What are you calling "hi-dpi"? There's a ton of 4k monitors in the 27" to 32" range, which are definitely higher DPI than typical. And for a lot less than $5000.
The other problem with hidpi scaling (200%) at 4k 32", is that everything is huge, and you lose a lot of screen real estate.
Honestly I think 8k 36" is the sweet spot.
I'd be happy with like 8k at 34" or so.
The problem is that you need a font at exactly the right scale to realize this advantage. The right scale is often different for every user/monitor pair and changing the scale means redrawing the font which is a ton of work.
I'm not convinced the difference is obvious.
You should be farther from your monitor than you are from your laptop.
See eg: https://tonsky.me/blog/monitors/
The myth of 1x, 2x, and 3x being "preferred" is just an Apple-ism because their UI toolkit is pixel-based. That's a flaw in their toolkit, not an inherent technical constraint. Combined with then Apple scaling it yet again after it's rendered.
Other platforms are not nearly as badly designed.
And a GTK-ism.
Apple-ism? Please. Most plarforms and GUI libs are pixel based, and we always have photos to see and other such bitmap assets.
The largest platform, Android, is not pixel based. The largest desktop platform, Windows, also went through the effort to try and do things properly here, letting the app handle DPI instead and then providing updated toolkits to do that automatically.
All applications i use on windows support scaling natively, and provide crisp text at 150%. It's not 2010 any more, this is a solved problem. Anything that doesnt should be killed with fire.
In fact, it is common to recommend a vertical viewing angle of 30 degrees. Not more as it tends to increase eye fatigue and neck pain. If you follow that recommendation, what matters is the definition (the number of pixels), not the resolution in DPI.
So, let's run a few calculations. The "retina" resolution is based on a pixel size of 1 arc-minute, that's 20/20 vision, at 30 degrees, that's 1800 pixels. 4k is 2160 vertical, so that's about the limit of human vision. So, basically, 4k is what you want at any size.
8k is not useless but you are pushing the boundaries here. In order to notice it, you need perfect, over 20/20 vision, high luminosity and high contrast. Beyond 8k, you enter superhuman territory, with an exception: you can notice discontinuities at a much higher resolution (vernier resolution), but it only matters if you don't have anti-aliasing. And of course, high contrast, luminosity and perfect vision.
There are exception. For example there is a limit on how close a screen can be, so having 4k on a tiny smartphone screen is mostly useless. The other end of the spectrum would be VR, with fields of view over 100 degrees, 8k per eye is considered a minimum for an immersive experience.
No, because I don't want to move my 32" monitor further away to get that 30 degree viewing angle. The reason I have a 32" monitor for work is to have more screen real estate. A 30 degree viewing angle works for watching movies and stuff, but when I use it for coding, I essentially have multiple 30 degree viewing (on-screen) windows.
You might say "ok well just get two or three monitors", but that isn't the same either. Besides the space between the monitors, with one large monitor I can subdivide my screen space in any way depending on what I'm doing, where each window has a 10-30 degree viewing angle or whatever.
>you can notice discontinuities at a much higher resolution (vernier resolution), but it only matters if you don't have anti-aliasing.
That's just not true though. It does matter even with antialiasing, the difference is clear. In particular, the dell xps 15 2019 has a ~290 dpi OLED, which has high contrast.
For movies, THX recommends a 36 degrees horizontal viewing angle[2], which is about 20 degrees vertical. Recommendations vary, sometimes it is 30 degrees, sometimes it is 40, but always horizontal.
Now, no one will force you. If you prefer to have a very large screen right up your nose, that's your choice, and maybe your work environment calls for it. But it is just not what it is generally recommended and I would put it into the "exception" category. And sure, in that case, increased resolution is good.
As for antialiasing, it will not make the image sharper, quite the opposite in fact. However, if your resolution is so that it is over your visual acuity (you can't distinguish between 2 thin parallel lines and 1 thicker line), antialiasing will take care of superaccuity. That's the ability of your brain to use image processing techniques to detect jaggies that are finer than what you eye can see. If you have good vision and a 4k monitor closer to you than the recommended distance, it is normal to see the difference even with anti-aliasing turned on.
[1] https://www.viewsonic.com/library/business/best-computer-scr...
[2] https://www.thx.com/questions/thx-certified-screen-placement...
Between phone, table, and laptop, monitor, yes.
But when speaking of monitors alone, it's not that relevant an observation in practice, since most monitors, whether 27", or 32", or 24" are seen from more or less the same distance.
This is false. Misalignment of borders can be detected with a precision up to 10 times better than visual acuity [0], therefore your numbers should be multiplied by 10, meaning 40K is the optimal screen resolution, or 80K for people with particularly good vision.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperacuity_(scientific_term)
Anti-aliasing is the display counterpart of hyperperacuity.
Here is a paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320353446_Effects_o...
Its conclusion is that with anti-aliasing, you only need half the resolution to reach the detection threshold for misalignment of borders compared to other visual acuity tests.