But...that is 4K. It's what 4K is defined as, exactly 2x 1080p resolution in each dimension.
> Windows scaling looks like crap
I don't understand. 2x each dimension (so 1 pixel in the old resolution is 4 in the new) is, like, the easiest possible scenario when it comes to scaling in software.
DCI is relevant for movie industry professionals only, as these are the dimensions used for projection devices and (potentially) their content.
Two groups have competing definitions. One isn't inherently correct.
I say this as someone who was "that guy" when it came to HD Radio: "It's not High Definition, it's Hybrid Digital!" even though that's exactly the confusion they were trying to encourage.
Arguing that this is misleading is a fool's errand, and only plays into things if you assume that the primary purpose of a "4K" screen somehow is inherently "to play back cinematic content", which... it's not.
200% (2 times each direction) scaling on 4K is the equivalent of 1080p. A 1080p 27 inch monitor has huuuge pixels for the normal viewing distance of a desktop monitor. 1080p is common on 23-24 inch displays. Therefore you are forced to use fractional scaling which is less then perfect.
That's irrelevant though, except if we're talking about consuming movies fullscreen.
For a monitor I don't want 4K, I want insivible pixels at viewing distances, so hi-dpi.
I would also prefer no scaling for assets that are bitmap in nature. This ideally means pixel doubling (less cpu/gpu demanding and less fuzzy than fractional scaling).
This, for 27" and more, means higher resolution that 4K. I don't want to restrict myself to pixel-doubled 1920x1080 on my 27" or 32" monitor.
You do get nice DPI, but needlessly large buttons and other assets (compared to something closer to 5K).
I'm so confused by your comment.
That would be relevant is my problem was false promises or misleading advertising.
But my problem is not
(a) "Monitors say they are 4K and they are not"
but:
(b) "Most monitors out there are BS-4K, but for the best quality/viewing comfort at their 27" and above diagonal they should rather be 5K, but most manufactures like Dell aren't bothered to produce at such a resolution and the few that do have prices to the skies".
>There are 5K monitors out there, maybe even 8K? Or just get a 4K one but in a smaller size?
Perhaps you've skiped through the thread?
My comment responds to (and agrees with) the sub-thread started by a parent commenter writing:
"Dell used to have good offerings, but all they seem to push now is the same 27” not-quite-4K 3,840 x 2,160 panels everybody else does.".
That's what we say too. 27" 4K monitor is too small at 100% scaling, while too small at 50% scaling (pixel-doubling hi-dpi mode).
That's why the idea is to have a 5K at 50% scaling (so everything is pixel-doubled on each axis, and a pixel becomes 4 pixels, doubling the detail you see).
It's not just about "not seeing any pixels", and "barely see any pixels" is not the same as enjoying hi-res typography and fine detail.
27-inch 1440p monitor is about 108 ppi. That's hardly better from what we used in the 90s and 00s, dpi-wise. Sure, if you haven't used to hi-dpi it looks ok. But try using a 5K/27-inch monitor for a while and then go back to 1440p/27-inch to see the difference you miss.
Now, 4K hi-dpi (pixel doubled) on 27" is 1920x1080.
This makes pixels just fine and detail is great, but everything too large and cuts off screen space, as it's 33% less area than 1440p (which, I presume, you don't use pixel-doubled)
The solution is either 5K/27" (which gives you back the 1440p kind of screen space and UI control size PLUS hi-dpi), or using a non-doubled, fractional resolution, to overcome, (which is not optimal, looks fuzzier, and wastes cpu).
What matters for perception is angular resolution, not DPI. And 27" display covers more visual field that 17" from 90s, so you can and should sit further away from it. Once angle of perceived pixel is smaller than angular resolution of your eye, reducing pixel size only adds to the resolutions of shades you can show to the user in that area (closer to bpp increase, than dpi increase, because you can't see pixels anymore, but still can perceive irregularities of brightness on edges).
The whole point of this thread is people complaining that, outside of LG's fragile Apple collab, there aren't any 5k options widely available.
Go on amazon and search for 5k 27. There's the Apple collab LG UltraFine, and then nothing.
Ditto for 22" 4k, which would provide the same DPI as your laptop screen for that given size.
On the other hand, HDMI 2.1 can now support 8K@60hz, so maybe this is not an issue anymore.
Not to the upthread specific claim that the resolution was “not quite 4K”, which is what the comment you are responding to addressed.
On the bigger issue, I don't really see the complaint. I have pretty good vision (corrected—to 20/15 or so—uncorrected is crap but I'm not coding without glasses/contacts) and honestly my 34” ultrawide at 3440x1440 is excellent for coding, and pretty much any other use. Now, would I prefer whatever resolution a 5K 16:9 would be when extended to 21:9? Or better a 4320p at the same aspect ratio? Sure, more pixels are always better. But does the sub-4K display look like crap or force bad sizes for controls? No.
Sure, I can work with a 3440x1440 34". Heck, I've worked with CGA monitors back in the day, and black and white (!) SUN Sparkstation monitors.
But, as you said, it's about looking better. "Doesn't look like crap" is a pretty low bar, no? For 2020, and after 10 years of hi-dpi phones and laptops, I expected better from monitor companies...
That's cool I guess, I was just objecting to calling the 4K "Not quite 4K".