High PPI is a meme

>High PPI is a meme

Other urls found in this thread:

support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2900023
hardforum.com/threads/4k-ultrahd-at-half-resolution.1827816/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_scaling
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Well, I mean, it's not. Who said it was? It's a technological advancement that has benefits (better image) and drawbacks (more computationally intensive, software support)

What's the resolution and size of each of those monitors?

>Holding your laptop up to your face like a fucking idiot is a meme

It is, what retard would put his eyes literally on the screen to see the pixels

the above pic is clearly worse than the bottom pic even if you dont look closely

2880x1800 15.6" on the top.
2880x1800 15.6" on the bottom.
It's the same screen, the only difference is one photo has scaling enabled and the other doesn't.

Do you also believe 24fps is the most humans can see? Do you people come here for memes or something? I don't understand where you know nothings keep coming from.

Pic related. Also see the two posts quoted above this one.

lol this

Nobody calls PPI a meme.
But devices are released with the PPI pointlessly high which is a hindrance on performance and power consumption.
Also the viewing distance should be taken into account.

Oh god, I'm glad someone still has that screenshot. Good times. Very funny looking back on these so long after, they look dumber and dumber each time. Not many people here have any foresight.

Viewing distance is taken into account. Anyone who has seriously used a high PPI screen will tell you there's a huge difference.
You realize you can hold your phone up to your screen, showing the same text at roughly the same size, right?
You can even use one of those font rendering test sites to make sure the same typeface is being used.

>Sup Forums 2011
>IBM T221 is the best monitor ever

>Sup Forums 2012
>LOL APPLE IS SO STUPID "RETINA" NO ONE NEEDS MORE THAN 2560x1600

>all of those idiots who don't know how to divide by 2
I wonder if the same thing will happen when apple finally moves to 3360x1100

I think I saw a few posters or one tripfag who actually had a T221. Also it was the same reaction but even harder when the iPhone 4 came out. My god, this board sperged for fucking months about how apparently retarded it was to put such a high resolution on a mobile phone.

Fast forward to present day, Sup Forums makes fun of iPhones for being too low res for today's standards.

You can't make this shit up. This board hates a company for a stereotype user-base that hasn't existed for at least about 10 years.

Who in the world says high PPI is a meme

High ppi up to a certain point is really good, but it isn't worth it continue arbitrarily.

E.g. The jump from 100ppi to 200ppi is probably the biggest and amazing.

The jump from 200ppi to 300ppi is noticeable but less than the previous one.

Everything after that is really only discernible if you are an inch from the screen or have very good eyesigh

The stereotype userbase still exists, only thing is that they make up a significantly smaller portion of the whole userbase... Like maybe only 5% vs like 30% 10 years ago

I think it's more Sup Forums is easily impressionable, for better (Clip+) or worse (ThinkPad worship).
iPhone sucks.

300ppi desktop displays are unfeasible anyway.

a meme are all those people who are buying 40 inch 4K tvs and using them as monitors.

>that screenshot
Lmao

Why do I visit a board filled with delusional retards every single day?

Now that mactype is dead, is there any other alternative?

To be fair those posts are from 2011 when those people had little understanding of what a high PPI display means for desktop/laptop users.
I mean you can see their ignorance when they laugh about the "tiny font"

>kid can't even calculate 16:10 aspect ratio, the same aspect ratio apple has always fucking used

jesus christ

surely that shit can't be good for your eyes

People hate high PPI because are exclusive of macbooks, wait when $500 chinese laptops have 4K screens for mainstream adoption

A 4k workarea gives you so much room though.
If they made high PPI 40" screens I'd want one.

Finally, someone who's getting their money's worth.
His eyes are probably already pretty fucked.

Finally a thread that proves high DPI is the future.

You wouldn't be using such a monitor if your eyes weren't fucked.

t. Guy with a 27inch 1080p monitor eho sits 12 inches from his monitor, and STILL zooms every Web page to about 150%

Get some glasses, dude.

i personally wouldn't use a 4k display

display technology is always improving but any given display and any given technology is always a compromise between colour accuracy\gamut, response time\refresh rate and resolution. if you want one better then you have to sacrifice at least one of the other two.

for that reason i will wait until 4k becomes standard in most displays before i adopt.

I've got them and they're not helping

High PPI is a maymay, and I am saying this as a pseudo macfag

high PPI isn't some mac exclusive thing these days.
Windows handles scaling fine for the most part.
Some games are still fucked tho, sure the game supports 4K but the text isn't scaled up at all and is impossible small to read.


>4K will be the next 'standard' resolution, same way 1080p became the standard

>for the most part.
lel
Enjoy random blocky icons that can't be scaled up and completely blurry windows in some applications

Whats the upper limit for ppi? I imagine around 800ish realistically.

But my screen is 5k, 10-bit per channel (not sure if dithered or true), has a wider than sRGB gamut (With color managed software so you don't get oversaturated everything), is 60hz and has very nice blacks. Oh it's also factory calibrated.
No sacrifices at all.

I can almost read your pixelated mess from the thumbnail

Wow user, you sure convinced me there. Whereas I previously held the opinion that my current PPI was acceptable, after having been shown how bad it really is below the surface I must reconsider.

It's a meme. Most of the content like anime and movies is still in 1080p which looks like shit on 4k.

Clearly you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

>tfw still buy DVDs because a lot of the content i'm interested in (classics, b movies and horror) are not on blu ray
>literally don't care

>I think it's more Sup Forums is easily impressionable, for worse (Clip+) or better (ThinkPad worship).

Ftfy

The clip is overrated, sure it's a good mp3 player for the price and portability, but there are many better players out there.
On the other hand, certain ThinkPad laptops are extremely sturdy and well worth it.

The Clip line of players are the only cheap DAPs that have decent audio hardware. If people wanted anything fancy they'd use a phone. I literally velcroed my Clip+ into my car's dashboard.

320 is the most anyone should ever need.

Yeah, there's no need to go beyond 320*240.
Heck even 640KB hard drive is pushing it.

At his age I can kind of understand it. His eyes are already bad, the bigger resolution isn't making the screen any bigger.

how do you read any of that shit

I don't.

It's no worse than a standard monitor for your eyes, 4K @ 40" is the same DPI as 1080p @ 20" (most people have ~24" 1080 displays)

However, it WILL kill your neck.

>posts a high PPI screenshot
>pixelises parts of it

Ooh, the irony!

your body can't even see more than 72ppi, enjoy your overpriced placebo

>I have to read his private messages to see if high PPI is a thing for me.
Are you always this mentally retarded or is this your slightly more retarded than usual day?

that's not how irony works, retard. Are you an american or something?

please share the wallpaper miles

It's on a 27" screen. It's surprisingly not hard to read at all.

Not like he can see the benefits of high PPI without a high PPI monitor

...

There's loads of examples here:
Maybe he somehow forgot to open the rest of the images.

Holy kek
what a bunch of idiots

i have a 4K 27" screen and at native resolution things are somewhat difficult to read.
There is no quick glancing to read anything , you need to stop and focus to read anything at this ppi.

It's not easy, but it's not so bad that you'd need to get very close to the screen.

its a lot improved on win 10 but
support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2900023

the cat looks better.

What's with all the squares on the bottom half? Is that visible from normal distance?

>devices

All monitors and laptops should be fine with high ppi screens. Tablets larger than 7 inches too.

Phones should have high ppi with good dpi scaling. Shitty power consumption is no longer anyone's concern. We have first party companies making battery cases and power banks to acknowledge that they dont give a shit about vanilla battery life

>single raster image that was part of a custom script
>could easily use higher resolution icon in its place
Totally worth avoiding high PPI.

OP here.
i am in windows 10, but thanks.

My point still stands, I know I have a display size on the somewhat larger size (27 inches) so anything smaller just makes things even worse for the end user without scaling.


anyways, here is an image comparing 100% vs 150% which is what I use

>your body can't see more than 72ppi
>implying you're not the same "your eyes can't see more than 24fps" console shills
literally fuck off

i am not that guy but I am pretty sure it was a joke

60hz is a sacrifice

>could easily use higher resolution icon in its place

what if you don't/can't?

/thread.

OP is a retard.

OP is a faggot.

OP is a retarded faggot.

i hate blurred text
i hate scaled images

the cat is fucked

>Windows handles scaling fine for the most part.
windows scaling is completely unusable

How did no one notice that the picture on the top is taken from a different angle and not from the front. Also, most content is still in 1080p, you fucking idiots. Have you ever seen what 1080p looks like on 4k? It looks like shit.

>Have you ever seen what 1080p looks like on 4k
it probably looks like a 1080p screen of equivalent size since 4k is an exact multiple of 1080p

>since 4k is an exact multiple of 1080p

sorry user, but it doesn't work like this.

It looks like 720p on a 1080p screen but almost a little worse, it's hard to compare. But to be fair I only did the tests on my 4k and 1080p TV so I'm not very sure about monitors.

>content
yeah can't do much about that

But text is amazing and I would trade sharp text for 1080p weeb shit at any time

Hope so, I have this 90ppi monitor here and ever since I upgraded it to something more "sane" I don't fucking eat the edges of them fonts.

I mean I like to read on my computer, I guess people don't often? No wonder they use Windows

Not him, but what are you talking about? What doesn't work that way? If you have any given 1080p image and display it on a 4k display pixel-doubled with no alterations to the picture, it will just look the same. Unless you have some stupid modern TV that processes the image in some way, I can't see how it would be different.

What aspect ratio is your monitor?

Meant to separate out the latter post.

Are you saying 4k monitors are a different aspect ratio than 16:9?

There are honest to god still people who don't understand this. When you bring up desktop monitors and 4k people insist that 40" is the optimal size and that at 24" "the letters will be tiny". literally the same retarded shit they said in 2011.

No, just no, just forget it.

hardforum.com/threads/4k-ultrahd-at-half-resolution.1827816/

and generic stuff: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_scaling

not him, but i have some 4k monitors (let's be exact here: they're 3840x2160 (this is what Dell considers 4k). That's 16:9.

The 24" ~4k monitor is basically 4 pixels in place of 1 across what would otherwise be a 1920x1080 display. If your operating system isn't archaic or garbage, then you should have no trouble scaling everything at 2x. Text should look the same size but be visibly sharper, as the OP post illustrates.

>Also, most content is still in 1080p, you fucking idiots. Have you ever seen what 1080p looks like on 4k? It looks like shit.

When someone talks about "content in 1080p", that usually refers to movies. Of course interfaces are different.

i said in an earlier post that if your screen density is 2x, then scaling (of everything) should be a non-issue in any good operating system. i stand by that in this case. a 24" 4k monitor in os x looks the same as on a 24" 1920x1080 monitor i have lying around.

Yes but I said content and by content I meant movies, anime, pictures, etc. Here is a picture in 640x360 and the aspect ratio is obviously 16:9. Open it on your 4k monitor, in any image viewer, go fullscreen then tell me it doesn't look like shit. Obviously 1080p on 4k isn't as bad but it still sucks.

Sorry, it's difficult trying to keep track of who posted what.

The reason I started posting was because it looked like someone was implying that scaling any given image 2x would somehow result in something that looked different from the original image, which is patently false.

The reason it looks shit is because it's low resolution, it would look equally shit on a 360p monitor.

Provided the monitor is the exact same size and at the same distance from your eyes, of course.

...

sorry i fucked up that one. i should have said "i'm some other guy and i said in an earlier post [etc etc]"

I just thought my comment was relevant to yours.

there's provably no way that a 4k 24" monitor looks worse than a 1080p 24" monitor (except because of software, like if you're using windows 7 or something).

See pic related. If you're displaying any single arbitrary pixel, as on the left (e.g. a blue pixel above a green pixel), then a screen the same physical size but with pixels half as big (and thus packed twice as densely) should only need to activate pixels in groups of 4 to mimic the appearance of the native 1080p monitor.

This is the fallback - if you don't have vector/high resolution content, you can simply double everything and get the same view that you'd get if you had 4 pixels to work with (and not the 16 that you actually have).

The reason 4k (or "retina display" or whatever buzzwordy term you like) is so appealing is that if your work is primarily text-based (like if you work in technology and you do a lot of reading documentation, writing code, etc...) then your operating system should be able to scale all of that properly. properly in this case meaning turning *some* of the top left pixels blue, but not others, giving you sharper text.

I can't think of an upgrade path for displays that would be more ideal than this. if you have content that scales naturally (like text, vector objects, and very high resolution visual content), then you render it natively. if you don't, then you render blocks in groups of 4, emulating the lower resolution display.

the only danger is if you buy a 4k monitor whose size is not the same as a 1080p monitor (e.g. if you buy a 28" or 40" 4k monitor). naturally you wouldn't buy a 1080p monitor at those sizes, so lots of people on Sup Forums have opted to render their OSes at 1:1 "to get more real estate". I've asked so many times I can't even count anymore, but nobody has been willing to show what kind of work they're doing that benefits from showing that much shit on the screen at once. It's like they've never heard of Fitt's Law.

I actually do exactly that and honestly 40" screen at 4k resolution is really good when you want a single monitor you can actually use to do stuff on. It's basically like getting 4x20" 1080p monitors.

Also for that pic, it doesn't do anything to eyes. It's the continued fixation to a close distance that strains eyes. It doesn't matter if the thing is an infinite plane extending into all directions or a small 19" screen. Of course if you're so close you can actually differentiate the subpixels it'll probably fuck your shit up like nothing else.
Neck problems will be a sure thing, though. No part of the monitor should be above your eye level.