Monitor thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Does /g/ like 16:10? Also general monitor thread.
I like my 16:10 Dell. The added vertical space helps in everyday use tremendously.
>>46603209
Yes, but /g/ is so full of shilling and plebs wanting to feel good about their purchases that preferring 16:10 is now largely seen as an elitist position.
For workstations:
> 16:10 > 16:9 > 21:9 = 4:3, although 1200+2560+1200x1600 PLP with 2x 4:3s is god tier of last generation
People generally want more horizontal space, but they're ashamed they have to chop vertical space off to be able to afford larger monitors.
16:10 masterrace
but its sinking ship. I wonder if Dell is gonna release a 1600p mon or not
It's a fucking shame that there is not a singel 16:10 laptop out there besides those from apple. fucking shame
What is the best monitor under $400 that has accurate colors?
>>46603209
I have used many different monitors, and have found that height increases on small monitors are very useful. As the height starts to break beyond around ~16" though, it starts being difficult to read text without increasing font size because of physical restraints with how close you can be comfortably. At that maximum height, I then find more width useful for displaying more documents at once.
So, I would prefer a 16:10 at the cheapest and smallest screen, 16:9 as it gets larger, and ultrawide aspects like 21:9 if you can afford buying a screen that maintains a comfortable minimum height.
Tl;dr find a screen height that makes text documents feel nice and buy as wide of a screen as you can afford. (assuming you're a programmer obviously)
21:9 what do you think, good for gay men?
>>46603776
Bumping this because I kinda want one too
>>46603776
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_gOVBqcFbo
Does that answer for you?
If you don't have 16:10 you should not be allowed on /g/.
16:9 is a tv aspect ratio.
>>46603839
Looks bretty gud
I dont see any negatives about it except for the vertical height, not bad
>>46603899
But I watch movies on my laptop and PC.
>>46603209
I like it fine, but you don't get enough extra pixels to justify spending more.
I like 16:10 more but I'm not going to pay more than maybe $25-$50 to have it.
It's superior for everything save games and movies/tvshows/video.
I've fallen for 21:9 and I don't think I can go back now. Past the point of no return.
Although when 4K becomes easier to drive and makes more sense in general, I may switch but even then I dunno. Having this much screen real estate without multiple monitors is an amazing thing.
>>46603209
That golden ratio stuff sounds pretty neat, but the high-res 16:10 monitors are way too expensive.
A 2560x1600 screen will cost you at least $1000, you can get a 4K model for less.
I'm imagining how ridicoulous it would look to open a pdf document in one page mode on that thing
>>46605087
Get a Catleap or whatever for $300 on ebay
I'm in the market for an external monitor for my rMBP (which is 16:10), which also obviously have to be 16:10 in order for my wallpapers to match. However, I can't seem to find any cheap 1920x1200 screens around 21-23''.
Any suggestions?
>>46605877
Dell Ultrasharp U1224M.
I don't think I'll be giving up my FG2421 for a long time. It'll suck missing out on 4K but at least there's supersampling.
>>46606864
Epic gaming monitor bro!
>>46606934
It's all about the contrast. If I had the money and space for a ZT60 I'd be sticking with that one instead.
16:10 is a useless gimmick.
I'm looking for portrait mode.
>>46605087
You can usually find used 2560x1600 Ultrasharps for not much more than shitty A- panels.
>ctrl+f
>"asus pb278q"not found
Plebs
Acer K272HULbmiidp
I want to pick this up when it hits $300 again. What do you think?
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/acer-monitor-umhx2aa001
>>46607947
16:9 trash
>>46608042
nice meme ;^)
Got two xl2411ts (and a tv) but I think I'm going to sell them as I don't game much anymore. So looking for two monitors to replace. I do graphic work. No idea where to start!
>>46603753
yeh i wanna know too
>>46607947
Good for games.
>>46603209
What is the best $300 1440p ips monitor? I don't mind buying koreshit.
I use a 32 inch Samsung television as a monitor
LE32C530 from the 2010 model year
come at me
>>46603776
I've got that exact one. it's pretty ok.
>>46609092
Im using 32'' LG TV as monitor.U mad bruh?
>21:9
god you people are fucking retards.
just bought a 24 inch dell ultrasharp to go with my 27 inch smart tv. tthink im gonna go with it mounted vertically
>>46609143
What's wrong with 21:9?
>>46603839
Thanks for the clarification. I see now 21:9 is exclusively for homo shitters.
>>46609325
>>46609143
looks like some people are feeling remorse at not having 21:9 ultra wide e-peen
>>46609325
Fuck of. 21:9 is amazing for gaming.
Fuck I love my pb278q
Only complaint is a single stuck pixel the day I started using it.
>>46610848
do you work in video or photo editing?
>>46603209
Currently using something that's approximately 17:9 as my main monitor, with a 16:10 in portrait mode next to it.
How much of a hipster am I?
>>46610919
No, mainly gaymen and lots of movie watching. Overkill for both, but I'd much prefer to have vibrant colors over a higher refresh rate.
>>46611031
>vibrant colors
What the fuck does this even mean? How do colors “vibrate”?
It's a marketing term that I can literally not assign any meaning to. Is it like audiophile bullshit?
>>46611031
>No
then you're retarded for buying a monitor that is gimped for everything but what you do. these super accurate color monitors are for nothing but editing. that's the only area they excel. they suck for everything else.
>>46611059
>these super accurate color monitors are for nothing but editing
This is complete bullshit. Color accuracy is important for virtually anything, although gaming benefits the least from it.
>>46611059
not him, but by "super accurate color monitor" do you just mean not completely washed out TN garbage?
pb278q is not overkill at all, and it's not "super accurate color" it's just a standard 1440p PLS
>>46611050
>vibrate
>(of color) bright and striking
Retard
>>46611059
Much better colors compared to the TN panel I was coming from. For the price I have no regrets.
>>46611107
So you want your monitor to be.. bright? Have you considered swapping out the backlight for a car headlamp or cinema projector bulb or something?
I assure you, they will be quite bright and “striking” in the most literal of senses.
>>46611125
How fucking stupid are you?
Or are you just trolling?
>>46611133
No, I'm legitimately trying to figure out what the *fuck* you meant by this:
>vibrant colors
So far, all you've managed to tell me is: “they're bright”
>>46611095
>Color accuracy is important for virtually anything
wrong, absolutely wrong. the only people how need full adobe RGB coverage are editing professionals. for anyone else, it's just another means of showing off on the internet. spend you rmoney on something that will better benefit you. for exaple, if you game get something with more muh hz and less muh response time.
>>46611155
Once you see a TN next to an IPS with the same image, you'll understand mang. We even have native 120hz IPS now, so there's literally zero reason to still be using shitty TN.
>>46611155
Vibrant
>bright and striking
Striking
>attracting attention by reason of being unusual, extreme, or prominent
Jesus, I'll even do color for you.
>Color
Is the visual perceptual property corresponding in humans to the categories called red, blue, yellow, and others. Color derives from the spectrum of light (distribution of light power versus wavelength) interacting in the eye with the spectral sensitivities of the light receptors. Color categories and physical specifications of color are also associated with objects or materials based on their physical properties such as light absorption, reflection, or emission spectra. By defining a color space, colors can be identified numerically by their coordinates.
Can you put two and two together now?
>>46611161
Am I being fucking trolled? Do you not know the difference between gamut and accuracy? Where the fuck did I even mention AdobeRGB?
Shit monitors will obscure all sorts of details and make simple tasks like browsing a huge pain. Even if I simply turn off the calibration on my monitor and set it back to its default gamma tables, I fucking cringe every time.
The accuracy is so much off of what a true response should look like that it messes with pretty much everything. It's like using shitty headphones that amplify and distort the bass.
Would you argue that Skullcandy and Beats are fine as long as you don't do any mastering on them?
>>46611179
I'm using two IPS panels, get the fuck off my case.
>>46611240
>I'm using two IPS panels
And yet you're sitting here throwing a tantrum and not understanding what people mean by better colours?
Alright, champ.
>>46611192
So you want your monitor to attract attention by reason of being unusually, extremely and prominently bright? You want the numerical stimulus values of your monitor's output to be unreasonably high?
Both of these are achieved by turning up the backlight intensity. So in other words: You want a bright monitor. Good job!
>>46611161
>spend your money on something that will better benefit you. for example, if you game get something with more muh hz and less muh response time.
I wanted a 23+ inch 2560x1440 monitor that wasn't a tn. As I stated, refresh rate isn't the biggest deal in the world to me, especially considering I don't play shit like cawadoody. I had no interest in buying the swift, especially after seeing that it was a tn panel, and all of the qc issues it seems to have.
I fail to see how I'm showing off. As far as monitors go, I could've spent alot more than what I did.
>>46611270
>I don't know how adjectives work
Congratulations!
>>46611262
>better
NOW WAIT JUST ONE FUCKING MOMENT.
He said, and I quote, “vibrant colors”. He did not say “better”. He said “vibrant”.
I am, quite specifically, trying to figure out just *what the fuck* exactly he thinks a “vibrant” color is supposed to be.
>>46611292
>I am, quite specifically, trying to figure out just *what the fuck* exactly he thinks a “vibrant” color is supposed to be.
A color better than found on a typical tn panel, a color that is of better quality than others.
How dense are you?
>>46611292
1. Take a picture
2. Saturate it to hell
3. Put it beside the original picture
4. Not the obvious differences
Wow that was hard. Not even mentioning anti-glare coatings muddying up your picture even further.
>>46611314
Wait, so a “vibrant” color is a “better” color? Actually, how is a color even “better” than another?
Is “green” better than “blue”?
>>46611323
So by “vibrant” he means “oversaturated”? If that's what he was trying to say, why didn't he used that term in the first place?
Oh right,
>I like oversaturated colors
Because it would make him sound like a fucking retard.
>>46611339
No, not over-saturated. Normal,non-saturated nice,pretty,<synonym>
Fucking hell you dense m8.
>>46611240
you don't get what im saying. i'll explain it again. even the poor colors of a tn will suit 99% of users fine (yourself included) because you are not a professional.
>>46611291
get the new asus that they showed off at ces. 120hz 5ms qhd ips. $600. don't be retarded like the other poster i'm talking about and buy some sort of super accurate color monitor like a dell ultra $1000+ with shit hz and response time and use it to fucking game.
>>46611050
>>vibrant colors
>What the fuck does this even mean?
Vibrance is similar, and related to saturation.
More specifically: how saturated the non-saturated pixels are compared to the saturated pixels.
>>46611339
>how is a color even “better” than another?
Now I know you are just fucking with me, holy fucking hell, 10/10 I'm mad.
>>46611354
So it's similar to contrast, but for saturation rather than luminance?
>>46611339
>Wait, so a “vibrant” color is a “better” color? Actually, how is a color even “better” than another?
It's usually more pleasing to the eye.
>So by “vibrant” he means “oversaturated”?
No.
In fact when you have vibrant colors you can reduce the overall saturation and sill have a pleasing picture.
Oversaturating is what people tend to do who can't get vibrant colors.
They are basically raping the color because they can't make them nice.
Been using this for about 5 months now.
21:9 is the shit
>>46611373
You could say that, yes.
But note that more vibrant = LESS "saturation contrast".
It makes the dull colors less dull without over-saturating the strong colors.
>>46603209
Yes, 30" 2560x1600 was the best available monitor for the better part of a decade, while 2560x1440 is pleb and the new 2560x1080 "ultrawide" is trash.
I weep that we won't be seeing 4096x2560 or even 3840x2400 monitors to any real extent, though I will be OK with mere UHD if it ever comes in 40"-45" IPS.
>TFW playing elite dangerous in surround 3x1080p
Truly a glorious feeling. Any more pixels and Itd compromise fps too much, but I easily get 60fps+ on ultra settings and its amazing feeling like you're actually surrounded by the cockpit.
>>46611386
>It's usually more pleasing to the eye.
But that's subjective.
Video displays should be objective. There's no way you could possibly argue against that statement.
>>46611404
Whoa, that's a weird definition. Anyway, assuming that all displays want to be able to reproduce a gray tone, we have a fixed lower bound for saturation.
So if the definition is inverted, wouldn't that mean that a high vibrance = lower difference between low saturation (gray tone) and high saturation (spectral color), and thus mean “lower upper bound on saturation”?
Based on this definition, it would seem like a more vibrant display device therefore has a *smaller* gamut than a less vibrant one.
>2015
>buying anything lower than 4k
The UP2414Q is only $700 cucks
>>46611484
The UP2414Q is also on the upper end of the spectrum for 24" 2160p monitors.
As discussed in this very thread, the entry level is much lower. Consider whether you truly need AdobeRGB coverage, 8+2 bit AFRC and BG-r backlighting.
>>46611484
4k is useless. you get the same space as fhd. im waiting on good 5ks. i'll get a good 4k for games eventually though.
>>46611484
I'm not getting a 4k monitor until either media catches up or hardware catches up.
>>46611528
>4k is useless. you get the same space as fhd.
What?
3840*2160 = 8294400 pixels
1920*1080 = 2073600 pixels
That's a factor of 400%.
>>46611462
>Video displays should be objective.
And what is "objective"?
Should a picture taken under tungsten light appear yellow when displayed in your home? - or should we mimic the human eye's ability to adjust for color temperatures?
Should shadows be as dark as they are in real life or lifted like the human eye sees them?
>>46611549
>pixels = space
this guy
>>46603776
makes me nauseous
>>46603209
Been gaming on 1680x1050 for years.
Came with my pre-built HP back in the day, don't want to spend the money for a few extra pixels.
Gets the job done.
>>46611602
>Few extra pixels
Even going from 1080 to 1440 felt like leaps and bounds.
You're going to shit yourself if you ever step right up to 4k or something.
I like my 16:10, and am likely to continue to try and buy them, when I eventually change these. I've seen newer ones with smaller bezels, but I'm in no hurry to change.
Why is 16:10 "superior" to 16:9 exactly?
>>46611661
That looks so good. The only thing stopping me from replicating that setup is muh games.
>>46611682
more screenspace for no additional desksize.
vertical screenspace is handy for many websites, as well as any coding. Most layouts are still up/down layouts rather than left/right.
>>46611682
Extra vertical space for muh FOV, and slightly better productivity. It's mostly not wanting to change from the 90's. I can't stand 16:10.
>>46611564
>And what is "objective"?
Depends slightly on the specification you're implementing, eg. ITU-R Recommendations BT.1886, BT.2020 and BT.2035, EBU Tech 3320, or equivalent SMPTE standards.
Alternative definitions exist, for example sRGB or AdobeRGB. Professional monitors will therefore generally implement multiple of these modes as “color profiles”.
>Should a picture taken under tungsten light appear yellow when displayed in your home?
Chromatic adaptation is not the job of a fucking display device, it's the job of your CMM. If you want to adapt the white points in a particular photo, fucking go ahead. That's completely outside the scope of this discussion, which is about display accuracy. Display accuracy has a technical interpretation - in that the API for a display is a 3-tuple of numerical values ranging from 0 to 2^n (where n is the bit depth of the monitor, typically 8).
We are concerning ourself primarily with the mapping of these triples to the (physical) tristimulus characteristics of the resulting color on the display, as measured with a colorimeter or similar device. There are monitors which are more or less accurate in their ability to achieve a native reproduction.
(Note that this function is also dependent on the viewing angle, so when you're talking about the “color accuracy” of a display, you have to remember that we're implicitly including “over all typical viewing angles”)
>Should shadows be as dark as they are in real life or lifted like the human eye sees them?
An ideal display device would map them to be as dark as they are in real life. Of course, since this is not practical in the real world, specifications typically have a certain defined tolerance for black level brightness - but these are still seen as deficits (errors) of the display device.
>>46611690
yeah, I need more graphics in this thing than I have at the moment to do any serious gaming on proper settings. Still, most things are playable on mediumish settings.
How do you guys feel about 1920x1200/16:10/24 inches?
>>46611764
Considered the optimal ratio by most.
>>46611764
That's pretty standard, but the DPI (~100) is on the lower end of what I consider acceptable.
Personally, for a desktop monitor I would advise targeting something with ~150 dpi, perhaps even higher (eg. if you want more clarity in small CJK fonts)
For reference, 150 dpi ≈
- 1920x1200 at 15"
- 2560x1600 at 20"
- 3840x2400 at 30"
>>46611764
that's what I have three of:
>>46611661
3* U2312Ms
it's kinda the biggest my desk supports/I can reasonably look at
>>46611549
Scaling, son. In general, the way elements are scaled on a 4k screen gives you the same space as you'd have on a 1600x900 screen. It will look a lot better, but the workspace isn't as full as it could be.
You could use it without scaling, but your eyes would hate you.
>>46611830
if you get 4k at 24" you can basically have 1920x1080 in "retina" form.
Whether your operating system will scale stuff properly is a question. If anyone has really good experiences with any Linux distro or Windows 10, I'd like to see screenshots if possible. I have a hackintosh setup running on a fairly powerful desktop purely because it's the only mainstream OS I've found with really good high density display support. Mostly that's because they've been pushing that for nearly 3 years now, but the point remains that Linux distros and Windows generally still seem to be behind.
>>46611830
that's 'retina' at about 22 inches. I sit about 28ish inches away (my monitors are not 'retina' at that distance, and in any case my vision is marginally better than 20:20)
CJK fonts are a reasonable reason tbh.
>>46611833
The ppi is no issue for you?
>>46611856
At the same size, perhaps. Depends on the size involved, also. The two factors that I feel work against this are:
1. If you're moving to 4K, it would make most sense to move to a larger screen diagonal, eg. 30" - thus giving you more work space.
2. Due to the higher DPI, you can use smaller fonts than you might otherwise be comfortable with, and thus get more effective working area that way.
Personally, I was moving from a 24" 1080p-ish monitor to a 31" 4K monitor, which is a huge increase in effective working area.
>>46611866
>If anyone has really good experiences with any Linux distro or Windows 10, I'd like to see screenshots if possible.
Sure, have an example
>>46611895
they're 'retina' at ~36" and I sit about 28" away (and in any case, my vision is marginally better than 20:20)
They're perfectly fine for what I use them for (non-photo/film editing). Sure, I'd like higher res, but there wasn't a reasonable option for that at the price I was willing to pay at the time.
>>46611902
This is fair enough. I was thinking from a laptop perspective for some reason, even though this thread was specifically about standalone monitors.
>>46611939
Okay good, I'm considering the U2412M and I was just a little worried. thanks.
Sooo...
affordable 120hz 4K monitor when?
>>46611930
Anything not terminal-specific? I do a lot of stuff in the terminal but I'd also like to use these monitors as extensions to my laptop, meaning I'd like to use a web browser and all that other shit pretty fluidly.
>>46611964
They're pretty good monitors. I wouldn't worry about maxing ppi, but then that depends on what you're doing with them.
There is the newer U2415, which is also 16:10. I couldn't tell you anything about the monitor price/value market at the moment as I haven't been looking, but I'm aware of their existence, and you might want to look into them, depending on price.
>>46611976
We aren't even at 60hz standard yet mang.
>>46611976
next year.
>>46611930
Here's an example of a Qt application
>>46612008
do you even care about nice fonts?
>>46611997
Oh wow, I didn't know Dell refreshed Ultrashatp last year. Nice thin bezels too. Thank you again.
Yes, we do like 16:10. I use 16:10.
I hope I can get a 1:1 monitor for less than $2000 sometime, though. It'd be nice to have as much height as width.
For now, I can drive my CRT from 1995 at 2560x1920i at 90hz, which is pretty nice.
(interlaced video modes are awesome!)
What would you (the ones familiar with said) recommended between these two dell monitors u2412m vs u2414h.
I can get 12m for 60% of the new one here with 2 more years of warranty or 14h for around 10%more than 12m with a year of warranty.
Have a ol 1680x1050 tn Philips
>>46612008
And here's an example of a Gtk+ application
>>46611996
Gtk and Qt etc. are obviously much worse at scaling than text-only programs, which have the benefit of simply needing to increase the font size to compensate. (In fact, stuff like Xft seems to automatically detect my monitor DPI)
Can't show you an example of a web browser, since I run my web browser on a dedicated monitor in portrait mode, which has a much lower DPI.
The problem with scaling anything that isn't text is that you have to use vector graphics or upscaling for everything that's an image. For stuff like Qt or Gtk+, using vector graphics is reasonable - but on the internet, it's not like we can make the thumbnails on 4chan be any less bitmapped than they currently are.
The logical consequence is that you need image upscaling, and that means almost everything under the sun will invariably implement something terrible like bilinear scaling.
>>46612016
I do, which is why I have everything forced to Terminus
>>46612036
I prefer 16:10 enough that I'd get a u2412m. S'up to you if any other factors are important to you.
>>46612086
> being this new at typography
Terminus is not a good looking font. It is a clear font for certain use-cases where monospace is desirable (and there are other, far better fonts for that), and that's all. You're using it all over the place and it looks like shit.
>>46612109
> being this new at typography
I don't really give a shit about your hobby.
>Terminus is not a good looking font.
I also don't really give a shit about your subjective opinion.
>It is a clear font for certain use-cases where monospace is desirable
It's the best pixel-mapped monospace font I have found that works nicely all the way down to very low sizes.
>(and there are other, far better fonts for that)
You say this yet you don't name any examples
>You're using it all over the place
Yes, I am aware.
>and it looks like shit.
I don't really give a shit about your subjective opinion.
>>46611602
let me guess, your monitor is a hp w2207h?
>>46612137
You seem to care a lot given how defensive you are. Typography isn't my hobby, giving spergs constructive criticism is my hobby.
Terminus is objectively bad looking. Its value is utilitarian. You are using a monkey wrench as a soup spoon and that is why it looks bad.
I didn't think there was any real difference until I picked up a dell workstation. Holy fuck it's amazing, It completely changed the way I work on things, I went from always having my main window fullscreen and information/various things on a second of to the side TV to almost entirely running everything side by side on the main display and reserving the TV for like, a movie or chat windows. It's awesome having reference material side by side with whatever I'm working on and not feeling near as much like I've squished everything
>>46612186
>objectively bad looking
:^)
They need to make more of em!
>>46612099
Thanks for the input, I do quite like the colour reproduction of 12m, 14h should be just a bit better everywhere except screen real estate, but the thing that's mildly annoying me is the grain due to heavy coating on the 12m. supposedly 14h has a less aggressive coating, but my friend says that stops being an issue when you stop looking for it so yeah there is that.
will probably go for the 16:10 but would value additional experience /advice regarding these two.
>>46612137
>do you care about fonts?
>"I do"
>"being this new to typography [protip: that's fonts]"
>I don't really give a shit about your hobby
okay so in the non-autistic world this makes you a hypocritical asshole.
>>46612109
Courier and Unifont are the best monospace. Unifont if you need really good unicode support. Courier if you like classics.
(btw, most linux TTY's (ctrl+alt+f*) use unifont. That's what it looks like.
>>46612387
Thats a sweet monitor.
Mine (that I get 2560x1920 on) is a lowly 100SF that I got free.
Play with X11 video modes - your CRT controller will probably (if it's at all like mine) prevent catastrophic failures :D
>>46612549
Ive done all sorts with mine n xrandr.
The w900 seems to have a clock limit of around 350mhz as I can only get it to operate at 2560x1600@59Hz but I do have another 4:3 CRT that will go al the way at 2560x2048@53Hz
100sf ill remember that. Thanks anon!
>>46611528
>4k is useless.
Correction: 27"-30" UHD is useless.
I'd rather keep my ~100 ppi and have 2x more space over my 2560x1600 instead of slightly less area and 50% greater sharpness.
8k at 40"+ is where it will be at in like 5 years I hope - 200 ppi and a fuck ton of physical space.
> inb4 muh vidya and muh GPU being abused like a Filipino hooker
>>46612667
40" monitor seems a bit extreme don't you think?
>>46612531
>>46611714
>It's mostly not wanting to change from the 90's. I can't stand 16:10.
16:9 for muh cinematic experience is for poor NEETS who cant into a real TV or who play shitty console ports on their PCs.
The big issue is that so-called widescreen resolutions are vertically shortened versions of 16:10/4:3 resolutions, not horizontally elongated.
1920x1200 (WUXGA) arguably was a wider version of 1600x1200 (UXGA), but everything since then in 16:9 or 21:9 should really be considered "short screen".
>>46611976
>ffordable 120hz 4K monitor when?
>>46611998
>We aren't even at 60hz standard yet mang.
Speak for yourself HDMI pleb.
DP 1.2 UHD@60Hz have been out for a few years now
>>46612766
>16:9 for muh cinematic experience is for poor NEETS who cant into a real TV or who play shitty console ports on their PCs.
All games suck on 16:10; this is not limited to AAA console ports.
>>46612688
>40" monitor seems a bit extreme don't you think?
I have a 20"-30"-20" 1200+2560+1200x1600 PLP right now and would rather have a ~45" inch with the same ppi, no bezels, and 35% more vertical space/25% less horizontal space.
>>46611339
This is turning into a good read.
>>46612086
>>46612008
Using Terminus on GUI applications is a cardinal sin. In these cases a humanist sans-serif font like FreeSans is advised.
>>46611930
Using Terminus on CLI applications is a good deed: a consistent monospace font of small enough a size on a minimal interface is helpful.
>>46612766
This just in retard, literally EVERYBODY THAT USES any thing with a screen is using 16:9. No tvs use 16:10. You're autism doesn't change that
>>46603753
Benq gw2765ht
>>46612531
The problem I have with Unifont is that it's strictly a bitmap font for that size: the actual definitions that are used would be hell to transfer into any other set of dimensions.
At least the standard xterm font and Terminus have different point sizes to allow for larger screens and better detail when needed.
>>46612841
>is a cardinal sin
Catholics aren't Christians.
Terminus. Terminus everywhere.
> 29" 21:9 AOC monitor on the bottom
> 23" 16:9 ACER on the top
best screen setup i have ever had, perfect for gaming with maps/tips on top screen or misic player on top screen and a couple pages open on the bottom, also got it with bitcoins so i dont care.
>>46612841
Oh, right, FreeSans isn't humanist: Droid Sans, Roboto, and Ubuntu are.
If you must use a monospace font for GUI apps (which I contend you don't need to), try Inconsolata.
>>46612901
Then let me rephrase myself: You are a fucking dumbass piece of shit for using a bitmap font for a GUI application. Take my advice and switch to something pretty on large-enough displays or beat it you sick bastard.
>>46612853
> implying TV content on a workstation is what even matters
If 16:9 resolutions had a higher pixel count than corresponding 16:10 resolutions, they'd be better for computer monitors, but they don't, so they aren't.
End of story, chucklefuck.
Hope you don't have to scroll down too much on your manlet display to read this.
>>46612903
best pic i have, moved since then though.
>>46612913
Why would you ever want to use anything other than a bitmap font? I can never fucking read anything else, it's either blurry as all hell or full of rainbows.
But go on then, show us your superior font setup and I will see how much it makes my eyes bleed.
>>46612920
Nice setup, but why on earth would you use a horizontal taskbar setup with that monitor?
>>46612920
>21:9 gaymen
I want
>>46613003
>Vert-
:^)
>>46612920
Is that 2560x1080 or 3440x1440?
>>46612956
bar is on the left now since i got win 8.1 also still have a horizontal stand for if i want that after i graduate.
>>46613033
ok kid.
>>46610848
I have 3 of those, using my computer gives me boners.
As for the stuck pixel:
Often times you can massage it out by pressing on your screen with your thumbnail and rocking it back and forth.
>>46609092
>>46609140
>32 inch
>1920x1080
>68.84 PPI
Absolutely disgusting.
>>46613125
What, you've never played a game that has forced Vert- scaling before?
You know, like, literally anything older than a few years ago? And you're calling *me* the kid?
>>46613056
2560x1920
So based on it not even being mentioned, I'm going to go ahead and assume G-Sync is a waste of money at this point? I'm in the market for a monitor soon, and I was looking at them, but from what I've read, the Asus ones have a really high failure rate?
>>46614646
G-Sync is good but Free-Sync is better.
www.overclock.net/t/1533868/various-acer-g-sync-27-qhd-ips-144hz-monitor-debut
Thoughts on this monitor, it sound pretty good if you ignore how much it'l likely cost,
>>46614646
all those high refresh rate monitors are a waste of money
TN is unjustifiable in 2015
>>46614646
G-Sync is a module that nvidia puts in monitors that you have to pay $100 extra for. Its only job is stopping AMD cards from using the adaptive refresh rate on the monitor.
Adaptive refresh rates are really good though. So if you get a G-sync monitor and use a graphics card that the module doesn't gimp then the frame syncing is really nice.
Freesync does the same thing but without the whole proprietary module thing. It also doesn't work without support from the graphics card itself, and that list is really short.
The technology is really good, but it's not mature yet.
Get it if you want to be an early adopter.
Get a freesync monitor, but you have to be prepared to get a 290/290X or one of the 300 series that supports it.
Nvidia could support freesync on their cards if they wanted, there's no cost for them to do so.
>>46604814
This kind of monitor only makes sense if you use tiling WM.
>>46615915
Most people use monitors for more than still images. 60Hz is unjustifiable.
I love 16:10.
I'm still using a Dell 2407WFP.
So get this right for me, the best monitor would be 16:10 and has 1440p and 120Hz?
3 x 1280x1024 master race reporting in.
Will we EVER get OLED monitors /g/?
I'd trade in my 1440p Ultrashit in a heartbeat if they would be available, even if they would only be 1080p at 60hz.
I'm sick and tired of IPS glow, I just want some decent fucking black levels.
How well does i3wm do scaling for high dpi displays? And would a 3440x1440 or 3840x2460 monitor work better with i3 for productivity?
>>46617837
Or multitaskers. IIRC you can easily fit 3 different programs on the screen without needing to scale down much.
Oh and people who watch movies.
>>46619625
Goddamn I would kill for that. Well only if they make them not burn in.
>>46611484
2560x1600 is the sweetspot now
anything lower just looks like shit
anything higher would require a lot more screenspace to actually use as a computer monitor
these monitors with over 3k resolution and less than 40inches are dumb as fuck
you cant read shit properly with them, the pixel pitch is too small
the market is going into full retard mode
Was looking into a 4:3 1600x1200 LCD monitor to replace my current secondary monitor.
Thinking about this. http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/lcd2190uxp-bk?type=support
I've never heard of PVA. Is it any good?
Can i get a recommendation for an affordable 1080 suitable for a triple gaming setup?
>>46620859
>there is no such thing as UI scaling
Hurr
>>46603558
>21:9 = 4:3
Nigga, that's just delusional. I use 21:9 like it's a holy temple for programming.
Maybe if you had like four 4:3 monitors side by side they could be considered equal to a 21:9.
Please enlighten me /g/. Between 1080p 144fps and 1440p +60fps would one require significantly better hardware to push said numbers or would it require more or less the same?
>>46606624
Way too expensive... I'm thinking around the same price of a cheap BenQ 1080p screen, but just 16:10.
>>46615891
Asus has something similar coming out for $600.
Gaming at 16:10 sucks. Stop kidding yourselves.
>>46620965
>calling it UI scaling
>not DPI scaling
>still implying DPI scaling is not shit
>using twice the amount of pixels to produce a fraction of the working space
phones get away with it because they are designed for facebook moms
>>46603209
8:5 is the only /g/ aspect ratio. At least for anything under 40".
>>46619625
that's a shoop. ips screens aren't that bad at all.
>>46618091
Are there even any 120Hz 16:10 monitors?
I've only seen one and it was specialized for satellite imagery.
>>46618091
No, it would be 16:10 and IPS. It will be 120Hz when IPS gets 120Hz.
Except if you come from /v/. Then you should get 16:9@120/144Hz.
>>46618091
The best monitor would be a $100k laser projector
>>46621109
>what is a viewing angle
>what is camera exposure
>>46618091
>1440p
>16:10
you seem confused
>>46621281
Of course I am confused.
>>46621281
>not using 2304x1440
pleb detected
>>46603209
Hi, im currently rolling with one Dell Ultrasharp U2312HM 23" and im planning to get 2 more monitors. What should i get?
Since this model is discontinued, what are my options.
I dont want much diffrence between the monitors and also i need suggestions about 3x wallmounting them.
>>46621121
>Are there even any 120Hz 16:10 monitors?
I'm using one now (Viewsonic VX2268wm).
>>46619625
>I just want some decent fucking black levels.
I have OLED on my phone (Galaxy S3). Black level is better than any LCD but not as good as a correctly calibrated CRT.
I don't 16:9 is as much as a problem after getting a 1440p monitor. Plenty of real estate vertically.
1080p never felt really good for work and browsing.
Monoprice has announced an overclockable 2560x1600 27" if that's your thing.
>>46613467
kek you wish
Since the SQT is on autosage... Sorry for asking here.
As I use a 32" TV(Sony KDL-32U2000) as a monitor for a HTPC I have noticed the following:
>The screen is 1366x768
>The VGA clocks at 1280x760 60Hz max
>HDMI supports 1080i 1920x1080 at 60Hz but GPU only manages 30HZ
>Custom resolutions on VGA still let the TV render it at 1280x760
>Custom resolutions on HDMI at 1080i and 30Hz max.
Is the TV a shit or is it the GPU?
I have no problems with living with the restrictions but if the specsheet says it can, then why can't?
>>46621517
because it's supports 60i the gpu puts out 30p. or puts out 60i but still refers to it as "30Hz".
basically, 1080i at 60Hz means 30 full frames a second, so your gpu is confused and puts out 1 of the 2 options above. interlacing is disgusting and has no reason to exist anymore.
>>46621631
Interesting.
Still wonder why it's not possible to output at the panel's native resolution though.
>>46620994
Pls
>>46621706
resolution? i thought you said it does 1080? HDMI can't output full 60 frames at 1080 progressively, so what it gives you is 1080/30p or 1080/60i
>>46621784
As said the panel's resolution is 1366x768, the available resolution goes as far as 1920x1080 however, I could possibly even do more since it apparently downscales the input to what the tv gives.
I don't know myself.
>>46603776
I'm using one right now
although there's a 29um67 coming out soon that's compatible with freesync if you want that
Bought an Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor..
>mfw only mainstream games support the resolution without a great deal of modifications
>mfw half of my movies are hard coded 1080p which means black borders..
Just got my Dell U2515H 1440p IPS monitors and this is glorious. Sooo much better than any TN panel I've ever used, took less than 10 seconds for my old screen to start looking blurry. Kinda wish it was 16:10 like my old monitor but whatever
U2414H reporting in.
>>46624502
Shit.
>>46624679
Whaaat?
>>46624759
Your monitor is garbage.
>>46624827
HA!
Good one anon
Find me a better one...
>not using glorious 40:10 aspect ratio
Can't even watch Napoléon correctly what a pleb.
>>46603718
>what is a thinkpad
Admit it, you want this sexy motherfucker.
>>46605087
http://www.monoprice.com/Product?p_id=10734
ahem
>>46619625
>my 10 year old CRT doesn't have that problem
>>46625025
I don't mean your 10 years old cum stained used 1280x800 machines
