Monitors and DPI Scaling - What is your situation?

sityeuropa

sityeuropa

sityeuropa

Associate
Joined
3 Oct 2014
Posts
1,773
Over the past few days I have gone through three monitors and learnt quite a bit which one was is best suited to me. I use the computer mostly for productivity work, coding.

34" 3440 x 1440 Ultrawide 21:9
29" 2560 x 1080 Ultrawide 21:9
32" 2560 x 1440 16:9

Both the ultrawides I found myself having to increase the scaling to make text during normal use readable. For the 29" 1080 this was a real problem as my vertical screen space was then actually less than a normal 16:9 1080p display. The minor extra width was then hardly worthwhile after scaling. The 29" 1080 I believe is one of the bigger if not biggest? screen size for this resolution but I couldn't work on it without increasing scaling.

The 34" 1440 Ultrawide I found slightly too big for a monitor, Again I had to scale up the text which would cost me some of that vertical and horizontal space. I can see why people would choose this set up though. After scaling, would the intended use of putting things side by side be then practical?

So then I opted for a 32" 2560x1440 16:9. You might say this is a big screen size for QHD resolution, but it only has the same pixel density as 1080p 24" which I think is perfect. I can use this without any text scaling so I get the full real estate usable of resolution of 2560x1440.

So conclusion after testing ultrawides for the first time, I found the ultrawides too high for text readability without scaling. I do prefer the dual / triple monitor set up over having things side by side on one single monitor. I also prefer the vertical screen space 16:9 allows for when coding and browsing web pages. Not to mention the standard resolution for non movie videos on Youtube.

16:9 wins it for me. But then I'm not a gamer to which ultrawides probably most appeal too.

Do you use scaling on your monitors or do you all have 20/20 vision :)
 
Last edited:
I have just gone from a 1440p 16:9 27" to a 4k 16:9 32" and my eyes aren't great as I need some easy readers type glasses, for close up work. But I do not need to use scaling on the screen. I had seen a 28" 4k previously and I would have probably needed scaling on that, then again that was my reasoning for getting a 32" to avoid it.
The text is very crisp at 100% scaling and whilst a little small that crispness makes it ok and the extra works space good.
I do use a low blue light filter mode at 70% to reduce eye strain.
I found a 29" 21:9 like a letterbox, I kept wondering where had the bottom third of the monitor gone...?
I might feel differently tho if I was coding on my PC.
 
Well, for me the real estate isn't that important. More important it is to get a crisp image with UHD details, which means the ppi itself is the decisive factor.
 
I'm running a 24" 1080p and a 34" 1440p Ultrawide, which was previously a 28" 4k.
The 28" was waaaaaaaaaaay too small for 4k, I had to use scaling to like 200%
The 24" 1080p and the 34" 1440UW are similar - I don't need to use any scaling on either - but the extra real estate on the 34" is super nice for running side by side, and even better for gaming ;)
 
IMO you want to keep PPI to around mid 90's. Anything great you need to use scaling, if the OS and apps were 100% spot on... but is going to high PPI pointless, and just a waste of GPU power. If monitors had 300 PPI it would be daft.

Under 90 and will look pixelly.

I'm using 1920x1200 16:10 24" and that is about right.
 
hornetstinger said:
IMO you want to keep PPI to around mid 90's. Anything great you need to use scaling, if the OS and apps were 100% spot on... but is going to high PPI pointless, and just a waste of GPU power. If monitors had 300 PPI it would be daft.

Under 90 and will look pixelly.

I'm using 1920x1200 16:10 24" and that is about right.
Click to expand...

24" with 1920x1200 is pixelly too, it is very close to the mentioned by you 90 ppi.
Can't wait to see 7680x4320 on 24" display. That would be the ultimate screen.
 
hornetstinger said:
nah 94.34 ppi. Looks fine.
Click to expand...

Yeah but once you go higher, you'll notice that it's even better.
I'd guess we need ppi greater than 300 for all displays, except maybe larger TVs where we can compensate by watching from greater distances.

Look at this table:

High Pixel Density Displays
The table below is a list of displays with a pixel density greater than 200 PPI and a resolution of 1080p or greater.

Size PPI Resolution Device
22.2" 203.98 3840 x 2400 IBM T221
20.4" 215.97 3840 x 2160 Panasonic Prototype
20" 230.76 3840 x 2560 Panasonic 4K Toughbook
15.6" 235.35 3200 x 1800 Sharp Prototype
15.4" 220.53 2800 x 1800 Retina MacBook Pro
14" 276.05 3200 x 1800 Fujitsu Lifebook UH90/L
13.3" 262.25 3200 x 1800 Samsung Ativ Q
12.85" 239.15 2560 x 1700 Chromebook Pixel
11.6" 253.21 2560 x 1440 Dell XPS 11
10.1" 224.17 1920 x 1200 Acer Iconia Tab A700
10.06" 300.24 2560 x 1600 Google Nexus 10
9.7" 263.92 2048 x 1536 Apple Retina iPad
9.6" 458.94 3840 x 2160 Astrodesign DM-3409
7" 323.45 1920 x 1200 Google Nexus 7 (2013)
5.5" 534.04 2560 x 1440 LG Prototype
5" 440.58 1920 x 1080 Samsung Galaxy S4
4.7" 468.7 1920 x 1080 HTC One
0.74" 2976.9 1920 x 1080 SMD ST1080

https://www.noteloop.com/kit/display/pixel-density/

2977 ppi? WOW! :eek:
 
It's pointless because in gaming you would need monster GPU.

And if the OS doesn't scale, it bodges it. A 4K 24" taskbar and fonts would look tiny, does windows and all applications scale like mobile phones and tablets?

Sure if you put your nose right upto a monitor it looks pixelly compared to a 300 ppi phone but who does that?

Display one pixel on your monitor and you can barely see it.
 
hornetstinger said:
It's pointless because in gaming you would need monster GPU.

And if the OS doesn't scale, it bodges it. A 4K 24" taskbar and fonts would look tiny, does windows and all applications scale like mobile phones and tablets?

Sure if you put your nose right upto a monitor it looks pixelly compared to a 300 ppi phone but who does that?

Display one pixel on your monitor and you can barely see it.
Click to expand...

I have read and watched some articles, and it seems the problem with GPU power is not the hardware but the software that utilises it.


 
hornetstinger said:
Who cares about experimental graphics engines... it's what is here and now. And 4K at small size is pointless
Click to expand...

Maybe we can have the discussion about the greater than 800 PPI on 5" smartphones screens.

But for everything bigger than those tiny screens, for instance 17.3" notebooks and 24" PC monitors, me as a customer require 4K resolution or better, otherwise no deal.

Pointless is 1920 x 1080 on 24" :D
 
4K8KW10 said:
Maybe we can have the discussion about the greater than 800 PPI on 5" smartphones screens.

But for everything bigger than those tiny screens, for instance 17.3" notebooks and 24" PC monitors, me as a customer require 4K resolution or better, otherwise no deal.

Pointless is 1920 x 1080 on 24" :D
Click to expand...

I did have a 1920x1080 24" and it did feel a bit lower PPI than my 1200". Very similar PPI something like 3 or 4 difference, but it was the 1080p was VA which apparently can be blurry.
 
What every single poster here so far has failed to mention, is their viewing distance (though a couple of people took note of the distance, at least). For regular users with regular desks, 27" is probably the sweet spot, with 70cm as the viewing distance. 1080p or 1440p, depending on your eye-sight.

I have a 32" 1080p 144Hz VA monitor, looking at it from a 70cm distance. Would prefer 40" from a ~90cm distance, ceteris paribus. For most people, both of these scenarios would be too blocky.

Don't get me wrong, 4k can indeed appear better. But you'll be facing diminishing returns, higher GPU requirements, in addition to scaling becoming an issue. For most users, the last point alone would be too bothersome.
 
aatu said:
What every single poster here so far has failed to mention, is their viewing distance (though a couple of people took note of the distance, at least). For regular users with regular desks, 27" is probably the sweet spot, with 70cm as the viewing distance. 1080p or 1440p, depending on your eye-sight.

I have a 32" 1080p 144Hz VA monitor, looking at it from a 70cm distance. Would prefer 40" from a ~90cm distance, ceteris paribus. For most people, both of these scenarios would be too blocky.

Don't get me wrong, 4k can indeed appear better. But you'll be facing diminishing returns, higher GPU requirements, in addition to scaling becoming an issue. For most users, the last point alone would be too bothersome.
Click to expand...

Distance helps only with confusing you that the pixel isn't that large. But distance doesn't add detail. Our brains can't compensate the lack of details in inferior to 4K resolutions.

Scaling will be fixed, it's just the software needs some adjustments.
Can't ask for large working planes and no scaling with 4K, though.
 
4K8KW10 said:
Distance helps only with confusing you that the pixel isn't that large. But distance doesn't add detail. Our brains can't compensate the lack of details in inferior to 4K resolutions.

Scaling will be fixed, it's just the software needs some adjustments.
Can't ask for large working planes and no scaling with 4K, though.
Click to expand...
Same can be said about 4k vs. 8k. Same can be said about 8k vs. 16k. Same can be said about 10000k vs. 20000k.

When you look at the moon, you don't need to see every speck of dust to know it's the moon. When you talk about "lack of details", I'm coming from the opposite direction with "diminishing returns". When 1080p or 1440p is "good enough", there is less and less incentive to compromise better frame rates and special effects for a higher resolution.

And scaling will be fixed? Sure, but when? We've waited quite a while, already. It's not like the developers don't know people want it.
 
aatu said:
When 1080p or 1440p is "good enough", there is less and less incentive to compromise better frame rates and special effects for a higher resolution.
Click to expand...

Who said those are good enough? :confused:
1920x1080 compared to 3840x2160 is as good enough as 800x600 was, compared to 1920x1080.
 
4K8KW10 said:
Who said those are good enough? :confused:
1920x1080 compared to 3840x2160 is as good enough as 800x600 was, compared to 1920x1080.
Click to expand...


It depends on the screen size. If you have a 100" projector then sure go 4K.
But 4K on a wristwatch? Totally stupid.

Besides that, the demand on GPU's is too high, sure I'd like a 34" UW but for that screen size for quality I'd go for 1440p. But my 480 may struggle with that amount of pixels, so I'd go lower resolution (and therefore screensize) to get acceptable >60fps gameplay on latest games with decently high settings. I'd keep it around 1920x1200 or thereabouts, or around 95ppi.
 
4K8KW10 said:
Maybe we can have the discussion about the greater than 800 PPI on 5" smartphones screens.
Click to expand...

Very different stories though - I have the note 1 and 4 - 285ppi on the original and 518ppi but the actual screen estate is similar - sure the Note 4 has nice smooth edges and crisper look but its not really a deal breaker on the Note 1 and that is with an OS that largely does make good use of DPI scaling.

4K8KW10 said:
A 100" projector needs 8K or higher.
Click to expand...

Be nice if there was enough material that had both high enough resolution and high enough bit-rate/compression quality to make it worthwhile - I went back to my old Optoma HD70 (720p) projector as for a large amount of the video content out there you can't really tell the difference between it and a 1080p or 4K projector at 80-100" slightly different story with games mind but I don't use it for gaming that much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom