Search Results
7/19/2025, 3:12:29 AM
>>105952304
I'm not a professional, but if I was, I would be requesting and using an OLED. The color accuracy, gamut/volume, and lack of off-axis gamma/chroam shift on top of native 10-bit processing would be essential if I were doing any sort of photo/video grading work. Plus when it burns out you just depreciate it as a tax benefit for the business. I heard many broadcast industry folks were upset when Sony replaced their flagship TRIMASTER EL OLEDs (that were true-RGB) with their current dual-layer LCDs a long while back.
>>105952342
Someone wrote this in the comments
>the thinking behind the 6K resolution is so that you can use it at 200% scaling, which results in 3008 x 1692, that turns out to be ~108 PPI, which is almost the same as a 27" at 2560x1440 (108.8 PPI) (but with much better clarity obviously).
>So that 200% fits Mac users, since they need exact scaling. And then anyone else who wants more stuff on their screen (running Windows I guess), can use it with lower scaling like 175% or even 150%.
>For example at 150% scaling, this will result in 4011 x 2256 at ~144PPI, which is a tiny bit more density than a 31.5" at 4K (UHD) at 100% (140 PPI)
Which makes sense I guess. Still likely using FRC to fake 10-bit + 60Hz due to bandwidth constraints, we really need HDMI 2.2 (96 Gbps) or GPMI (192 Gbps) adoption like yesterday.
I'm not a professional, but if I was, I would be requesting and using an OLED. The color accuracy, gamut/volume, and lack of off-axis gamma/chroam shift on top of native 10-bit processing would be essential if I were doing any sort of photo/video grading work. Plus when it burns out you just depreciate it as a tax benefit for the business. I heard many broadcast industry folks were upset when Sony replaced their flagship TRIMASTER EL OLEDs (that were true-RGB) with their current dual-layer LCDs a long while back.
>>105952342
Someone wrote this in the comments
>the thinking behind the 6K resolution is so that you can use it at 200% scaling, which results in 3008 x 1692, that turns out to be ~108 PPI, which is almost the same as a 27" at 2560x1440 (108.8 PPI) (but with much better clarity obviously).
>So that 200% fits Mac users, since they need exact scaling. And then anyone else who wants more stuff on their screen (running Windows I guess), can use it with lower scaling like 175% or even 150%.
>For example at 150% scaling, this will result in 4011 x 2256 at ~144PPI, which is a tiny bit more density than a 31.5" at 4K (UHD) at 100% (140 PPI)
Which makes sense I guess. Still likely using FRC to fake 10-bit + 60Hz due to bandwidth constraints, we really need HDMI 2.2 (96 Gbps) or GPMI (192 Gbps) adoption like yesterday.
Page 1