| ▲ | Marsymars 11 hours ago |
| Eh, it's about the same as a 4K display at 33". |
|
| ▲ | plorkyeran 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| 4k at 33" is awful too. 5k text is visibly better than 4k at 27". |
| |
| ▲ | Marsymars 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean, sure, but you're basically saying "anything other than the absolute top-end displays are absolutely awful". 133 PPI is going to be higher pixel density than >99% of desktop monitors that people are actually using. e.g. The Steam hardware survey only goes down to 0.23% usage, and doesn't have any >4K resolution listed. | | |
| ▲ | plorkyeran 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s a $3000 monitor, so yeah, other top end monitors are what I’m going to compare it to. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | bsimpson 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 4k@27" is borderline too coarse. 5k@27" is preferred. |
|
| ▲ | masklinn 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Which is a poor pixel density. |
| |
| ▲ | LtdJorge 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | If compared to a smartphone, maybe. | | |
| ▲ | adrian_b 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, it is a poor pixel density when compared with a printed book, which should be the standard for judging any kind of display used for text. At the sizes of 27" or 32", which are comfortable for working with a computer, 5k is the minimum resolution that is not too bad when compared with a book or with the acuity of typical human vision. For a bigger monitor, a 4k resolution is perfectly fine for watching movies or for playing games, but it is not acceptable for working with text. | |
| ▲ | masklinn 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Compared to a smartphone it's not just poor it's complete dreck. Smarphones are in the 400s. | | |
| ▲ | swiftcoder 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you hold your 32" monitor the same distance from your face as you hold your smartphone? | | |
|
|
|
