I think that dual 4K is the old way, single 6K/8K ultra wides are the future.
That said I am rocking the dual 4Ks on the Mac Mini M1 and it works great: https://twitter.com/BenHouston3D/status/1384693982249340935
I think that dual 4K is the old way, single 6K/8K ultra wides are the future.
That said I am rocking the dual 4Ks on the Mac Mini M1 and it works great: https://twitter.com/BenHouston3D/status/1384693982249340935
The amount of available screen space at 1:1 is refreshing (not as crazy as imagined though), but it makes me realize how grainy "normal" monitors are. In some years 8K TVs might be cheap enough for an upgrade, but on that time scale I can see VR being a serious contender as well (it's really good already).
The last time I tried a large format display, I couldn't move back far enough to make it work but I really loved working in 4k without scaling.
It's so big that I actually don't sit in the middle but to the left of the display. I use the right of the display as a second monitor.
As an aside, I have the Philips Momentum (model 436M6VBPAB) which is sold as a monitor but can double as a TV. It has HDR, which is very nice in a light office. I suspect it is no longer produced in any significant quantities. The price has been going up.
> they are grainy up close
Hmm, maybe it's its "TV-ness", but the individual pixels look pretty sharp to me at a close look (no quantum dots or weird pentile arrangement, that should definitely be looked out for), but I have no other low DPI display to compare it to. My reasoning was always "it's just an LCD panel, why would it be different" and so far I feel proven right.
> I also wonder if it's good for your eyes to focus on something that's constantly far away
My appeal-to-nature-argument would be that the natural human mix would probably have been much heavier towards looking into the distance than it is now (see the massive rise of near-sightedness in cities), so it can only be better than what we're currently doing.
There are few differences between a 4K 42" screen and 4 1080P 21" screens: the smaller screens can be angled, they have bezels, and are probably more expensive in aggregate.
I run it at 3840 x 2160 and use a trackball to get around. I like it a lot. LCD TV screens do not work well extremely close up but an OLED is fine even at 12" away. Text in the corner of an LCD TV is dim and poorly defined but on an OLED it is just like it would be on a 55" sheet of paper.
Of course I was concerned that the OLED screen would burn in, but it was an older TV so I took a chance.
Most days the computer and TV are on for about 12 hours. I have run them like this for 14 months now. There is no burn in at all. The overall brightness is slowly declining, but it has been doing that since I got it in 2016. (LG OLED55B6P)
Most TV's have a "gaming" setting that doesn't try to "improve" the video feed and just passes it through.
I can slide the desk out of the way when I want things back to normal in my living room.
In the near future 16:9 8ks are going to be standard (too bad it won't be 16:10) but right now you can get a decent triple 4k monitor setup for half of what an 8k monitor costs.
IMO ultra-wide is great for productivity in a situational sense but it sucks for gaming and media consumption. Also getting proper support for ultra-wide to be standard is probably going to take another decade.
I think there's something to be said for each monitor being a separate entity. I think some people will still prefer multiple monitors over ultra-wide even when support for ultra-wide is a solved problem.
My personal setup now is a 28" 4k@60hz, a 32" 1440P@240hz as a primary and a 24" 1440p@144hz. I have my work computer, my desktop, a mac-mini, a switch, and a PS4 running off of them so having separate monitors is ideal for me.
Ultra-wides and super-ultrawides are cool, but IMO they aren't as practical yet.
There's support, and then there's that support being so flawless that its the same quality of experience you would get with a standard aspect ratio. Each of us has our own standard of what's good enough. Its working out for you but the people I game with that were using ultra-wide monitors switched back due to the number of issues they were having, as recently as last year. I did some research myself when I was upgrading my monitor and some of the games I played would have had issues so or me personally it wasn't good enough.
Another thing to consider is a lot of game content is designed with standard aspect ratios in mind, so whether expanding the viewpoint makes it better is going to be a personal standard. It will be interesting to see if UW monitors do become a standard in a couple of decades whether game developers start specifically making content that utilizes the extra space to offer something that isn't possible with existing games.
No idea if it's the monitor of the laptop, but it's the exact same problem and hopefully hardware doesn't glitch in such a consistent way and it can be fixed in software.
Neither monitor supports Thunderbolt. But I run off of a USB-C to Display Port cable and one is using the HDMI port. Both run at 60Hz as it is HDMI 2.
Example: https://i.pcmag.com/imagery/articles/07toBDd6lpyucCyM0xWrcQv...
Sure but the Air and MBP already support 6k external displays.
They don’t support 2x4K.
I’ve been using an ultrawide since 2015 but have almost always had a second side monitor with it. The period where I didn’t have a second monitor was short as having a separate monitor has always come in handy. All of the extra space on an ultrawide is great but when you’re doing something that takes the whole screen, it still leaves you in the same position you would be with a single 16:9 display.
TBF my old setup was a decade old so it was merely a 24" (1920x1200) and a 19" (1280x1024 in portrait).
Though my new display has a much larger logical size, the inability to put something fullscreen on one of the monitors (whether the small one or the large one, depending on the content) is definitely one of the drawbacks I had a hard time getting used to, not only can it be inconvenient, it actually wastes space as I can't get rid of window decorations, which putting e.g. a video player or browser window in fullscreen allowed.
that said, i have no issue with your choice. for some applications (eg video editing is the default choice for ads of UW monitors) it is really better.
i do have issue with you denigrating 2 monitors. it is not at all "an old hack".
Also, with two screens, I can adjust the angle between them to be more or less severe.
Also, 2 monitors means more choice in layout; for example, my 2nd monitor is in portrait orientation.
I work on mac all day and on my 1440p widescreen I am constantly trying to put stuff so I can use everything I want to at the same time. `[Code|App|Docs]` is so common we ought to be able to split a wide screen 3 ways the way we do a normal 2.
I was using Spectacle before, but I think the project died, and Rectangle is what I use now.
I'd strongly consider getting a 6k monitor, or maybe a 5k2k ultrawide if I didn't already have two my two Dell 27inch 4ks.
I personally prefer the visual break as I find it useful for creating fixed 'work areas': terminals/xterms, browser, mail, etc.