My Adventures with “4K” 2160p and Linux
lxer.com
lxer.com
My desktop is where I spend the most time, yet it was the last remaining device I use where there were visible, ugly, distracting pixels everywhere. Now I never see pixels in my daily life, and reading and writing on my desktop have become significantly more pleasant. I highly recommend switching to a high-DPI monitor for anyone who spends much time on the computer (which is probably almost everyone here).
Oh, most software works just fine once I manually set the DPI in KDE's system settings. Upgrading to Plasma 5, the only software I use that isn't scaled properly is Chrome. Apparently they're working on it, but I only use Chrome for Netflix, and it's not too bad having tiny browser tabs for that one use.
Just wait for a bit and that problem will solve itself handily. And then you'll be wishing for the time when you could see pixels.
So the ideal (for me) is a large high res monitor sitting 3 or more feet away from me. The first hint you're on this path is when your arms start to be too short for reading books and when you are 100% sure that the gray squiggles on that chip used to have meaning.
I’m not an expert here (I had to look up the Harmon Distance), but from what I understand from other reading about eye strain, this should be rephrased as:
“Reading gets less comfortable if the material is any closer than the Harmon Distance, with some variation depending on age and individual differences between people.”
In particular, there are two factors that make focusing at close distance uncomfortable: (1) you need to flex the ciliary muscles to focus the lens (this is called “accommodation”), and (2) you need to flex the medial rectus muscles to rotate the eyes inward to point at the same spot (this is called “convergence”).
Both sets of muscles start getting strained if you look at a very close object for a long time with no breaks.
Looking at further away objects, even all the way out to the horizon, isn’t really a problem though.
[1] http://oculusrift-blog.com/oculus-rift-faq/492/
No anchors in the page, I'm referring to: "Will the Oculus Rift cause eye strain after extended use?
The Oculus Rift causes very little eye strain, particularly compared to other standard displays or headmounts.
Normally, when you take a break from using a monitor or TV, the idea is to give your eyes a chance to focus and converge on a distant plane. This is a natural position of rest for your eyes.
With the Oculus Rift, your eyes are actually focused and converged in the distance at all times. It’s a pretty neat optical feature."
(This is assuming the task at hand doesn't require a high refresh rate of course - a reflex based game like an FPS would be a no-go)
What "30Hz" means in LCD terms is that if you go to change a pixel, the fastest you can do that is once every 33 mS but during the whole time it isn't changed, it stays the same intensity.
I just did a test: Over 5 seconds I moved my mouse to the top of my monitor and back down 15 times, which works out to 12000 pixels per second, or 396 pixels per frame - which seems about right for how far the mouse seems to jump per frame. For comparison, Chrome's Close Tab button is 15x15 pixels, and HN's upvote button is 8x7 pixels. Framerate really is the limiting factor for how long it takes me to move my mouse onto the kinds of click targets common in computers.
Another test: it takes around 6 seconds to close 7 tabs with a mouse in Chrome in 30fps, and 4 seconds to close the tabs in Chrome in 60fps.
Quickly moving in the target's general direction: it's a lot easier to track a 10x20 pixel cursor when it's jumping 150 pixels per frame than if it's jumping 300 pixels per frame. (These are my own numbers, judging by people's reactions to my mouse sensitivity settings, it's likely yours would be lower.)
Slowly moving to the target's exact position: if the click target is 8x7 pixels like HN's upvote button, I can't move any faster than 2-3 pixels per frame, which is obviously half as fast in 30fps as in 60fps.
> There are two parts to moving a cursor to a click target: quickly moving the cursor in the target's general direction, and then slowly moving to its exact position
This is a pretty basic usability issue and one of the reasons we put clickable things on the edge of the screen if we can.
See also:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/uibook/chapters/fog0000000063....
(note that this is a great example of mouse and touch screens having completely different usability requirements)
Even scrolling text on a terminal becomes and 'issue' at 30fps. It get's 'blurry' is the closest I could say, Again, it drives me crazy.
Maybe this wouldn't bother me any more personally, but I bet I would have noticed it when I was 23!
Fair enough, but it does for most people. The claim I was disagreeing with is that >30fps only matters for action games. It is noticeable for most tasks that use a mouse.
The same could be said for things like color accuracy: it's annoying that it's wrong, but it doesn't really matter for my work.
That said, when it's fixable (and in the author's case it is), you should fix it.
The only computer display I’m more impressed with at the moment is the 5k “retina” iMac display.
Interestingly there appears to be an eight monitor limit total when using DisplayLink for the OS so the ninth monitor is driven from its own DisplayLink doc which I've directly hardware associated with a VM. Of course because the host OS doesn't know about that monitor I also need a second mouse so I can access it. Here's the latest photo of my setup:
Interestingly enough, with this sort of setup it's pretty easy to visually see what's happening when going after an application. Before going to the monitor extreme I'd constantly alt-tab between my monitoring & exploit tools with every action. Now I can run an action and see the results within one workspace. Of course there is a massive downside. It makes competing in CTFs a pain in the butt as I can't drag that setup with me to physical events.
Which is why I've partly switched from Unity to xmonad (a tiling window manager). Dual monitors is nice to have for me, but the real boon was to have 9 (or 10?) easily accessible workspaces, which allows me to only have to worry about a handful or less windows in each workspace. Unity also have workspaces, but they suck (at least out of the box).
Left Portrait, Terminator with two horizontal splits
Centre Landscape, Vim with a vertical split, usually have NERDTree open
Right Portrait or landscape, browser and/or documentation
Usually the layout is IDE on the main window, docs on the second screen, IRC, git, and github on the third / fourth.
Till that switch I was a multi monitor junkie, but after 3 monitors it starts getting bad for your neck, bad for your eyes (with all those monitor backlights burning your retinas) and you also need humongous desk setups.
Nowadays it's just one big monitor and 4 finger swipes.
While I personally prefer a single-monitor no-workspace setup, there do exist several window managers that let you independently choose workspaces for different monitors rather than having each workspace specify a layout for all monitors. For instance, the window manager "awesome" uses tags (primarily 1-9) for windows, and lets you say "this monitor should display 1, and this one should show 2-3".
They've recently moved to a paid model, but some older free versions are still around.
I don't know why it's not better known.
I almost think the next Tron movie needs a character named Synergy that bashes down arbitrary walls between systems to really get the idea out there ;)
X11-only equivalent of synergy is for example x2x (https://github.com/dottedmag/x2x).
1) Have set my chair so that it rocks as far back as possible with little force.
2) Sit directly across from the gym and try to visit it twice a day for at least two 15 minute HIIT cardio / body weight workout. I do lots of pull-ups, archers, and have been working up to the iron cross.
3) Only use the upper deck monitors for security reviews where I need "eyes on" resulting actions. I don't use them on a daily basis.
This setup makes me think of this, which has been a joke in our circle for some time.
http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/ccManager/clips/sword...
But much of the discussion seems to be around what the point is, whether it's useful, and so on.
As someone who's been using one of the new 5k iMacs since it came out (so that's 5120x2880 in a 26" display)... let me add a bit, hopefully without sounding like an apple fanboy.
First - running it at actual 5k, rather than at 3200 or 2560 HiDPI, is crystal clear, amazingly sharp, but too small at this size. With a 40" display it would be perfect, I imagine. At full 5k, you can fit an amazing amount of stuff on a single screen, and it's handy for certain short troubleshooting sessions - but stuff can be so small it's straining. The stuff is still crisp though, if you can manage to focus on it. The detail is there. 12 point fonts are barely readable to my 40 year old eyes unless I get closer.
3k is just fine, and 2k is what you'd expect - but both are using HiDPI rendering and you get stunningly crisp fonts and detailed images and whatnot.
I wouldn't trade it for anything, even if I don't run in 5k all day long.
In all cases the additional display lag wrt my retina MBpro screen (measured with the small HTML/JS at the end) was huge, in the 130-230ms range, i.e. 4-7 frames. As a comparison, even the low end 1080p TVs i tried (at 60Hz) only gave 0-16ms additional lag, i.e. one frame.
The problem is not 30Hz vs 60Hz, but a video pipeline which is too deep, and cannot be shortened in any of the models i tried (even the models that have a "gaming" mode disable that control when running at 4k). Note that even at 30Hz one frame is only 33ms so anything more than 66ms indicates excessive pipeline depth. Based on my measurements, I think that at the moment the chipset that do 4k (upscaler etc.) are still buggy/immature in terms of features, and probably we need to wait the next generationof silicon to get 4K TVs that can be used as monitors.
I have become used to the 130ms lag but it is not pleasant.
Note that the Acer Chromebook C720 ($199) can drive the screen at 4K through the HDMI port. I had no problem with FreeBSD using high end nvidia cards (GT640 and GT750), whereas lower model seem unable to use pixel clocks above 165 MHz (you need about 290 MHz to run at 4k).
<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><script> Object.prototype.d = function(l) { return (this + Math.pow(10,l)).toString().substring(1, l+1) } function g(x) { return document.getElementById(x); } function clock() { var t=new Date(); g('txt').innerHTML=t.getSeconds().d(2)+'.'+t.getMilliseconds().d(3); setTimeout(clock,1); } </script></head> <body onload="clock()"> Set PC to mirror screens, take a snapshot with a camera, compare times<br/> <div id="txt" style="font-size: 120px;"></div> </body></html>
displaylag.html:5 Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected token function
displaylag.html:10 Uncaught ReferenceError: clock is not defined
See https://community.kde.org/KDE/High-dpi_issues
However one should be careful when getting monitors with such huge resolution since they put more requirements on the GPU. For example if you want to play games in native, it will require dual GPU at least which is a very pricey overkill otherwise. Current video cards don't cope with such resolution well yet. That besides the fact that such monitors are very expensive on their own.
Also, ergonomics wise, for me personally 24-27" is a sweep spot. Anything larger than that becomes uncomfortable to use unless you place it in some distance.
Can't you just set the games to a lower resolution? Wouldn't that lower the GPU load?
Win 8.1 also allows to set the dpi independently for each connected monitor. That's important when you connect a 4k screen to an average notebook or a tablet to a TV.
The main problems are the applications (Steam - I'm looking at you) which were not written to support a higher DPI. Some of them will simply be lineary upscaled by Windows which causes bluriness but at least makes them usable. However other ones will have tiny user interfaces. But with 150dpi they are at least still usable when you have to set them to non-scaling (100%).
I think it will still take some time until the problems are fully resolved. Most developers have no hidpi screens and therefore can't even see the problems they're supposed to fix.
On top of that, when an application that is doing scaling wrong launches an explorer window to pick a file, etc., if it's settings are wrong the file picker window will also have the same blurry text etc. as the parent application.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share....
It is a Windows problem when 80% of your userbase is not using the version with high dpi support. Your mileage may vary with the accuracy of that site, but in general practice it should be well known that Windows 7 install base easily eclipses Windows 8 two or three fold. Hell, there are still almost as many XP installs as 8.
But what's the percentage of the user base with high dpi monitors using the version with high dpi monitor support? It doesn't really matter if 80% of people running at 1366x768 can't support high dpi.
I'm sure if you're buying a 4k monitor, you're making sure you install an OS version that supports it.
Yes, that's one of the biggest missing pieces in KDE so far. DPI changes universally, so you can't comfortably use monitors with drastically different resolutions in multiscreen setup because of that.
https://twitter.com/PhilipsCare/status/543146398565556225
EDIT: logic inversion
That being said, this monitor supports 60Hz operation in SST with DisplayPort 1.2 so it should work cleaner than those first generation monitors that have to pretend that a QHD monitor is two monitors to work at 60Hz.
It also seems to support multiple interface signals side-by-side or above each other (see documentation):
http://download.p4c.philips.com/files/b/bdm4065uc_61/bdm4065...
That might be an alternative road to getting 60 Hz at full res.
Has to be something between a $300 sekei @ 30hz and $1200
And $800 is a nice compromise between $400 crappy TN panels and $3000 IPS panels. Myself, I prefer VA over IPS because the black levels are so much nicer.
Believe theres a 4k version of this also.
What the author seems to be missing here is that if you double your screen size you will likely put the screen at further viewing distance.
For example, for a 20 inch diagonal monitor at 10 inches distance, the corner pixels have about 0.7 times the angular extent of those in the center of the screen, or about half the solid angle.
Replace that by a 40" diagonal monitor at 10", and that factor drops to about 1:sqrt(5), or 1:5 in solid angle.
So, I guess you will need larger fonts, _if_ you keep your eyes in the same position on your larger monitor. There probably are publications on this in studies on airplane ergonomics.
So don't.
Why would you anyway?
(which works reasonably well nowadays - at least with Gnome!)
Yeah but it's a 39" monitor... On your desk! Seriously, I'm all for the largest monitor and resolution and everything else, but there's a point where I'd argue it's just too much. I think a 39" monitor on your desk is crossing that line. I can't imagine the neck strain that's going to occur.
Instead of selling extended warranties, they need to start selling these with chiropractic insurance.
Full disclosure: I just went through several days of research on 1440p vs 4k. I went into it assuming I'd get a 4k monitor, but in the end, opted for the 1440p monitor because I refused to stick a 39" monitor on my desk, and the 28" 4k would require DPI scaling and all that mess.
I'd get a 4k for gaming, assuming I had a rig that could power games at that resolution. Otherwise, I'm happy with my decision to get the Asus PB278Q 1440p monitor.
I'm impatiently awaiting the day when the norm is high-DPI monitors that seamlessly extend to take up whole walls.. all my walls, to be precise.
Projectors are nice, but the resolution's not there yet. Not to mention the poor color gamuts, poor dynamic range, and typical lack of 3D.
Basically, I won't be satisfied until I get the holodeck... or a neural jack.
39" monitors. psshhh
How about a Rift work space?
You could just use multiple projectors to get higher resolution, but i agree the color and the dynamic range is a problem with projectors.
http://www.scalabledisplay.com/
http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/graphics_cards/m_...
I was wondering about this too and the impact on your eyes. For a 39" monitor it's recommended you sit over 5ft away, so the optimal desk environment for such a large monitor will be interesting.
http://www.rtings.com/info/television-size-to-distance-relat...
Too close and the pixels are going to be "big" and too far away and the pixels are going to be invisible.
For example, at 15 feet away the high res would be a waste of money for that screen size, you can't see better than 480 lines at that range.
Extending my arm, I seem to be around 2.5 feet from this screen. Doing the math, higher that 4K at 40 inch screen would be visibly noticeable although its kind of borderline, so 4K should be good enough.
I find this works well, and isn't too overpowering. A 35"x23" arrangement would surely be no problem in terms of overall size - but you would be squeezing 1.8x as many pixels into rather less than 1.8x the space. Not sure my favourite 6x13 xterm font would look so good any more...
(I also tried adding a 3rd identical monitor on the left (total 42" wide, 22" high, 47" diagonal), and this looked perfectly manageable. So I'd probably be able to handle a 50" monitor... maybe. 3 monitors all lined up was starting to look a bit intimidating. And in the end Linux wouldn't display anything on the 3rd monitor anyway, so what it would actually be like in practice, I couldn't say.)
I am currently using 3 1080p monitors in portrait[0], a setup that I like quite a lot. Here are some measurements:
Width : 39 inches
Height: 22 inches
Avg. distance from eyes to monitor:
22 inches
Maximum head movement to look left/right edge of monitors:
40 degrees
Estimated maximum head movement during use:
20 degrees
Also, since most major Linux distros handle HiDPI scaling for you out of the box, I only did minor tweaking for text in dconf. Pretty painless overall, physically and literally.
When I game at 1080_120 or 1440_60, I do scoot back a little more out of habit, but it looks amazing close up. I have another 1080_60 TV the same size, and I have to sit across the room if I don't want to see the pixels. If I did get another monitor, it'd be a 22ish inch 1440_144 overclock. They seem pretty much ideal size, refresh, and DPI wise.
I am concerned about throwing too much light at my eyes. That's why my next monitor will be one that has solid blacks and good contrast.
I'm not concerned about neck strain. I bet you're more likely to get neck strain holding your neck in the same place for 8 hours than you would
Compared to the 28" 1920x1200 monitor it replaced, I'm very pleased with the 32" 1440p.
(:
Here's my long post about the current state of the art: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8549629
Noticed there was no mention of it.
You want to flash the firmware from the 50" version to fix it a little bit but without hdmi 2.0, it is always going to suck.
2160 is limited to 30Hz, but that's hardly an issue for anything but games, most of which are better played in other display modes anyway. Besides, it doesn't make sense that someone who cared enough about hires gaming to buy a GPU beefy enough to run games at >30fps in 4k wouldn't just buy an appropriate monitor as well.