Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
No its not!
That would just be a larger sized monitor but still at 1080p resolution!
You must think stacking 4 40" HD TV's would give you an 80" 4k telly???
What he said was...
1080p resolution no matter what the size is not the same as 2160p resolution!
What he was saying is that 1080p resolution in a bigger size is comparable to 2160p resolution in that same size...
That's simply not true...
Put a 60" 4k TV next to a 60" 1080p TV... The difference in picture quality is enormous...
So how does stacking 4 smaller 30" 1080p resolution TV's together to make a 60" size TV... make it have the quality of a single 60" 4k native resolution TV sat next to it?
If your talking about creating a native resolution... Then you wouldn't need to mention multiplying using physical monitor sizing... You just talk about pixel density
What would more accurate would be to take 4 x 40" 1080p monitors... Sticking them together... Then shrinking them all back down into 1 x 40" monitor!
Then you would have condensed the pixels into a 4k resolution on a single 40" monitor...
And then picture quality would be greatly improved!
Thus rendering his thoughts that "he doesn't see any IQ/density/clarity/resolution benefit"... ridiculous
As silly as standing in front of a 40" 4k monitor and 40" 1080p monitor and saying they look the same in image quality!
I think you need to go read his post again
If you are unsure what PPI is, google that, it will help you understand what he is saying.
What he is saying is, it is down to the PPI. In the example he gave he said 4 x 1080p screens stitched together making up a 40" screen is the same PPI as 1 x 2160p 40" screen. The point being, if you are looking for an improvement of image quality, you need to increase your PPI.
That is what I understand from what he said
Which, if you go back before the confused posts by someone... You'll see is my point... 40" is too large of a ppi for me, for me, not for everyone, there's no iq benefit over sticking 4 normalish size 1080p monitors together. 31.5/32" is the perfect pixel size for 100% scaling for my eyes... Which is the same as 4x 15.6" 1080p monitors stuck together... Or the same ppi as a lot of laptops. I would have gone higher dpi, but I'm not happy with current scaling options.
I really like the Dell, it's a gorgeous monitor Yup... same reason I wanted 100% scaling... that blur is horrible. Win 10 automatically set itself to 150% too... so I noticed it straight away.
OSX is doing a good job with scaling, but then the apps had to be adjusted for it.
Windows haven't been updated enough yet... in a couple of years when I buy my next monitor... I'm sure scaling will have improved and I'm hoping for 120Hz+ 4k too, also with g-sync/freesync.
One of the reasons I went for the Dell over the Samsung, was HDMI 2.0
Yup... but my gadget-craving got the better of me
I'd already been waiting long enough... decided not to wait any more
Which, if you go back before the confused posts by someone... You'll see is my point... 40" is too large of a ppi for me, for me, not for everyone, there's no iq benefit over sticking 4 normalish size 1080p monitors together. 31.5/32" is the perfect pixel size for 100% scaling for my eyes... Which is the same as 4x 15.6" 1080p monitors stuck together... Or the same ppi as a lot of laptops. I would have gone higher dpi, but I'm not happy with current scaling options.
how close do you sit to your monitor
well, with scaling set to 100% there is no scaling, of course, so you are totally reliant on how close together those pixels are on the screen. if it's too small, really your only proper option is a bigger screen. I still think 32" is too small for 4k, but i appreciate i sit further back than most (> arms length)
