ?

PPI, FOV, software UI appearance, perceptive habit...
Click to expand...

All of the above factors I suppose. The monitor is a bit large for sitting at my normal comfortable distance with my nose about 40 to 48 inches from the screen. I don't like moving my head where I feel like I can't adequately see opposite corners of the screen easily at all times. Pushing the monitor back a bit solves all that, so not a big deal in terms of size. PPI is an issue because there are no modes to adequately adjust display elements and fonts to compensate. We have to choose either a HiDPI 2X scaling of everything or we leave it native and suddenly everything is 60% smaller than it is on a 2560 pixels wide 30" display, both are quite annoying. The former because we then have the equivalent workspace of a 1080p monitor, which most of us don't like to actually work on. The latter we have just made all our fonts and interface elements, images, etc.. 60% smaller on a screen that we have to push a bit further back from to sit comfortably at.

3840x2160 has the same feel as running 1920x1080 when used accordingly with UHD/4K video. It's more of a tease than a practical solution. It would be, and is, fine for a stand-alone playback monitor resolution if we're delivering to the UHD format. For a working display, we can't display UHD video at 1:1 pixel resolution and still maintain other interface elements -- just like trying to work with 1080p assets on a 1080p display.

IMO, 3840x2160 monitors are very much transitional in terms of computer displays. The real deal will arrive when we can run 5120x2880 or higher in conjunction with a HiDPI implementation. This will require DisplayPort 1.3, better Thunderbolt 2 integration, or other improvements to the hardware available now.

3840x2160 on the Dell 24" isn't half bad at HiDPI mode. It's better sized for 1080p calibre real estate and I think 2160p would make a fine "retina" resolution for Joe Average Consumer on a 22" to 24" display.

I'm curious to see the upcoming 28" 2160p displays. That 4" diagonal shrink vs. the 32" models out now will allow us to sit a bit closer and maybe then we can forget HiDPI mode. It's still going to suffer the other issues with UHD video assets. OTOH, these 4K monitors so far are proving to be excellent for apps like Photoshop and Illustrator. Even Excel benefits, Xcode is nice because in HiDPI mode, the text is rendered a lot sharper and easier on the eyes.


You should try this for yourself when you get the chance. But the way I see it, a pixel-doubled 27 or 30 inch is the killer app, not some almost-there 2160p screen that monitor makers are putting out now simply because it's the hot new TV panel resolution that all the panel makers are switching to.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
All of the above factors I suppose. The monitor is a bit large for sitting at my normal comfortable distance with my nose about 40 to 48 inches from the screen. I don't like moving my head where I feel like I can't adequately see opposite corners of the screen easily at all times. Pushing the monitor back a bit solves all that, so not a big deal in terms of size. PPI is an issue because there are no modes to adequately adjust display elements and fonts to compensate. We have to choose either a HiDPI 2X scaling of everything or we leave it native and suddenly everything is 60% smaller than it is on a 2560 pixels wide 30" display, both are quite annoying. The former because we then have the equivalent workspace of a 1080p monitor, which most of us don't like to actually work on. The latter we have just made all our fonts and interface elements, images, etc.. 60% smaller on a screen that we have to push a bit further back from to sit comfortably at.

3840x2160 has the same feel as running 1920x1080 when used accordingly with UHD/4K video. It's more of a tease than a practical solution. It would be, and is, fine for a stand-alone playback monitor resolution if we're delivering to the UHD format. For a working display, we can't display UHD video at 1:1 pixel resolution and still maintain other interface elements -- just like trying to work with 1080p assets on a 1080p display.

IMO, 3840x2160 monitors are very much transitional in terms of computer displays. The real deal will arrive when we can run 5120x2880 or higher in conjunction with a HiDPI implementation. This will require DisplayPort 1.3, better Thunderbolt 2 integration, or other improvements to the hardware available now.

3840x2160 on the Dell 24" isn't half bad at HiDPI mode. It's better sized for 1080p calibre real estate and I think 2160p would make a fine "retina" resolution for Joe Average Consumer on a 22" to 24" display.

I'm curious to see the upcoming 28" 2160p displays. That 4" diagonal shrink vs. the 32" models out now will allow us to sit a bit closer and maybe then we can forget HiDPI mode. It's still going to suffer the other issues with UHD video assets. OTOH, these 4K monitors so far are proving to be excellent for apps like Photoshop and Illustrator. Even Excel benefits, Xcode is nice because in HiDPI mode, the text is rendered a lot sharper and easier on the eyes.


You should try this for yourself when you get the chance. But the way I see it, a pixel-doubled 27 or 30 inch is the killer app, not some almost-there 2160p screen that monitor makers are putting out now simply because it's the hot new TV panel resolution that all the panel makers are switching to.
Click to expand...

Hey Jeff,
I've been working with 2x 22" @1650x1050. I don't own a camera yet but I have been messing around with 4k/5k/6k files and at times I feel limited in real estate despite running those two monitors. My question is, will I be happy with say a 27" 1080p and a 22" side by side from say 2feet+ away? One for editing, one for monitoring and a I have a 40" TV about 4feet away.

What would you suggest?


Thanks
 
FOV and ideal viewing distance would seem to be the keys. IF only 2:1 was the "standard" aspect ratio...

The 2,560 x 1,600 30" Apple Cinema Display has been my "go to" monitor the last few years with a 1,920 x 1,200 24" HP DreamColor as companion or substitute. Recently have been trying to use a 4,096 x 2,160 65" Spny 850A as both a "desktop" and program monitor with mixed success. Have been trying to come up with a slick way to use the 30" ACD as GUI monitor and the Sony as Program monitor in an arrangement that is ergonomically viable - not to mention the right graphics board(s) to drive them.

If I can get it dialed in I'll take pictures and report back to RU.

Cheers - #19
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
All of the above factors I suppose. The monitor is a bit large for sitting at my normal comfortable distance with my nose about 40 to 48 inches from the screen. I don't like moving my head where I feel like I can't adequately see opposite corners of the screen easily at all times. Pushing the monitor back a bit solves all that, so not a big deal in terms of size. PPI is an issue because there are no modes to adequately adjust display elements and fonts to compensate. We have to choose either a HiDPI 2X scaling of everything or we leave it native and suddenly everything is 60% smaller than it is on a 2560 pixels wide 30" display, both are quite annoying. The former because we then have the equivalent workspace of a 1080p monitor, which most of us don't like to actually work on. The latter we have just made all our fonts and interface elements, images, etc.. 60% smaller on a screen that we have to push a bit further back from to sit comfortably at.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. Typically as the PPI goes up, the elements just shrink. I wonder how many UI developers considered not just multiplier scaling but graphic elements edges options. UI support definitely is a huge factor in the transition to these pixel densities and I don't see a simple "clearer edges" as being the optimal route.

Jeff Kilgroe said:
3840x2160 has the same feel as running 1920x1080 when used accordingly with UHD/4K video. It's more of a tease than a practical solution. It would be, and is, fine for a stand-alone playback monitor resolution if we're delivering to the UHD format. For a working display, we can't display UHD video at 1:1 pixel resolution and still maintain other interface elements -- just like trying to work with 1080p assets on a 1080p display.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on the type of work one does and the priorities. For editing for example, I'm currently fine with 1080p preview on the same screen, too much data can be distracting for different types of focus. Also, fast scrubbing and editing type of reviewing with 8 megapixel motion imagery can easily be too tasking for the brain. Regardless, upping the resolution a bit more might be beneficial for many purposes if it is not overdone.

One thing I've noticed in typical HD-per-standard-FOV eyes most commonly have the pixel grid/screen texture as a reference surface to focus at (projection technology excluded) while at "retina" densities UI seems "hollow", there is no surface texture apart from the one from the object looked at and subtle unobtrusive texture in UI background helps the eyes perceive the screen surface.

Jeff Kilgroe said:
IMO, 3840x2160 monitors are very much transitional in terms of computer displays. The real deal will arrive when we can run 5120x2880 or higher in conjunction with a HiDPI implementation. This will require DisplayPort 1.3, better Thunderbolt 2 integration, or other improvements to the hardware available now.
Click to expand...

Well if you look at it wide enough everything we see is transitional. :) I understand the context you meant and I agree. With this stage of monitor development and wide range of potential uses I would like to see different UHD screen resolutions and aspect ratios becoming the thing of personal choice and hopefully this "21:9" branded screens (not really the best branding approach IMO) are not just testing and technology presentation thing.

Jeff Kilgroe said:
3840x2160 on the Dell 24" isn't half bad at HiDPI mode. It's better sized for 1080p calibre real estate and I think 2160p would make a fine "retina" resolution for Joe Average Consumer on a 22" to 24" display. I'm curious to see the upcoming 28" 2160p displays. That 4" diagonal shrink vs. the 32" models out now will allow us to sit a bit closer and maybe then we can forget HiDPI mode. It's still going to suffer the other issues with UHD video assets. OTOH, these 4K monitors so far are proving to be excellent for apps like Photoshop and Illustrator. Even Excel benefits, Xcode is nice because in HiDPI mode, the text is rendered a lot sharper and easier on the eyes.
Click to expand...

If you want easier on the eyes, try a newer TV panel with high frequency backlight and motion flow turned on. For the UI.
Hopefully these features are coming to computer screens as 60 Hz refresh rate and backlight frequency are far from high enough.

The thing with upping the res (think pixel-per-FOV) beyond a certain level leads to subconscious impulse to get closer to the screen. This may be transitional effect related to perceptive habits and the first reaction to a significant visual technology step, and also due to UI optimization which is lagging behind, etc. Regardless, focusing to a closer-than-optimal distance for a longer periods of time may easily have a negative effect on the eye's focusing range and speed. Very near distances are not the normal "center" point of focus where eyes use least effort. It is reasonable to conclude that prolonged focus on a closer point moves the optimal focus range, where eyes adapt to a new priorities at the cost of affecting general vision properties.

Jeff Kilgroe said:
But the way I see it, a pixel-doubled 27 or 30 inch is the killer app, not some almost-there 2160p screen that monitor makers are putting out now simply because it's the hot new TV panel resolution that all the panel makers are switching to.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to 2.5K screens pixel-doubled to 5K screens I agree. But I would go with 32". :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top