← Home ← Back to /g/

Thread 105662260

153 posts 34 images /g/
Anonymous No.105662260 >>105662296 >>105662300 >>105662305 >>105662310 >>105662313 >>105662537 >>105662541 >>105662544 >>105662590 >>105662614 >>105662630 >>105662798 >>105662929 >>105663055 >>105663065 >>105663066 >>105663088 >>105663173 >>105663193 >>105663268 >>105663409 >>105663459 >>105663468 >>105663812 >>105664066 >>105664206 >>105664718 >>105665857 >>105665923 >>105665970 >>105666046 >>105666214 >>105667019 >>105667266 >>105667324 >>105667464 >>105667741 >>105668747 >>105669682 >>105669758 >>105672073 >>105673895 >>105673993 >>105674050 >>105674941 >>105674989
What is the perfect size for a 4K screen?
Anonymous No.105662296
>>105662260 (OP)
54 inch
Anonymous No.105662300 >>105663863 >>105667417 >>105674050 >>105674989
>>105662260 (OP)
I have a 32” screen and it’s too big and too close to my face
Anonymous No.105662304 >>105674989
27
Anonymous No.105662305
>>105662260 (OP)
Both are fine just get whatever is comfortable for your distance from the screen
Anonymous No.105662310 >>105668803
>>105662260 (OP)
it depends how far away from it you are.
27" is too small for text reading unless your face is 6 inches from the screen.
Anonymous No.105662313 >>105662939 >>105663276
>>105662260 (OP)
54"
Anonymous No.105662325 >>105662333 >>105662377
27 is too small, you have to use image scaling so defeats the whole point of having 4k
Anonymous No.105662333 >>105662355 >>105662477 >>105666148 >>105667006 >>105673455
>>105662325
it literally doesn't, using a 4k monitor at 200% scaling is god tier
Anonymous No.105662351
27-28".
Can still be used as a 1080p screen integer scaled at a decent PPI.
32" pushes below that.

27" 1440p is a poorfag resolution. Always has been, always will be. It's not 2010 anymore, gramps.
Anonymous No.105662355 >>105662384 >>105663851 >>105664578 >>105666035 >>105667361 >>105668680 >>105672242
>>105662333
Imagine paying for 4k so you can use it as 1080p with nicer looking text.

Applefags are mentally ill. 43" is where 4k starts.
Anonymous No.105662377
>>105662325
This is only a problem with linux due to a lack of integer scaling being a desire for anyone.
Otherwise they suggest 200% fractional or hidpi style scaling, because they're all >usecase autists who can't into resource management.
If you use nvidia on linux, lol, lmao,

If you use Nvidia on windows, intel or AMD, you can integer scale for 27" 1080p, or even 720p or 540p if the mood suits you, perfectly sharp with low VRAM use.
Or you can say fuck it, use around 1 GB of VRAM and slam the slide- drop down menu to 200% or even 150% and pretend you've got a 1440poorfag display, albeit with more pixels per inch packed in.

So really it's only at 100% and with small terminal fonts, however you can set terminal resolution on entry if you're a grublet, and again the issue on linux remains on the compositor side with only Valve really understanding how things should work.
Anonymous No.105662384 >>105662497 >>105670990
>>105662355
>43" is where 4k starts
43" is where 4k goes to die, with BGR pixel layouts.
Anonymous No.105662477 >>105668328 >>105668417
>>105662333
you gotta be fucking blind, Microsoft upscaling is a blurry disgrace
Anonymous No.105662497
>>105662384
>BGR
Just turn your screen upside down if you're too stupid to buy an RGB panel?
Anonymous No.105662537
>>105662260 (OP)
I've tried 32" and it's too big.
And after trying 4K on 27" I can't go back to 1440p on the same size. The difference is noticeable.

My ultimate monitor would be 5K2K aka UWUHD aka 5120x2160 34 inch.
Anonymous No.105662541
>>105662260 (OP)
24", but they dont make those anymore
Anonymous No.105662544 >>105662575 >>105662581
>>105662260 (OP)
25" and 200% scaling.
unfortunately no one makes 25" 4k screens so 27" is the only choice.
Anonymous No.105662575 >>105662578
>>105662544
there's tonnes of 24.5" ones
Anonymous No.105662578 >>105669624
>>105662575
there are no 24.5" 4K monitors that aren't from 10 years ago 60hz et cetera.
Anonymous No.105662581
>>105662544
You can get a 25" 4k panel if I get a return to 1:1, 4:3, 5:4 & 16:10 panels for the lawyer bros.
Not one off unsuccessful concepts or a sole LG panel, mass return.
Anonymous No.105662590
>>105662260 (OP)
i use 32" 4k 16:9. first it felt too big, but now after more than a year im so used to it than i can't go back to smaller screens.
Anonymous No.105662614
>>105662260 (OP)
32" MINIMUM
Anonymous No.105662630 >>105662644 >>105662794
>>105662260 (OP)
a theoretical perfect size for 3840x2160?

windows and linux are designed for 96ppi, so lets 2x to 192ppi so we get a hi-DPI

pic related: 22.947", so something close to that would be ideal
Anonymous No.105662635
32"
Anonymous No.105662644
>>105662630
and the PPD for a normal viewing distance is 84.9, which is plenty.
Anonymous No.105662794 >>105662828 >>105662851 >>105662971 >>105667361
>>105662630
>windows and linux are designed for 96ppi, so lets 2x
Is there anything funnier than macniggers? Why 2x?

Could you explain the thought process behind making everything 4x more computationally expensive, for exactly the same real estate? Is sharp text this important to you?
Anonymous No.105662798 >>105664578
>>105662260 (OP)
42"
Anonymous No.105662828 >>105662922 >>105670666
>>105662794
>Is sharp text this important to you?
yes, I unironically dont like my desktop anymore because of the DOGSHIT low dpi cancer. please someone make a 200dpi ultrawide I beg you
Anonymous No.105662851 >>105662922 >>105662971
>>105662794
Well, it's because of PPD. the website i used gives a pretty good explanation

https://phrogz.net/tmp/ScreenDensityCalculator.html

tl;dr you basically need go to to 4k to get a 60+ PPD. you can almost do it with 1440p. 1080p is dead.
Anonymous No.105662922 >>105662965
>>105662828
Then I hope you die.

>>105662851
60 PPD is the optimal PPD. It's the perfect balance between computational load and visual fidelity, and until we have 80" screens there's no reason to go beyond this.
Anonymous No.105662929 >>105664578
>>105662260 (OP)
42
Anonymous No.105662939
>>105662313
this
so much this
Anonymous No.105662965 >>105662998
>>105662922
nothing does that though. 1440p is not enough and 4k is a lot more. 4k is probably ideal because even if you sit close, it's still at least 60.
Anonymous No.105662971 >>105663021 >>105667361
>>105662851
Not that anon but you can calculate pitch, ppi and aov off of viewing distance and interestingly enough 27" 1080p is around 60 PPD at around 1 metre away, for people with a reasonable sized desk this falls into the sweet spot for AOV.
Home theatre calculators and cinema standards mostly use the same concepts and there's a lot of overlap.

27" @ 1440p passed your mark (that's poorfag tier) and so does 4k.
27" 4k has the benefit of being able to be used at 1080p, 540p & 720p with a light computational load like >>105662794 indicates too.
Why is 1440p able to be mocked at 27"? Well, because your only integer scale options are 720p, and 1080p scaled (non integer) will look worse than scaled cleanly, compared to 1440p scaled uncleanly to 4k on the same panel size.

72 > 96 PPI/DPI is usually good enough for computer viewing at the appropriate viewing distance. I could go on, but most of this overlaps, so 72 > 96 dpi at focusing distance for reading (arms length or so) is usually about fine, with anything over 72 > 76 eding out.
Want to see how close this loose idea holds? PPI for 27" @ 1080p, 81.59 PPI.
Anonymous No.105662998
>>105662965
>nothing does that though
Everything made in the past 20 years does that.
Anonymous No.105663021 >>105663033 >>105667361
>>105662971
who the hell is sitting 39" away from a 27" display? also you don't have to use scaling for 1440p. it's so close to the 96ppi design that it's not necessary.
Anonymous No.105663033 >>105663048 >>105670690
>>105663021
Who the fuck uses inches to describe viewing distance?
Secondly, who in their right mind, sees 39" from 27" and doesn't immediately connect it to being around 1.5x the distance vs diagonal.
They're standards for a reason, you nonce.
Anonymous No.105663048 >>105663064 >>105663074
>>105663033
stfu europoor. american website. american units. get with the program or seethe. nobody on planet earth is sitting that far away from a 27". i will not accept your incoming concession either.
Anonymous No.105663055
>>105662260 (OP)
Probably 27. Any bigger than that and you have to keep moving your head around, which is a minus AND it makes you miss details on movies because our field of view only goes so far.
Anonymous No.105663064 >>105663114
>>105663048
>posts pro-1440POOrfag propaganda
>can't afford to sit a mere metre of arm's length from a monitor
>brags 'bout burger brain buffoonery
Can't make this shit up. Every time. Every god damned time.
Anonymous No.105663065 >>105663110
>>105662260 (OP)
is 27" the final boss for regular sized desks? I tried 2x 32s for a bit and they were too big. 1x 34" ultrawide is nice for some things, but I want to try 27s for a bit. It would be even nicer if they were curved 4ks.
Anonymous No.105663066
>>105662260 (OP)
40-50"
Anonymous No.105663074
>>105663048
>american website
Anonymous No.105663088 >>105663113
>>105662260 (OP)
I do want to try this 40" someday but I can't justify spending that much

https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-40-curved-thunderbolt-hub-monitor-u4025qw/apd/210-bmdp/monitors-monitor-accessories
Anonymous No.105663110 >>105663187 >>105663288
>>105663065
>is 27" the final boss for regular sized desks?
Yeah, once you get over that you want to be about over a metre away, even using at 1.4x the diagonal you're 1.1 metres away at minimum and it will fill your field of view. For 1.5x you're a little closer to 1.21m away.
Desk depth is the premium, while you can easily get yourself a desk with 1.5m depth you have to account for space on a monitor stand, cables etc, you're measuring from the front of the panel to your eye.

For a 32" monitor, taking into account how large the panel is, you need a surface with around 2 metres depth.
Anonymous No.105663113
>>105663088
just get 2 27"
Anonymous No.105663114
>>105663064
i never wrote anything PRO 1440p you fucking ngubu loving weetabix munching liar. 4k is the only answer
Anonymous No.105663149
38", practically the same PPI as 27" 1440p so perfect to combine, and doesn't require any retarded scaling.
Sadly only two models are out there afaik.
Anonymous No.105663173
>>105662260 (OP)
I've used both 27" and 32" 4K screens as well as 27" 1440p.
32" is definitely the better of the three.

Maybe a bigger screen would be even better.
But I once borrowed a very big screen, I think it was 40", I didn't like it because I had to move my head to find the mouse cursor.
Maybe I just had to get used to it, I only used it for two weeks, or maybe it really was too large.
Anonymous No.105663187 >>105663866
>>105663110
>For a 32" monitor, taking into account how large the panel is, you need a surface with around 2 metres depth.
This was an oversight. That was a figure taking into account space from behind the user (allowing for chair) to desk > wall.
Not literally a 2 metre depth surface for the desk.
Desk depth is usually around 50-80cm available via commercial outlets, with around 10-20cm of clearance to a wall, then clearance on the other side for the user.
Anonymous No.105663193 >>105663346
>>105662260 (OP)
I have a 27 inch 4K monitor. It's just right for 1440p but in 4K everything becomes too small I need to use scaling to not squint my eyes on the UI.
Anonymous No.105663268
>>105662260 (OP)
I own a 27" 4K display and it's great. Everything looks crisp and I don't feel eye strain anymore.
Anonymous No.105663276
>>105662313
>buy tv
>call it a monitor
Anonymous No.105663288 >>105663400
>>105663110
I have an adjustable VESA mount so I can place my screen at any distance I like.
As it turns out I put my 32" at 57cm from my eyeball which is 48cm from the edge of my desk.
This is the most comfortable for me and looks pretty middle ground.

No idea where you got "1.21m" from?
Anonymous No.105663346
>>105663193
>I need to use scaling
So just do.
This isn't the 1990's where everything is bitmaps.
Scaling really isn't an issue anymore.
Anonymous No.105663400 >>105663585 >>105663599
>>105663288
bwind bro pls...
Anonymous No.105663409 >>105667361
>>105662260 (OP)
4K is a meme res.
Get a 1440p or 5k screen.
Anonymous No.105663415
Incompatible units. Your viewing distance is compatible with screen size.
Gayretards.
Your resolution is compatible with your wallet size.
Anonymous No.105663459 >>105663611
>>105662260 (OP)
The answer is that it depends on viewing distance. At what I would consider pretty standard desk viewing distance of ~65cm (~2') or maybe even less the best choice is definitely 27". At this distance it's large enough to cover a good chunk of your field of view while also having high enough DPI to look nice. 32" would be too large since you wouldn't really look at the whole thing at once and you'd get worse image quality due to lower DPI.

If your viewing distance on the other hand is above 65cm, especially if you're nearing 1m (~3') instead, then I would go with 32".
Anonymous No.105663468
>>105662260 (OP)
>40"
Those South Korean refurbs were pretty cool, the one I bought way back when is actually still working (gave it to the 'rents).

I currently use a 32", but there's also a 48" CX connected to my PC as well.
Anonymous No.105663585 >>105663598
>>105663400
We're talking desktop use, not movie theaters.
But even then my 57 cm seems to fit every single spec.

48cm isn't my "first row" it's the drinks tray in front of the first row.
57cm is my "first row", if feels perfect and your chart seems to agrees.
Anonymous No.105663598 >>105663644
>>105663585
That 9cm outs you as a mole man, like these threads always do.
FoV never lies. You can not beat physics, yet.
Anonymous No.105663599 >>105663776
>>105663400
what tool is this?
Anonymous No.105663611 >>105663622
>>105663459
>32" would be too large since you wouldn't really look at the whole thing at once
I can see the whole thing at once in my peripheral vision and I only have to move my eyes to see any part sharp.

I do agree 4K looks slightly sharper on 27".
Maybe 5K would be ideal for 32", when then I wouldn't be able to mirror my screen to my TV and 4K still looks plenty sharp.
Anonymous No.105663622
>>105663611
>and I only have to move my eyes to see any part sharp.
oof
Anonymous No.105663644 >>105663823 >>105663983
>>105663598
lol

Shortest recommended distance is 50.6 cm and "ideal" distance is 63.4 cm
So 57 cm is pretty much bang on for someone who just moved an arm until it felt right.
I clearly have master race vision.
Anonymous No.105663689
24" at 100% scaling is the best. Anything larger just requires you to move further from the screen so there's no real benefit and you're just limiting your mounting options.
Anonymous No.105663776
>>105663599
It's an aging excel spreadsheet for projectors that's been posted around before.
https://carltonbale.com/home-theater/home-theater-calculator/

It works off of everything you see there really, the THX and SMPTE standards are there as guides for movie viewing but for desktop use, it's something you'd want to see as the closest you want to be or you'll run into things like eye fatigue.
Ideal viewing distance and the PPI/pixel density w/ dot pitch will work similarly to PPD, it just adds the field of view element to calculate it, and does so based off of any aspect ratio or input you specify.
It's most useful for people calculating distances for desktop or viewing TV distances 16:9 but you can scale it to something like viewing distances for reading or watching hand held, similar to the PPD calculator someone posted above. These concepts aren't new, they're the same as you'd use for figuring out projection or reverse projection with an enlarger or LF camera.
Most advice online for viewing distances either revolves around 16:9 standards or based on office ergonomics (which are somewhat conservative) but with this tool the benefit is scalability.

Used in combination with something like a laser measurement tool you can get an idea of the range you view things either hunched over or sat up straight at your desk or leaning back to get an idea of your real viewing distance to a screen, you can then use that to say, find your ideal FOV/AOV over other devices. People often underestimate the range of motion they have and how much FOV impacts how you use a screen comfortably.
That's the laymans use for it, if you're using it to calculate home theatre seating and projector throw distance, it's extremely competent for that too.
Anonymous No.105663812 >>105663877
>>105662260 (OP)
42 and 32 for single player gaming and productivity

27 and 24 for competitive gaming and side tasks

Also depends on desk depth, mine is 30 inches. My LG C2 is my main screen and my side screen is a 24 inch IPS panel for pdf viewing and schematics.
Anonymous No.105663823 >>105663983
>>105663644
>misinterprets the data
>I'm a genius!
Anon, that's based off of a near 70 degree field of view...the 57cm viewing distance is only 63.7 degrees, it's barely an improvement, you'll find that you naturally sway more sitting than your measurement.
Anonymous No.105663851
>>105662355
>Imagine paying for 4k so you can use it as 1080p with nicer looking text.
Is there something wrong with wanting nicer looking text?
Anonymous No.105663863
>>105662300
>fell for the 32" meme
Anonymous No.105663866
>>105663187
>allowing for chair
I live in a literal 2.4M commiepod with chair squeezed between 800mm desk and 800mm bed, and a 42" display fov feels just right for gaming and anime.
Before that I had triple 24" setup that wasted way too much desk surface.
Anonymous No.105663877
>>105663812
that's why i bought one of those dual mode oled monitors. 32" 4k for normal usage, 24" 1080p 480hz for cs2
Anonymous No.105663983 >>105666864
>>105663823
>>105663644
I realise that we are mere moments from the predator & prey meme being posted.
Anonymous No.105664066
>>105662260 (OP)
24"
Anonymous No.105664086
32 inch is actually easier to manufacture so its for poorfags. 27 are for ppi gods also consider you might want want to run multiple monitors which makes it really the sweet spot for everything. been almost a decade since i've seen the shape of a pixel.
Anonymous No.105664206 >>105664578
>>105662260 (OP)
can't go back to tiny screens, 42" is peak.
Anonymous No.105664578 >>105664689
>>105662355
>>105662798
>>105662929
>>105664206
42" looks retarded used as a pc monitor
Anonymous No.105664689 >>105665880
>>105664578
Must be rough being a retard.
Anonymous No.105664718
>>105662260 (OP)
for 4k: 27" integer scaled
for 3k: 25" without scaling
simple as.
Anonymous No.105665857 >>105666123
>>105662260 (OP)
>What is the perfect size for a 4K screen?
According to Sony, 6.5"
Anonymous No.105665880
>>105664689
you look like a fucking tool with a tv-sized screen on your desk
Anonymous No.105665923
>>105662260 (OP)
22 inch with 140% scaling
As I use FHD on my 13 inch latitude 7310
Anonymous No.105665970
>>105662260 (OP)
Two 27" for the win.
Anonymous No.105666035
>>105662355
so much this, zoomers are fucking subhumans.
Anonymous No.105666046
>>105662260 (OP)

27"
Anonymous No.105666123
>>105665857
I never figured out how to playback 4K movies on that (Xperia 1 III)... in fact, the only app that I got 4K output from was the Fox Sports app (4K and HDR!).
Anonymous No.105666148
>>105662333
this post made me physically gag
>t. 4k 32" user at 100% scaling
Anonymous No.105666214
>>105662260 (OP)
if you go 4k, you go 32 inch, 1440p is 27 inch
1080p 24 inch.
Anonymous No.105666408
32", but you need a deep desk so the monitor isn't too close
Anonymous No.105666636
24".
32" should be using 6k at the least, but no one but Apple bothers doing that.
Anonymous No.105666864 >>105669701
>>105663983
Anonymous No.105667006
>>105662333
Just want to call you a retard in case someone is looking at buying a 4K monitor.
Anonymous No.105667019
>>105662260 (OP)
Depends on how close you are to the monitor. If your siting at a desk 27" is as big as you should go.
Anonymous No.105667266
>>105662260 (OP)
I desire 42" 8k (or higher 16k would be nice). Something where a single centered monitor would suffice rather than having multiple.
Anonymous No.105667324
>>105662260 (OP)
The perfect size for a 1080p screen
It’s just 1080p but with 4x the pixel count
So you run it at 200% text zoom and everything looks crisp and beautiful
Anonymous No.105667361 >>105667392
>>105662355
I do just that and it’s wonderful
t. Macfag who uses Linux and Windows too
>>105662794
Yes, it’s that important to us
>>105662971
1440p at 27" is good if you’re OK with not having sharp text
If you want sharp text at 27" at normal sizes you want a 5K screen
>>105663021
Me playing Ring Fit Adventure
>>105663409
You wouldn’t hate it on a 21" screen
Anonymous No.105667392 >>105667548 >>105668800 >>105672007
>>105667361
>1440p at 27" is good if you’re OK with not having sharp text
nta, but I have a 32" 4k and a 27" 1080p next to each other on my desk and I'm fine with both of them. they serve different purposes for my use case. the 27" 1080p is perfect for shit like web browsing, editing text/spreadsheets, stuff like that. the 32" 4k excels at watching video, playing games, editing images, blender, etc, basically any tasks that benefits from the extra screen real estate. I use both at 1x scaling. UI scaling is an abomination that should have never existed in the first place
Anonymous No.105667417
>>105662300
>it's s-so big and close to my face!
hot...
Anonymous No.105667429
52" 32:9
Anonymous No.105667464
>>105662260 (OP)
i like 32''. i'm using an Odyssey Neo G7. need to replace my 2nd monitor which is a 27'' 1440p ProArt (with something that is equally graphic design-oriented).
Anonymous No.105667466
I used to have a 48" 4k "monitor" but it got damaged so I upgraded to the latest fancy 42" oled and I regret not going 48" again.
42" is just an awkward size and once you've had bigger on your desk it just isnt the same
Anonymous No.105667490 >>105667520
why don't they make <20 inch anymore? a modern bezel-less 1440p 18" monitor would be a fucking great compact display
Anonymous No.105667520 >>105667554 >>105667593
>>105667490
>why don't they make <20 inch anymore?
they do, it's called a phone or a tablet. pretty sure there are ways to use those as monitors nowadays
or you could take a laptop panel, 3d print a case and buy an adapter to connect it to a hdmi or dp port
Anonymous No.105667548
>>105667392
Integer scaling is great (200%, 300% on some iPhones)
Noninteger scaling makes baby Jesus cry
Anonymous No.105667554 >>105667593
>>105667520
Google "portable monitor" retard
Anonymous No.105667593 >>105667611
>>105667520
>or you could take a laptop panel, 3d print a case and buy an adapter to connect it to a hdmi or dp port
so much hassle for getting a proper compact display, good lord. I don't think I can get 18 inch laptop display easily around my town either

>>105667554
yeah and none of those chink shit has DP
Anonymous No.105667611
>>105667593
>I don't think I can get 18 inch laptop display easily around my town either
probably plenty of them on aliexpress. you're not gonna getting it the same day but it's better than not getting it at all
>picrel
I hate that keyboard with trackpad for the mini PC that's connected to my TV. it's the worst fucking keyboard I've had the displeasure of using and the trackpad is absolute garbage
Anonymous No.105667741
>>105662260 (OP)
greater than or equal to 60px angular resolution to avoid screen door effect

>screen density calc
thanks for the alternative source to verify my sheet
Anonymous No.105668328
>>105662477
you don't even use windows you linux fag
Anonymous No.105668417
>>105662477
Actually it got pretty good around 2020, when Intel did integer scaling, nvidia were forced to implement it and AMD caught up eventually.
At absolutes, 100, 200, 300, it's okay.
At fractional, it's as bad as xorg style scaling <175%.

And like xorg, it requires you to restart the display server to actually scale properly.
200% though!, completely integer scaled on smaller elements, everything else is scaled properly.
You get all the VRAM bloat that linux gives you with lall the jank.

Some older applications don't scale well, but literally checking a box and restarting is enough to fix that.
Either way, true integer scaling is king, always will be.
Anonymous No.105668680 >>105668788
>>105662355
>hes not looking at text all day
ngmi
Anonymous No.105668747
>>105662260 (OP)
42
Anonymous No.105668788 >>105668796
>>105668680
I am looking at text all day, though. Which is why I choose to have 4x the amount of text displayed at once, instead of sharper text.
Anonymous No.105668796 >>105668815
>>105668788
Are you also 4x as productive? Else why bother?
Anonymous No.105668800 >>105670950
>>105667392
>27" 1080p
grim
Anonymous No.105668803
>>105662310
>it depends how far away from it you are.
>27" is too small for text reading unless your face is 6 inches from the screen.
To think i work on a 21inch perfectly fine
Anonymous No.105668815
>>105668796
I have to scroll 4x less, that's a win in my book.
Anonymous No.105669624 >>105669688 >>105670539 >>105670950
>>105662578
>there are no 24.5" 4K monitors that aren't from 10 years ago 60hz et cetera.
?
Anonymous No.105669682
>>105662260 (OP)
24 inches
Anonymous No.105669688
>>105669624
what chinesium is this
Anonymous No.105669701
>>105666864
I switched back to a 4:3 crt monitor for a short while and was surprised at how easy it was to process the image at that resolution especially when racing or gayming
Anonymous No.105669758
>>105662260 (OP)
Most color grading guys and others whos accent is monitor like 27 4k options, 32 is more like a tv size
Personally have 27 2k monitor (beginner color grading suit), switching to this from 21 inch, and even from 15.6 was overwhelming
Anonymous No.105670539 >>105670636
>>105669624
>1920x1080
youre retarded
Anonymous No.105670636 >>105670828 >>105670950
>>105670539
>youre retarded
anon wanted a 24.5" monitor with more than 60Hz, he didn't mention the resolution.
Anonymous No.105670666
>>105662828
>ultrawide
Anonymous No.105670690
>>105663033
>nonce
tranny dog whistle. you will never be a woman
Anonymous No.105670828 >>105670936 >>105672027
>>105670636
What does 4K mean aside from resolution?
Anonymous No.105670936
>>105670828
power consumption
Anonymous No.105670950
>>105668800
it's really not that bad>>105670636
>he didn't mention the resolution.
>>105669624
>there are no 24.5" 4K monitors
>4K monitors
????
Anonymous No.105670990
>>105662384
You do know OLED 42" panels are a thing right?
Anonymous No.105671690
27" gives you 163DPI which is barely enough.
Anonymous No.105672007
>>105667392
how is scaling a 4k 27" worse than a 1080 27"??
Anonymous No.105672027
>>105670828
weight in pounds
Anonymous No.105672073
>>105662260 (OP)
I have a 32inch screen at 2k and it’s great. So whatever you have to say otherwise is a crock of shit.
Anonymous No.105672242 >>105675778
>>105662355
Are you genuinely too retarded to understand the point of high resolution being that you gain more fidelity?
If you use >150 ppi and don’t use scaling at 27" or similar, you are literally braindead and retarded.
Anonymous No.105673455 >>105673734
>>105662333
32" 4k 100% scaling > 27" 4k 200% scaling
Anonymous No.105673481
are people crying about scaling actual schizos or something? Holy fuck
Anonymous No.105673734 >>105673882
>>105673455
4k at 32" text is too small
Anonymous No.105673882
>>105673734
Just use a larger font.
Anonymous No.105673895
>>105662260 (OP)
4K is a meme resolution. 1440p @ 27" is the best.
Anonymous No.105673993
>>105662260 (OP)
I recently switched from a 27" 1440 to 24" 1080 monitor and it literally doesn't matter.
Anonymous No.105674050 >>105674306
>>105662260 (OP)
32" is perfect for 4k, 27" is perfect for 1440p.

>>105662300
> too close to my face
Your desk is too small. Get a bigger desk, enjoy more space in front of your monitor.
Anonymous No.105674090
38" 1080p master race
Anonymous No.105674306
>>105674050
1440p 27" is the best for <1k € gpu budgets but with 5090's and so on I would happily take 27" 4k

I would have to sit further away to comfily use 32", but then if I was say exercising and wanted to check out the monitor then 32 would be better than 27"
Anonymous No.105674393
All computer monitors suck, so you should go cheap for work screens and get an expensive tv instead.
Anonymous No.105674460
If on a desk, 32" is pretty optimal, though I have a 42" LG OLED C2 and its been a fantastic monitor. I am curious about upgrading though now that there are 4K 240hz OLEDs with other high end features and there weren't really any in the past. Since we're talking 4K maybe some of you will know...
>Is there a solution to running 4K 120hz (w/ HDR, 4:4:4 etc... full bandwidth) via HDMI 2.1 or newer on Linux / FOSS drivers? Last i heard the HDMI consortium basically shit the bed and locked shit down, so unless you used proprietary drivers you were out of luck? However, it seems that AMD drivers on Linux have progressed very nicely overall, so I wonder if they have a workaround because this monitor sadly has no displayport.
Anonymous No.105674859
What specs of monitor do I need for a 4chin machine with occasional gaming and watching animu?
Anonymous No.105674941
>>105662260 (OP)
15.4"
Anonymous No.105674989
>>105662260 (OP)
>>105662300
>>105662304

I confirm this. As a 32" owner I recommend getting a 27".

32" is so big you can actually see the pixels so the 4k magic feeling disappears, and it's terrible for gaming since you'd have to look around the screen and occasionally lose your cursor.

I used to play DOTA and the 32" screen was actuallu fucking me over, i just don't see all of it and sometimes i'd lose where my cursor is.
>jus play in a window
It feels wrong and distracting.

Seriously go 27 for fun AND for productivity.
Anonymous No.105675778
>>105672242
I don't use high PPI or tiny monitors, because those are for retards to begin with. The ACTUAL point of high resolution is superior real estate.