Hacker News Reader

Comment by shados | Hacker News Reader

2560x1440 on a 27 inch at a reasonable distance is pretty darn close to optimal IMO, so 4k, to me, is for 34" monitors (but 27 inch I feel is optimal on 60-75 inch desks, which is what I usually work with, so 4k rarely matters).

I'm with you on accurately calibrated monitors though! God most of them suck out of the box.

View on HN

If you don’t see any (spectacular!) difference between 4K & 1440p you need to have your eyesight checked.

I’m not being sarcastic. The last time there was a thread like that on HN a bunch of people figured out they need glasses.

I have a 4K @ 24in monitor (180ppi) and a 267 ppi netbook and when I switch between them the 4K starts looking like a blurry mess!

No, my eyesight both far and close was quite a bit better than average as of last week (as I was just there getting checked). We have a lot of 4k and 5k displays at work and most people who say they can tell a (significant) difference when we compare (the topic comes up a lot) seem to usually either be on > 27inch, have scaling higher than what's expected, or just fail to see it when we really test it out. Your millage may vary :)

Don't get me wrong, I can see a difference, but not nearly as night and day, especially when it comes at the cost of other features (eg refresh rate... which isn't the end of the world for coding so if it's the only thing you do on the monitor it could be worse... otherwise ouch my eyes.)

> have scaling higher than what's expected

What scaling is that? 200% scaling is what you should have, 4K is exactly 4x as many pixels as FullHD. If someone is using lower scaling then they are trading sharpness for virtual space.

> The last time there was a thread like that on HN a bunch of people figured out they need glasses.

Its fair advice, but some eyesight issues cannot be solved with glasses.. if they can be solved at all.

Also worth noting that with TVs the distance matters a lot. With monitors, laptops, and gadgets it is relatively stable.

For TV/Multimedia HDR makes much more difference than 4K in my experience.

I never get comments like these, as if the text just gets smaller as the resolution increases, rather than what actually happens (the text gets crisper). 5120x2880 is so nice because you can’t see the pixels and words almost look like they are on paper.

Seconded. 2560x1440 on a 27" panel is only 109 pixels per inch. I use a ThinkPad with that same resolution on a 14" display, with a 24" 4K UHD next to it in portrait mode.

Both displays are around 200 pixels per inch, plus or minus. It's great not having to see the pixels, so much more pleasant and easy on the eyes.

Also the combination of a portrait display with the landscape display is really nice. I can read an entire PDF page without scrolling.

I agree that having higher PPI is great, but are you using scaling to make text larger? I was barely able to use a 28" 4k a 100%, can't imagine doing that at 24"

Scaling is usually on by default in most modern operating systems.

Yes, I should have mentioned that I'm using Windows 10 with 225% scaling on both the 4K UHD 24" display (187 DPI) and the WQHD 14" (210 DPI). Some people like a bit less scaling, some more, but in general you want a scaling factor that roughly matches your display's pixels per inch.

The original Windows "standard display" was assumed to be around 96 DPI. That's the monitor that 100% scaling (i.e. no scaling) is intended for. Round the 96 up to 100 and we can say that in rough terms, the percentage scaling should be in the neighborhood of the monitor's DPI.

So monitors in the 200 DPI range are best at around 200% scaling.

A 28" 4K UHD has 157 DPI, so I wouldn't want to try it at 100% scaling - ouch. It ought to be running in the 150-175% scaling range.

The idea with a high-DPI monitor isn't to make everything smaller on the screen, it's to make everything sharper and more detailed. When you double the DPI and scale appropriately, you get four times the number of pixels for everything you put on the screen.

> A 28" 4K UHD has 157 dpi, so I wouldn't want to try it at 100% scaling - ouch. It ought to be running in the 150-175% scaling range.

That’s not how it works. Lower dpi does not somehow give you more real estate!

You should still be running with ~200% scaling because you are viewing it at a greater distance.

Optimal viewing distance, assuming 16:9 ratio, is 120 cm vs 140 cm for 24" vs 28", respectively[1]. Accounting for the difference gets you ~155 ppd with both monitors[2][3], maintaining 25.0° horizontal viewing angle.

The closer your viewing distance the more ppi you need for the same density. That 28" is not inferior to the 24", when you account for distance, despite the lower ppi, because the greater viewing distance makes the pixels look smaller, thus creating more dense image.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_size

[2] http://phrogz.net/tmp/ScreenDens2In.html#find:density,pxW:38...

[3] http://phrogz.net/tmp/ScreenDens2In.html#find:density,pxW:38...

I guess the problem is I value amount of information I can fit on the screen vs. quality of the information.

Also, apps that don't scale properly are a pain haha.

Bitmap text can look clear as crystal on a very low pixel density display.

You need a higher PPI to make anti-aliasing work on screen (finally looking nearly as nice as print).

Last year I had a 45” 4K screen with 150% scaled UI and was able to develop in VS code with two code windows open side by side, all with the crispiest text I’d ever seen. It’s the dream.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com