Images of items I have purchased (except trainers [no feet pics])

I would have had that off in a jiffy. Go grab a hacksaw! Oh and whilst I'm moaning, look at the state of your trackpad, half a human hands worth of skin, normally you live in a lab, are you slacking? :p :p

Back in the day I used to have nukeproof carbon fibre hubs, the dogs danglies and I think what started my addiction to all things carbon fibre :P
 
That's not my trackpad! That's TB'ss post!

As for the hacksaw, I might do one day, but not today... some day :o

The only issue is I like the height position so cutting off the tub would mean lowering the handlebar which would then be a step backwards.
 
mrk said:
That's not my trackpad! That's TB'ss post!

As for the hacksaw, I might do one day, but not today... some day :o

The only issue is I like the height position so cutting off the tub would mean lowering the handlebar which would then be a step backwards.
Click to expand...


Ahhhhhhhh, I saw the mousepad and assumed incorrect things!
 
43 inches. It's a behemoth. Early 31st birthday present to myself :)

lfWFhyX.jpg
 
I know what kind of monitor I want now when I upgrade next :D That size would pretty much go from speaker to speaker on my desk using your pic as a reference as they are on stands each side of the desk. What are the specs, QLED? IPS? VA etc?
 
The one thing I have never understood with Ultrawides is the low pixel density. I have 2 21.5" 4K screens and the quality is amazing. Every time I look at replacing them as they are getting old and have image retention issues I struggle to find a good ultrawide with a good resolution that isn't crazy money.
 
Pixel density seems fine to me, if you get the proper size/res models you can still find a 34" for half decent money. Currently I have an LG 34UM95-P which is 3440x1440 and having seen the 2560x1080 models as well as having had 29" 2560x1080 ones too, I'd not look at anything less than 3440x1440 res at 34" minimum now really.
 
4k at 21.5" is insanely small, the pixel density is so high because that was never an optimal size/resolution ratio. Considering the point where 4k becomes "pointless" (insert debate here) is about 50" for TVs
 
LuckyBenski said:
4k at 21.5" is insanely small, the pixel density is so high because that was never an optimal size/resolution ratio. Considering the point where 4k becomes "pointless" (insert debate here) is about 50" for TVs
Click to expand...

No, it's what you want. You need a DPI of >200 (basically retina) to be able to run 4k with 200% scaling on Windows without looking too large. Non integer scaling sucks and is the reason why 27" 4k monitors can be so finicky. Too small for 100%, too large with 200%, UI elements look crap with anything in between. Apple understands this, and is why all their displays aim for >200DPI as their OS scaling does not bother with non integer values.

So you either get 4k at a tiny size, or 4k at a larger size so at least you can use it at 100% scaling.

And you'll easily notice the additional sharpness of very high DPI with text. Just look at any laptop with high DPI.
 
Tephnos said:
No, it's what you want. You need a DPI of >200 (basically retina) to be able to run 4k with 200% scaling on Windows without looking too large.
Click to expand...

:confused:

I must be missing something, but what is the point of having the extra resolution, if everything is scaled to 200%?
 
Armageus said:
:confused:

I must be missing something, but what is the point of having the extra resolution, if everything is scaled to 200%?
Click to expand...

You still get the sharpness of having more pixel density. Makes text lovely to look at. It is one of those things you just have to see it to believe it.

Apple have been doing it this way for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom