Hacker News Reader

can you confirm they work in retina mode with macs? e.g. anyone tried 27UL500 and can confirm text looks good?

No, I tried these 4k@27 inch displays, and you can enable scaling, but it looks really really poor compared to my 5k iMac. 4k at 27 inch is not retina-quality, period. This is the only reason I use an iMac, I simply can't get an equally good display without paying €5k+.

I understand that not everybody understands hiDPI displays, but it really grinds me gears to see low-resolution displays advertised as solutions to people who do understand hiDPI.

Ok, I understand it cannot be comparable with a 5k iMac. But is text good enough? with €5k+ I can build a pretty serious linux rig with a couple of 4k monitors and keep the macbook air m1 just for mobile use. It's a shame that my 10+ years old macbook pro with High Sierra can render text better on any external monitor than my brand new air m1.

In my opinion, text rendering on 4k@27'' is nowhere near sharp enough. In my experience there isn't a continuum from low-dpi to high-dpi, but rather there's a sharp transition where text suddenly becomes sharp and 4k@27'' is below that line.

In fact, once you see these new 280dpi displays, even 5k@27'' barely makes the cut. I wish it were sharper.

Angular resolution is much more important than the actual surface DPI. Depending on you viewing distances and the quality of your vision 4K on a 14" laptop is needed or 1080p on a 27" screen is more than enough. Your requirements are extreme compared to most.

Yes, angular resolution is all that matters, which is why books, which are supposed to be used closer than any screen have been at least 300dpi since we have invented phototypesetting.

We can discuss how much angular resolution is enough but we clearly don't need 300dpi for a billboard. To get the same font quality when looking at a phone, laptop or external screen a different dpi will be needed.

Here's Apple's range of Retina displays:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display#Models

The DPI difference between highest (iPhone 12) and lowest (Pro Display XDR) is 2.2x. The angular resolution difference at typical viewing distance between those two screens is 1.1x. Clearly the angular resolution at typical viewing distance is a much better definition of what's good enough resolution than the DPI.

Yes, and with the exception of a discontinued LG monitor, and a $4k Dell display that doesn't work on macOS, nor on Linux with OSS drivers, no external non-Apple display can provide the required angular resolution.

That totally depends on what angular resolution you require and what distance you are comfortable with. Using that list Apple's Retina concept starts at 57 and 4K 27" is ~60. And even that is assuming you place a 27" screen the same distance away from your eyes as a 24" or even 21" screen as all the iMacs use the same viewing distance.

But I'm glad we got over the idea that 220dpi is a magical number. Otherwise not even the iMac or the Apple Pro XDR displays counted as HiDPI.

I have a 4k 27" LG monitor and it is awesome with my Mac. I use it with 150% scale and the font is ultra sharp, best monitor I've ever seen so far

Please check your eyesight. I can easily tell the difference between a 220ppi and a 280ppi display when viewing text even at one meter viewing distance. 4k@27'' is only 163ppi. And my eyesight is not even what it used to be.

To me, 163ppi looks more similar to how old ~100ppi displays looked that to my 224ppi iMac.

Have they fixed the performance issues with non-integer scaling?

Sorry, but those are not hiDPI. For hiDPI, you need at least 5k at 27 inch. There was a single (!!) LG display (27MD5KL) that met that criteria, but it was discontinued.

The only external hiDPI displays that exist are the Apple Pro XDR (only works on macOS), and the Dell UP3218K (doesn't work on macOS).

Of course the iMac is hiDPI, but it's not an external display.

It's bewildering how manufacturers keep pushing for this low resolution 4k crap 10 years (!!!!) after hiDPI displays first appeared in laptops.

Reference: https://geizhals.eu/?cat=monlcd19wide&xf=12018_200

> There was a single (!!) LG display (27MD5KL) that met that criteria, but it was discontinued.

It was updated in 2019 as the 27MD5KL-B, specifically designed for Macs:

https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27md5kl-b-5k-uhd-led-monit...

I saw it listed on apple.com two months ago, but it was a month+ back-ordered. I ended up buying one via eBay (for my Mac Mini M1).

EDIT: it's still available on apple.com: https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HMUB2LL/A/lg-ultrafine-5k...

Sadly it's out of production, everything you can find (if you can find it) is new-old stock.

And also unfortunately, the build quality is very, very bad.

But yes, better get that one while you still can! But be warned, my friend recently got one, and had to go through about 10 retailers until he found one that could actually sell him one. Many retailers put these on their websites in the hope that LG will be able to deliver stock, but LG can't deliver stock.

Uhm well, I upgraded from a Cinema Display. Granted the LG has a plastic frame, but I've paid for 3 replacement glass screens for my Cinema Displays because they chip so easily.

Color-wise, the LG is fantastic - and I was very skeptical about getting it. The old one wasn't very good when I compared it side by side with an iMac Pro (Apple Store, Union Street, SF). I'm not sure if they changed the screen quality, but it seems on par, if not better than my old Cinema Display.

EDIT: yeah, my first purchase was via Amazon as "Used - Like New", which turned out to be a 2 year old model that couldn't talk to the Mac. I found a new one at a great price via eBay which works great, but the manual was in Cyrillic...

>And also unfortunately, the build quality is very, very bad.

I think the early models had some problems. I've got the later version and it is rock solid.

We need better definitions then. Apple uses 1440p/1600p on laptop screens. At normal viewing distances using that on a 14" laptop and 4K on a 27 inch external screen works perfectly with the same scaling. I know because that's what I use with just font scaling that's the same across screens. With my work 14" 1080p Windows laptop 2x scaling is needed on the external screen. If 4K 27" is not HiDPI what do we call 1080p in that size which is still the normal resolution for those screens?

4K 24" will be HiDPI because it's 2x 1080p.

5k 27" is HiDPI, because it 2x the old 1440 screens.

4K 27" is also 2x1080p. 1080p panels come in all sizes, including 27". And Apple uses 1600p on their laptops, when most laptops these days are 1080p. I guess Apple laptops are also not HiDPI as 1600p is not 2x1080p. Angular resolutions matter much more than surface DPI. You don't use a 27" screen at the same distance as a 24" one the same way you don't use a 14" laptop screen the same distance as your phone.

Yes, angular resolution is all that matters, which is why their small displays are now 254ppi, while the iMac and the Pro XDR is 218ppi.

Don't take it from me, you can read Steve Jobs himself on the introduction of the Retina term:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display#Rationale

Do you really believe that people use these 4k@27'' displays at a different distance than mac users use their 27 inch iMac?

I use a 4K 27" screen at a distance where it uses the same scaling as a 1440p 14" laptop. Looks great to me, but if your vision is better or you're using it closer then it may not be enough. Other people use 4K TVs or 65" screens to be able to set them farther and keep their vision more rested for the same angular resolution. Resolution requirements depend massively on how you setup your workspace and the quality of your vision. There are plenty of people that use software scaling for 1080p 14" laptop screens as they consider normal sizes too small for example. The range of configurations is very high and you're on one extreme of that range. There's nothing wrong with that but that's probably why you're frustrated with the lack of options on the market. For most people even 4K 27" is already overkill and 1080p external screens sell well instead.

Please answer the question I posted. "Do you really believe that people use these 4k@27'' displays at a different distance than mac users use their 27 inch iMac?"

Yes. I do believe an external 4k 27" on a laptop is used differently than a single screen on an iMac. I also believe people use iMacs in ways that are different than what you use, which was the whole point of my answer. People use screens in all sorts of different ways. Most of them have resolution requirements much below yours, which is why the market apparently doesn't cater for your needs.

For most people not using macos 4k is overkill and 1080p can be enough not by itself but because the other two major OS (windows and linux) have antialiased text with subpixel hinting. I.e. they can exploit the pixel internal structure to display sharp text even on low resolution monitors. Apple deliberately decided to ditch their own implementation as you don't need it for retina displays and they only sell and care about retina displays.

> We need better definitions then.

We have a definition, it's ppi, and you need at least 220ppi.

> Apple uses 1440p/1600p on laptop screens.

No, it doesn't.

The current 14'' screen is 3024x1964 and the current 16 inch is 3456x2234 (both 254ppi).

The previous generation used about 220ppi displays.

The current 13.3" screens are 1600p, the original Retina displays were also 1800p on 15". Only the last generation is a little higher and still not 4K like in PCs. Apple itself has always branded "Retina" based on angular resolution and not surface density, so viewing distance makes a huge difference.

No, their 13'' screens have been 2560x1600 (226ppi) since 2012. You are confused because the nomenclature like 1080p refers to vertical resolution while 4k refers to horizontal resolution.

No to what? I know what 1080p/1600p/1800p is. Here's a direct quote from the Macbook Air tech specs:

Retina display: 13.3-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit display with IPS technology; 2560-by-1600 native resolution

If 1600p on 13" is not Retina you need to argue this with Apple instead.

> If 1600p on 13" is not Retina you need to argue this with Apple instead.

It's 226ppi display. Why would it not be a retina display?

1280x720: 720p

1920x1080: 1080p

2560x1440: 1440p

2560x1600: ...

EDIT: if you're going to edit your comment once called out on talking nonsense, at least have the decency to note it.

Make that an IPS panel and it's only 7 monitors under €300

So basically what you're complaining about is that high-end products are expensive? How many 4k IPS displays would you have found at the $500 price point even a few years ago?

How is IPS high-end, exactly? It's table stakes for the modern-day. The technology is over a decade old, and TN is a strictly worse tech. If it isn't cheap, it should be cheap.

And ultimately this, there’s no way 4K 60Hz IPS panel could be described as “high end”.

High end for 60Hz these days is OLED, IPS is the de-facto standard, and TN or VA aren’t worth buying.

Irrelevant, the point was that they are hardly “affordable”; if you’re going to get more than 1 external monitor, viewing angles are going to be a concern, and that leaves IPS as the only viable option.

I’m personally running 3 24” external monitors, and I’m fairly sure that I’d have a viewing angle issue had my panels been TN.

Why are viewing angles concern with a multimonitor setup? Don't you turn every monitor to face you directly, so that the viewing angle is 0?

This is what I do with two 1080p monitors; I don't need IPS at all, since I'm always viewing them close to perpendicular to the screen. Has worked just fine for me the past couple of years.

Watch the corners.

I bought 3 4K 27” LG ups ones, one the corners blew out (massive bleed til you can’t see the pixels for the white shining through), one is going thr same way and only the newest shows no sign of it (yet).

Going Samsung next time since LG make panels for everyone and I simply don’t trust them now.

Almost no 4k monitors would be considered high dpi. To achieve 220dpi you need a 4k monitor to be 20 inches. 27 inch 4k monitor 4:1 pixel mapping makes it appear to be 1080p, which many people would not consider to be appropriate for that size monitor. You can use fractional scaling but that comes with its own sets of issues because the pixels don't map correctly.

27 inch 1440p at 100% scaling in Windows or MacOS is what most would be consider appropriate sizing for UI elements and text by default, so in order to achieve high dpi you need a 5k monitor, like the LG UltraFine or the 27 inch iMac.