It's been 4 years, why isn't this universal?

It's been 4 years, why isn't this universal?

Other urls found in this thread:

isthisretina.com
pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Can-you-see-the-difference-with-a-4K-monitor-729/
lmgtfy.com/?q=2k resolution&l=1
newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=4k monitor&N=-1&isNodeId=1
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Children don't understand PPI

Bad support, either from the OS or the applications
That's why high dpi works so good on Android, the OS and apps natively supported it from the beginning.

OS X supports it very well.

Reported. Fuck off

top and bottom are same, the bottom is just using a much, much larger font

Yes, and that's about the only desktop OS.

The top was taken with the lens much closer to the screen and UI scaling set to 1:1.
The bottom was taken further from the screen, with the UI scaling set 4:1.

Android has a lot of issues if you use a non-standard DPI. A lot of vendors just lock the DPI into something ridiculous, making everything large and killing any real estate gains.

>The bottom was taken further from the screen, with the UI scaling set 4:1.
So what you're asking is
>Why are you still sitting so close to your screen?

>Android has a lot of issues if you use a non-standard DPI. A lot of vendors just lock the DPI into something ridiculous, making everything large and killing any real estate gains.
Hmm I've never had any real problem with this. I can change the global dpi fine without any side effects, apps scale like they should.
What issues did you experience?

Because Wintendo application developers can't get their shit right. They're used to infinite backwards compatibility and don't bother with change. Windows developers are the Republicans of software.

144hz > high pixel density

Im not a content creator thus I don't need to jerk off to pretty fonts, 1080p is more than enough for media viewing and general desktop usage.

>confusing resolution and font size

Load a page on your phone and your computer.
Put your phone up to your monitor.
Zoom the text on the phone to be roughly the same size as the text on your screen.
If you can't see a clear difference between the two then you honestly need vision correction.

Like I said, it's only when you use non-standard PPIs. Things like keyboard buttons having their labels off center, a few material buttons being wonky, etc.
I forgot what the "standard" PPIs are, but things like CM stopped letting you select an arbitrary PPI because of it, at least if I remember right.

144hz is a meme though.

High PPI makes everything look better though.

The human eye can't really detect more than 1080p
Ask any pro gamer

>If you can't see a clear difference between the two then you honestly need vision correction.
I'm beginning to think you don't truly understand this stuff.

Since I'm not a mongoloid monkey on crack, I'm not sitting with my face squished up against my display. Instead, I have my display at the distance where I can no longer see the pixels.

That's the way you're SUPPOSED to do it.

u wut m8?
>High PPI makes everything look better though.
Yeah, but like I said, I dont need to jerk off to pretty fonts, everything looking better doesn't make my pc usage better when all the content I watch or make is 1080p.

There's no need.

You're probably a user of Microsoft Windows which defaults to heavily hinted fonts. Turn off hinting and it will look like shit even at normal viewing distance.

>144hz is a meme though.
>I've never used it

Because a close up macro shot exaggerates what really is a minor difference at normal viewing distances. The reality is no one gives a shit outside of autists.

>I don't understand font hinting either

>u wut m8?
Pixel size is assumed to be normed in all relevant standards. (e.g. the ITU-R BT.1845 norms 1 pixel per arcminute)

Assuming constant pixel size, resolution is just a function of how big your display is. So 1080p vs 2160p is just 4x the screen area (real estate).

What you're referring to as “font clarity” has nothing to do with the resolution, instead it has to do with how big your fonts are (relative to the pixel size) and nothing else.

Also, if anybody is complaining about fonts being low quality: That's a clear sign that you're too close to your display. Move your display further back.

Wrong, I use Gentoo Linux with unhinted pixel fonts. Pic related.

>Wrong, I use Gentoo Linux with unhinted pixel fonts. Pic related.
Do you also used fixed-width fonts in your browser? I'm so sorry.

>Do you also used fixed-width fonts in your browser? I'm so sorry.
I use terminus everywhere, yes. It's the most readable font.

Assuming you have a 24" screen with a 1080p resolution, that means you need to keep your display almost a meter away from your face. Most people tend to keep their display around half that distance apparently. I know I do.
isthisretina.com

Also if you want some science and maths.
pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Can-you-see-the-difference-with-a-4K-monitor-729/

>At a viewing distance of 24 inches (which is about right for most desktop monitors) it is actually really surprising how soon you should be able to start making out individual pixels with a 1080p monitor. With 20/20 vision, if you want a monitor that is larger than just 15 inches you would ideally want a monitor with a 2K resolution instead of 1080p. Even with a 2K monitor, however, once you get above a 20 inch screen you should start to see a difference by using a 4K monitor. Between a 20 inch screen and a 30.5 inch screen there is no reason to go above 4K, but if you want a very large monitor you may consider using a 5K monitor once the technology matures a bit more.

>However, the average acuity for a healthy adult under the age of 60 or 70 is actually closer to between 20/13 and 20/17 (source 1 and 2). So if you are average and healthy, you should have a visual acuity of around 20/15 at which point the need for a higher resolution is even greater. At that visual acuity, for anything larger than a 15.5 inch screen you would ideally want to have a 4K screen. But even with just a 23 inch monitor, even 4K technically isn't good enough for your eyesight. 5K, which is still in its infancy, is really what you would ideally want for any monitor between 23 inches and 31 inches. For even larger screen sizes, you will have to wait for 6K or even higher resolutions to become available.

>Most people tend to keep their display around half that distance apparently. I know I do.
Most people are also bumbling retards who can't even tie their shoelaces properly.

Again, no one cares outside of autists. You think the average person cares about Quartz vs Cleartype?

You should really work on that attention span. My post isn't that long.

>You think the average person cares about Quartz vs Cleartype?
You think the average person cares if they have a Titan vs Iris Pro? Why are you arguing for things that are objectively inferior?

>Assuming you have a 24" screen with a 1080p resolution, that means you need to keep your display almost a meter away from your face.
Seems reasonable to me. I'm sitting at around 70cm distance from my 31.5" DCI-4K screen. If my PPI was much lower than that, I would naturally have to increase my viewing distance.

Nobody who calls higher refresh rates a meme should tell other people that they need eye correction.

>Why are you arguing for things that are objectively inferior?

To make a point that you seem to be too dense to grasp.

>Most people tend to keep their display around half that distance apparently. I know I do.
If you know you're doing it wrong then why are you complaining about fonts looking like shit?

Just increase your viewing distance to 1 meter and get high quality fonts for absolutely free! It's just like magic

in b4
>but then my work area will be tiny
yeah no shit, what did you expect from a 31° horizontal viewing area (1080p)?

"Most people" are on 1366x768 laptops. Are you proposing 4:1 scaling on those screens? What kind of retard logic is this?

>2K resolution instead of 1080p
>1080p instead of 1080p
"Science"

>22° horizontal viewing angle
pain and suffering

>I'm sitting at around 70cm distance from my 31.5" DCI-4K screen.
There's quite a huge difference in size between a 24" display and a 31.5" display.

Did I say you couldn't perceive 144hz? If so please quote me. I'll wait.

"Most people" use shitty TN panel screens that are probably 1366x768. What point were you trying to make by bringing up what "most people" use or want when they don't even have a clue how shitty their screens really are?

>If you know you're doing it wrong then why are you complaining about fonts looking like shit?
How is sitting around .6 meters doing it "wrong"?
What's the "correct" viewing distance? Remember to give some citations.

Maybe you should read the OP again. It's not that complicated, it's literally shorter than this reply.

Are you saying optics isn't a science?

>Are you saying optics isn't a science?
He is mocking at you because 2k is literally the same as 1080p.

Also, you don't need to "counter post" everything user, high ppi display "look" good, no one is arguing that, but having them isn't needed for everyday task.
Maybe you're more of a guy than a Sup Forums one.

>How is sitting around .6 meters doing it "wrong"?
Because the pixels are significantly larger than the value you need for optimum visual acuity, duh!

Visual acuity is a linear function of (Resolution * Distance) / Diagonal. These function should work out to the equivalent of around 1 pixel per arcminute.

When looking at this formula there's clearly no difference between “resolution is too low”, “diagonal is too high” and “distance is too low”.

Just work on the one of these three factors you can control for free: Viewing distance.

It's not exactly fucking rocket science.

>What point were you trying to make by bringing up what "most people" use or want when they don't even have a clue how shitty their screens really are?

OP asked a question. I answered it. Sorry it triggered your autism.

If you can't perceive 144hz your eyes are completely fucked

>He is mocking at you because 2k is literally the same as 1080p.
No, it “literally” isn't.

2K is 2048×1080
1080p is 1920×1080

Jesus Sup Forums is bad at technology

>There's quite a huge difference in size between a 24" display and a 31.5" display.
Yes? What is your point?

For a 24" display you would need something along the lines of ~3K horizontal to match.

If you want to preserve a 70cm viewing distance but use a 1080p display, you would need to have a display of around 16".

If you buy a larger display and then sit too close to it, you are pretty much just as dumb as people who use TVs as computer monitors and then complain about it looking like shit.

because the cat looks like shit.

??? 2k is 2560x1440 (or in 3:2 tablets it's 2160x1440)

Because it's a waste of pixels and battery life

Is this what they teach you in the american education system?

1920x1080p is about 2 million pixels, hence 2K

1440p is QHD because it's 720p*2

>2K
no, the 2K stands for 2K (base 2) horizontal resolution, 2048.

4K stands for 4096. You know, from the 4K resolution standard: 4096x2160.

Mine makes more sense

Why is this the only picture ever posted regarding this topic?

>He is mocking at you because 2k is literally the same as 1080p.
Then he's an idiot, because "2k" isn't a standardized term for consumer displays. Is it 1920 pixels wide? What about 2048x1152? You know that's a resolution that has been seen on displays every now and then. Heck, Apple 24" iMacs use the "retina" version of that resolution.

>Also, you don't need to "counter post" everything user
But I can.

>high ppi display "look" good, no one is arguing that
Actually a few people are arguing that it doesn't look any better. See any post talking about your "face being up against the screen".

>but having them isn't needed for everyday task.
An i7 isn't needed for everyday tasks. A high end GPU also isn't needed for that. An IPS display isn't either. I can't believe people on Sup Forums of all places are suddenly arguing for objectively shittier hardware.

So what resolution and screen size is "optimal" then?

Again, I never said you couldn't perceive it.

Monitors come in standardized sizes. There's no point talking about a 16" 1080p desktop monitor when it doesn't exist. 24" 1080p is the "standard" resolution and size, and I'd like to believe most people don't place those screens a meter away from their face, but I can't really find evidence against that.

Even my ancient 2012 rMBP gets 7 hours of battery life with a battery that only has 79% capacity left.

Which is why high PPI needs to be standard. If everyone had a high PPI display then you wouldn't need to upscale low PPI content.

Because Sup Forums hates high PPI for whatever reason. See Then again this it the board that thinks ThinkPads have usable screens, when some of them literally have 6-bit TN panels with static dithering.

1920*1080 ≈ 2 million pixels
3840*2160 ≈ 8 million pixels

so by your “definition”, 2160p would be 8K and not 4K.

>So what resolution and screen size is "optimal" then?
I'm glad you asked, let me refer you to the ITU-R Recommendation BT.1845. Pic related

>Monitors come in standardized sizes.
They really don't. They come in whatever size the manufacturers choose, and you can find a display of virtually any diagonal if you look hard enough.

>If everyone had a high PPI display then you wouldn't need to upscale low PPI content.
This is the only undeniably correct thing: We need to educate people about how to properly tune their PPI to their viewing distance, otherwise they will continue making ridiculously undersized computer images.

TV figured this thing out 50+ years ago.

>H
>Image heights
>Viewing distance
??

>2k is 2048x1080
2k is 2556x1440 ya

Jesus Sup Forums is bad at technology

But wouldn't having more "proof" help Sup Forums stop hating high PPI? Posting the same picture over and over makes me think it was somehow.. doctored.

I dont know but that image is clear as fuck on this 1440p 5.7 inch screen

What seems to be the problem?

See

it's nice but it would require better gpus
not everyone has got money for that

>But wouldn't having more "proof" help Sup Forums stop hating high PPI?
No. Sup Forums has an irrational hatred for anything Apple. It doesn't help that phones started going to absurd resolutions like 2560x1440 on a 5" screen. Both of these things combined makes Sup Forums hate high PPI.

lmgtfy.com/?q=2k resolution&l=1

Go fuck yourself

in the last thread about this with the exact same picture everyone in the thread didn't hate high ppi

that guy was right, using the old picture over and over is telling that the times have changed

1280x800 on a 12.1" screen is quite comfy

X200?

People actually pay hundreds for those ancient pieces of cum encrusted shit because they think it's a good purchase! LOL

Currently using 4k and 1080

Some downsides are awful scaling and low res stuff actually look better in its native resoultion because 1 pixel gets translated to 4 which often leads to weird jagged edges and similar artifacts..

2560x1600 on a 13.3" screen is quite comfy too

All of you realize 2k and 4k are not set in stone defined resolutions? 2k changes based on the aspect ratio you're using.

>Jesus Sup Forums is bad at technology
Sup Forums is the only place on the internet that will argue against better resolutions, despite being able to read more code on the screen clearly being objectively s good thing, just because they associate it with Apple.

>2k changes based on the aspect ratio you're using.

Sure but 2560x1440 isn't in that standard. People just appropriated it because whatever fuck it sounds better than WQHD

because its 16:9

the same reason 3840 × 2160 is called 4k despite not having 4000 horizontal lines

Yeah but 1920x1080 is 2k. What does that leave 2560x1440 as? It's more like 2.5k

do you also have a Z5 and wank over the 4K screen for the 2 hous before the battery dies?

They are marketing terms and have never made sense, people often call 1080p 1k because its vertical lines are barely over 1000 and its 4 times smaller than 4k even though 3840x2160 gets the name 4k based on its horizontal lines

what font is that?

Bottom is what top looks like when you don't have your nose pressed to the screen.

>despite being able to read more code on the screen clearly being objectively s good thing
But then you also get a bigger screen and that makes sense. 800 ppi doesn't. Maybe it does to some who keep their screens 2 inches away from their face.

No one is debating higher resolutions on bigger screens.

>All of you realize 2k and 4k are not set in stone defined resolutions? 2k changes based on the aspect ratio you're using.
Yes they fucking are.

>2K changes based on the aspect ratio
2K has a well-defined aspect ratio of 256:135. I'm sorry your brain is too retarded to understand that.

...

I agree

t. 32" Macbook Pro

13" ***

>256:135
>Digital Cinema Initiatives defines resolutions for computer monitors

>X200?

HP EliteBook 2730p

DCI defines the term “2K”.

2K/4K is used in the context of computer monitors when designing, for example, reference monitors for use with cinema mastering.

You'd probably know that if you were rich enough to afford a real monitor, not some plastic consumer garbage.

Why are tripfags always so insufferable

No they define DCI 2K

thats why everyone that uses their definitions puts the fucking DCI in front of it.

2k alone is just generic because the aspect ratio of your image, monitor, video, or whatever will change what a "2k" resolution is defined as.

if 4k was monitors were designed referencing DCI resoultions you would be buying 4096 x 2160 monitors when you filter by 4k not 3840 x 2160

>"being able to read more code clearly"
>is objectively a good thing
Not
>"being able to read more code"
>"clearly is a good thing"

Funny, because 4096x2160 is what I get when I think of “4K monitors” (e.g. LG 31MU97, Sony PVM-X300, etc.).

What you are referring to has a well-defined name: 2160p.

talking shit bruh. go to any fucking shopping website, hell even youtube thinks 3840 x 2160 is 4k because that IS 4k when you're using 16:9

newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=4k monitor&N=-1&isNodeId=1

>shopping websites and youtube are a reliable resource on digital standards
Why not quote a relevant ITU-R, DCI, SMPTE, EBU etc. document?

Oh right, because you're full of shit.

Its called a counterexample. You pushed the idea that DCI is the one true, if DCI was actually the one true then my examples wouldn't even exist. because they would all conform to the DCI standards

MY CLAIM was that they aren't set in stone and are variable

>It's called a counterexample
What you are doing is the equivalent is quoting a flat earth truther's insane rambling as “proof” the earth isn't round.

A counterexample isn't proof.

I'm not trying to prove i'm right, the counter example was to disprove your example because DCI resolutions aren't the only ones available.

All you proved is that DCI defines a set of DCI standards, by me disproving that as the one true we are back on equal footing, he said she said etc etc.

>10 years ago 1920x1200 was a common resolution on thinkpads
>now it's mostly 1336x768

You are quoting misinformed, misguided clueless idiots. They have about as much relevance when it comes to digital resolution standards as flat earthers do when it comes to calculating the precession of the equinoxes.

>Thats like your opinion man
Welcome to life.

People misused the word weaboo from its original definition on this site all the time, I had just as hard of a time about it as you are now with websites misunderstanding "2K" and "4K" from your precious alfather DCI