This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Do we need 3K or 4K screens for 15" and smaller notebooks?

#21Combo MasterPosted 9/2/2014 11:01:34 AM
KillerTruffle posted...
I don't think I quite understand... well, ANY of your reasoning. Why is 4k better on a large OLED as opposed to a 28" monitor?


Monitors are really over rated for picture quality even for 1440p monitors.Ips monitors are weak when it comes to black levels.

People who think a 28 inch 4k ips monitor will have close to the same picture quality as a good 4k oled tv don't know what they are talking about.
---
Combo Master
#22SampsonMPosted 9/2/2014 11:06:15 AM
Has anyone actually used a small 4K display? Anyone? Bueller?

My Chromebook Pixel is 2560x1700 which puts it around 3K. It blows a 1080p display out the water. 1080p displays look pixelated in comparison.

So I voted "yes." No one should think about voting noting "no" until they've actually used the technology in question.
---
An artist is a creature driven by demons. He dont know why they choose him and hes usually too busy to wonder why.
#23KillerTrufflePosted 9/2/2014 11:08:32 AM
http://i.imgur.com/jpyTI.gif

And the factual basis you make this argument on is...

Aside, of course, from the fact that OLED often deals with over-saturation issues and inaccurate color unless you have it professionally calibrated (and sometimes even then). If all you're worried about is black, sure, OLED can be better. If you're worried about overall picture tho, I'm still not really following your argument.
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#24KillerTrufflePosted 9/2/2014 11:15:10 AM
SampsonM posted...
Has anyone actually used a small 4K display? Anyone? Bueller?

My Chromebook Pixel is 2560x1700 which puts it around 3K. It blows a 1080p display out the water. 1080p displays look pixelated in comparison.

So I voted "yes." No one should think about voting noting "no" until they've actually used the technology in question.


I have used screens whose resolution was too high for their size. Scaling vs. text size IS a problem. If they ever get that fixed, well, that's one less problem with it, but you're still dealing with increased power consumption for no good reason. What is the point of using a resolution that it quite literally too small for the eye to resolve at normal usage distance? The fovea has a maximum resolution of around 1 arc minute on average. That means that 4k is right around the maximum resolvable detail at 2-3 feet on a 27-28" monitor (as I recall - don't feel like doing the math again right now to double check). At roughly the same distance, a 13" monitor at 4k is simply using extra power to show detail you can't see without a magnifying glass. It's a totally different argument from the typical framerate nonsense.
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#25SampsonMPosted 9/2/2014 11:20:39 AM
What is the point of using a resolution that it quite literally too small for the eye to resolve at normal usage distance? The fovea has a maximum resolution of around 1 arc minute on average. That means that 4k is right around the maximum resolvable detail at 2-3 feet on a 27-28" monitor (as I recall - don't feel like doing the math again right now to double check). At roughly the same distance, a 13" monitor at 4k is simply using extra power to show detail you can't see without a magnifying glass. It's a totally different argument from the typical framerate nonsense.


This is nonsense.

I do not understand why people trot this out from time to time. My only guess is that they're too poor to afford the technology and do it as a form of sour grapes.

People said this with cellphones (you can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p) TVs (720p and 1080p look the same), video game consoles (Wii U looks just as good as PS4, Xbox One's resolution doesn't matter) etc. etc.

There is a clear and extremely noticeable difference between using the Pixel's 3K display (12-inches) and my Asus Zenbook 1080p (13-inches). If you can't tell the difference I think you need glasses.
---
An artist is a creature driven by demons. He dont know why they choose him and hes usually too busy to wonder why.
#26Combo MasterPosted 9/2/2014 11:27:44 AM
KillerTruffle posted...
http://i.imgur.com/jpyTI.gif

And the factual basis you make this argument on is...

Aside, of course, from the fact that OLED often deals with over-saturation issues and inaccurate color unless you have it professionally calibrated (and sometimes even then). If all you're worried about is black, sure, OLED can be better. If you're worried about overall picture tho, I'm still not really following your argument.


KillerTruffle posted...
http://i.imgur.com/jpyTI.gif

And the factual basis you make this argument on is...

Aside, of course, from the fact that OLED often deals with over-saturation issues and inaccurate color unless you have it professionally calibrated (and sometimes even then). If all you're worried about is black, sure, OLED can be better. If you're worried about overall picture tho, I'm still not really following your argument.


My argument is you need a big screen to enjoy the benefits of 4k. I enjoy playing on my 65inch plasma much more than a 1080p ips monitor I have.The picture quality to me when it comes to sharpness and black levels is much better.

Anybody who is playing pc games at 1080p on a small monitor is still on the peasant farm if you ask me.

ips monitors have plenty of flaws... weak black levels,ips glow effect, viewing angles are not perfect when you read they are and contrast ratio is also weak.

Maybe the newer 2014 ips monitors improve on the issues greatly I doubt it I am just going by my past ips monitors I have.

Only thing that is a turn off is the image retention and possible burn in.Over saturation of colors like you said of course can be fixed with a calibration.
---
Combo Master
#27PathlessBulletPosted 9/2/2014 11:40:16 AM
Not till they optimize scaling in Windows for 1440p first.
---
ADD, no. Where is the thread for Fallout OCD players?
"We have to keep it on page 3 or it freaks out."
#28DarkZV2BetaPosted 9/2/2014 11:44:29 AM
KillerTruffle posted...
Actually, higher res *can* cause some problems. Battery life, as explained above, can be shortened. Also, some apps don't scale properly, leaving you with the choice between "way the hell too small to read" or "scaled so the screen looks like my 2nd grader's scrapbook."


Actually, beyond a point, you can use a combination of linear and nearest neighbor scaling to scale things better to a set resolution than if the resolution was the device's native resolution. For example, playing 320x240 or 640x480 games using nearest neighbor filtering on a 1280x960 pixel display today.
This gets easier as pixel density and with it the number of pixels per degree of vision increases.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#29fallenswordsPosted 9/2/2014 11:49:51 AM
2k maybe, 4k would require too much power for it to be worth the upgrade.
---
A Mod/Admin replied on 8/28/2011 10:09:48 AM: http://bit.ly/jJ2ZNS
Katawa Shoujo changed my life. http://katawa-shoujo.com/
#30GunmaN1905Posted 9/2/2014 12:08:04 PM
Combo Master posted...
GunmaN1905 posted...
120fps 1080p > 4k 60fps.


No way in hell. Maybe for competitive fps games and you better make you are also getting 0 ping as well. 4k will be 100% better on a big OLED tv as well rather than a 28 inch ips monitor.


?
Why would you need anything over 1440p on a screen smaller than 30"? It's just for measuring your e-peen, wasting money and placebo effect.