Hacker News Reader

maybe i'm just old and blind but i can BARELY even notice the difference between 1440p and 4k if i very explicitly and intentionally look for it let alone the difference between 5k and 8k. this seems like so beyond unnecessary that it's absurd. i might be able to be convinced that you could notice on your 8k 65 inch tv if you were standing right in front of it, but on a 27 inch display that seems incredibly unlikely to me. also what world do we live in where a resolution that is literally above 4k isn't considered high resolution.

I sit 2ft from the 8k screen; it fills much more of my peripheral vision than most people's monitors do, and I position most things in the middle and never full-screen anything. Think of it like a multimonitor setup without the seams between monitors.

I have a 1440p 31 inch screen from which I seat about 1m away, and while it's finer than my previous 1080p one, In text or other fine features I can still notice the pixel boundaries. I would expect to notice them up to about 5k at this distance, but anything more would probably just be feel-good-ness rather than actual measurable difference, for me at least.

Are you talking about for watching video? In that case I'm with you, but for text (using it as a computer monitor as the OP is) the difference is night and day.

Depends on the screen size. On a 22" screen, the difference between 4k and 1440p equates to 200dpi and 133dpi respectively - if you can't see the difference between 200dpi and 133dpi, I'm sorry, but you have either poor eyesight or glasses aren't doing their job.

This 5k 27" screens blows your 8k 65" screen out if the water at any reasonable viewing distance for a computer monitor...

Nearly no one wants TVs for monitors, the evidence is LG's OLEDs which gamers will take 1440p ultrawides with infinitely worse picture quality over, just for the more reasonable form factor.

Setting the 8K screen farther away so it fills the same field of view will make it strictly better than the smaller 5K if you can manage it. Same view, more angular resolution and your eyes are focused farther away which reduces eye strain.

No it's not, which is why people take $2,000 1440p monitors still.

The "if you can manage it" part is an awkward setup usually with terrible ergonomics (a monitor too far away is worse for posture because you subconsciously tilt forward), it takes a ton of space, it looks hideous

-

Forgive my for my bluntness, but I am soooo tired of every conversation about improving monitors being sidetracked by people act like using a TV-sized TV as a computer monitor is better than strictly anything.

It's like saying using your hand saw as a flat head screw driver is strictly better because it had a larger handle... as long as you can line it up in the screw.

You may not like it yourself but other people have the opposite experience. Setting the screen farther away and having your eyes focus at that distance is more comfortable for them. That other people choose other solutions doesn't invalidate that this solution exists and is valued by people. And I used the term strictly precisely. If you can manage that setup physically you get the same angle of view, more resolution and less eye strain. The 8K large screen dominates the 5K small screen solution for that set of criteria. If you add other criteria you care about instead the evaluation changes.

You're using strictly in a way that's the opposite of precise when you need to preface it with a barn sized caveat.

In fact your suggestion is worse than standard, most people accept you'll never sit far enough away from a 65" TV to have the same apparent size as a 27" monitor and settle for "small enough" apparent size

-

I can't be bothered to do the exact math here but even at normal TV viewing distanced meant to fill your entire view the recommended distance is 5.5ft to 8ft.

Getting it down to the same apparent size of a 27" monitor would mean sitting across a very large room...

That's the wrong approach. When I want a centered 27" rectangle, I use software to put a 27" rectangle in the spot where I want it. I never fullscreen anything, and put secondary things around the edges, the way one would use extra monitors. There are some minor software issues to work through, it definitely requires some customization in the window manager department, but it's worth it imo.

Ok... but then you have significantly worse pixel density than a 5k monitor.

There's no way to have your cake and eat it too on this, either you'll have worse pixel density, or you'll need a very unnatural setup.

8k/65in has the same pixel density as a 4k/32.5in, which is mid-range as computer monitors go. 16k would be nice if that was possible to buy, but this pixel density is good enough for my purposes.

4k/32" might as well be 1440p compared to 5k/27"

You talking to someone who upgraded from a 4k/32" equivalent ("5k" 40" ultrawide) to the XDR just for the pixel density increase, and it's no contest at all: even the most casual PC user would immediately appreciate the bump.

> You're using strictly in a way that's the opposite of precise when you need to preface it with a barn sized caveat.

It's not a caveat, it's the whole point. To not have your eyes straining to focus closely the screen needs to be far away, can't have one without the other. The people that value that start at that point of figuring out how to be able to have the screen far away enough. For them it's not a caveat, it's a requirement. So for them when they go shopping for screens the 8K 65" option totally dominates the 5K 27" and is a strictly better option.

> most people accept you'll never sit far enough away from a 65" TV to have the same apparent size as a 27" monitor and settle for "small enough" apparent size

The cases I'm referring do put it far enough away, that's the point, it's how you get a 65" image down to 27" on a desk equivalent. That suggestion shows up once in a while on HN when people discuss eye strain. You've now gotten another answer from someone that does something completely different and uses the 8K TV as a multi-screen setup on a single screen. That's the problem with these discussions. A TV or projector used 5+ meters away, an external screen on your desk, and a 14" laptop at keyboard distance are completely different use cases. Yet often these discussions end up on ">X DPI is essential" without considering this factor. It seems no one can imagine that other people use their screens very differently from them and it turns into a religious war.

I use a 48" 4k 120hz HDR LG OLED. It's by far the best electronic purchase I've ever made in terms of productivity and entertainment.

It has a bulky monitor stand, but an Ergotron will allow you to mount it on an arm secured to the desk with enough range to move it right to the edge of the desk. You could also mount it on the wall.

So as long as you have a wider desk, like 27" which are available at Ikea, you're good to go. With a good window manager you can do magic with this monitor.

I'm more annoyed by slow progress in refresh rates. Resolutions have progressed pretty nicely IMO, but the top end monitors from Dell, Apple etc still all running at 60hz.

Also feel like 27 inches is pretty small these days, for high productivity type of work. Wish Apple went for a 34 inch

We're at the limits of cables and transcivers for reasonable prices. DP 2.0 is already 80 gbps.

Why do they keep releasing these incremental specs/generations with minor improvements? I mean they should just define a standard that is actually somewhat futureproof.

But I'm sure there are economical reasons why that's not done

That's how you end up with the USB-C shitshow :)

There's really no good answer, IMO.

I don't want to keep moving my head to see the entire 34inch. Work is best with 27inch. Fullscreen app barely makes sense for screens larger.

I've seen this sentiment a lot but it doesn't track with my experience. 4K@60Hz is now common and very cheap (<300€ for an LG IPS 27'' screen). It definitely wasn't just a few years ago, people even bought weird 4k@30Hz screens as a compromise. 5K is an intermediate step most manufacturers didn't bother with and we're getting 8K now at which point we've pretty much maxed out human vision for almost all applications. As far as I can tell we live in the future and nobody is happy. Maybe it is because very high end screens did 4K and 5K early and stopped there for a while because at that price it was a niche. Meanwhile all the innovation has been on making the cheaper ones reach that same level.

Driving an 8K monitor can be a bit hard on some computers, no? And chaining multiple 8K monitors is an even bigger challenge.

If only Apple made an Ultra-powerful computer that could drive 8K...

The key feature is "HDMI 2.1 display stream compression", which is only present in very recent GPUs, and without which a computer can't output 8k at all. If it's new enough to have that feature, it's fast enough to handle 8k no problem. I don't typically run videogames at 8k, but I'm sitting close enough that I want them centered in a ~4k window anyways rather than filling my peripheral vision.

What does it do if the image is too complex to compress in the available bandwidth?

it is a lossy compression. it'll just lose more detail/color/etc until it does fit

I'm very sorry for all the trouble you have had to go through in order to have an 8k 65" screen.