Display?

Out of context: Reply #9

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 9 Responses
  • shapesalad-2

    • bare in mind the difference between center bad zone for 27"s and fringe bad zone is just the relationship between dots and the physical size of the monitorkingsteven
    • the rest of this article is good but this chart seems like an unnecessary addendum based on wiki PPI data (not testing) my 27" arguably crisper than my 32"kingsteven
    • I can’t even run a 27” at full res it’s too detailed. This chart is BSmonospaced
    • Get 4k and you’ll be fine!monospaced
    • This chart ignores the simple fact that a 27in 4k 3840x2160 monitor looks waaaaay sharper than a 27in at 2560x1440. They’re not even closenb
    • Also they put a Dell P-series monitor on this list? Lol come on nownb
    • This chart prioritizes avoiding scaling above all else, ignoring what you actually experience on the screen. It’s a metric few people would care about or noticenb
    • yep, @mono their argument is basically that 27" is shit for non-retina so a 32" the same resolution is better. 32" non-retina is insane.kingsteven
    • yep @nb i have a 10 y/o 1080p monitor i use for my camera and it has a similar PPI to my 32" at 4k so to suggest that as a solution to something that isn't akingsteven
    • 99.9% will never notice is kinda wild.kingsteven
    • well i care, I don't want to waste gpu on scaling issues.shapesalad
    • well.. it's all a mess. and most of these monitors are big ass black plastic ugly things. Can apple just make the last 27" iMac as monitor and sell it for $500?shapesalad
    • yeah, 5k is obviously better. its just the basis for comparison of 4k on this graphic is flawed. i'd like to see apple let apps draw at the native resolutionkingsteven
    • more than i'd like to see more 5k monitors. if photography apps were able (as Adobe has complained about in the past) i don't think this would be an issuekingsteven

View thread