>High PPI is a meme
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)
>>54383265
What's the resolution and size of each of those monitors?
>>54383265
>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
>>54383298
the above pic is clearly worse than the bottom pic even if you dont look closely
>>54383289
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.
>>54383294
>>54383298
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.
>>54383287
Pic related. Also see the two posts quoted above this one.
>>54383294
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.
>>54383332
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.
>>54383378
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.
>>54383406
>/g/ 2011
>IBM T221 is the best monitor ever
>/g/ 2012
>LOL APPLE IS SO STUPID "RETINA" NO ONE NEEDS MORE THAN 2560x1600
>>54383332
>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
>>54383435
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, /g/ 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.
>>54383265
Who in the world says high PPI is a meme
>>54383265
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
>>54383514
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
>>54383514
I think it's more /g/ is easily impressionable, for better (Clip+) or worse (ThinkPad worship).
iPhone sucks.
>>54383530
300ppi desktop displays are unfeasible anyway.
a meme are all those people who are buying 40 inch 4K tvs and using them as monitors.
>>54383332
>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?
>>54383575
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"
>>54383332
>kid can't even calculate 16:10 aspect ratio, the same aspect ratio apple has always fucking used
jesus christ
>>54383553
surely that shit can't be good for your eyes
>>54383265
People hate high PPI because are exclusive of macbooks, wait when $500 chinese laptops have 4K screens for mainstream adoption
>>54383553
A 4k workarea gives you so much room though.
If they made high PPI 40" screens I'd want one.
>>54383553
Finally, someone who's getting their money's worth.
>>54383687
His eyes are probably already pretty fucked.
Finally a thread that proves high DPI is the future.
>>54383687
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%
>>54383777
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.
>>54383790
I've got them and they're not helping
High PPI is a maymay, and I am saying this as a pseudo macfag
>>54383864
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
>>54383918
>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.
>>54383814
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.
>>54383864
I can almost read your pixelated mess from the thumbnail
>>54383265
>>54383332
Wow anon, 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.
>>54384071
Clearly you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
>>54384092
>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
>>54383549
>I think it's more /g/ 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.
>>54384250
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.
>>54383952
320 is the most anyone should ever need.
>>54384653
Yeah, there's no need to go beyond 320*240.
Heck even 640KB hard drive is pushing it.
>>54383553
At his age I can kind of understand it. His eyes are already bad, the bigger resolution isn't making the screen any bigger.
>>54383719
how do you read any of that shit
>>54385195
I don't.
>>54383687
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.
>>54383719
>posts a high PPI screenshot
>pixelises parts of it
Ooh, the irony!
>>54383265
your body can't even see more than 72ppi, enjoy your overpriced placebo
>>54385285
>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?
>>54385285
that's not how irony works, retard. Are you an american or something?
>>54383719
please share the wallpaper miles
>>54385195
It's on a 27" screen. It's surprisingly not hard to read at all.
>>54385334
Not like he can see the benefits of high PPI without a high PPI monitor
>>54385362
>>54385380
There's loads of examples here:
>>54383265
>>54383719
>>54383733
>>54383988
Maybe he somehow forgot to open the rest of the images.
>>54383332
Holy kek
what a bunch of idiots
>>54385380
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.
>>54386277
It's not easy, but it's not so bad that you'd need to get very close to the screen.
>>54386277
its a lot improved on win 10 but
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2900023
>>54383265
the cat looks better.
What's with all the squares on the bottom half? Is that visible from normal distance?
>>54383378
>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
>>54386511
>single raster image that was part of a custom script
>could easily use higher resolution icon in its place
Totally worth avoiding high PPI.
>>54386487
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
>>54385327
>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
>>54388305
i am not that guy but I am pretty sure it was a joke
>>54383979
60hz is a sacrifice
>>54386612
>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
>>54383265
the cat is fucked
>>54383918
>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.
>>54388442
>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
>>54388475
>since 4k is an exact multiple of 1080p
sorry anon, but it doesn't work like this.
>>54388475
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.
>>54388442
>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
>>54388332
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
>>54388554
>>54388560
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.
>>54388618
What aspect ratio is your monitor?
>>54388618
Meant to separate out the latter post.
>>54388626
Are you saying 4k monitors are a different aspect ratio than 16:9?
>>54383511
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.
>>54388643
No, just no, just forget it.
>>54388618
https://hardforum.com/threads/4k-ultrahd-at-half-resolution.1827816/
and generic stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_scaling
>>54388626
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.
>>54388677
>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.
>>54388706
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.
>>54388683
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.
>>54388752
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.
>>54388753
The reason it looks shit is because it's low resolution, it would look equally shit on a 360p monitor.
>>54388807
Provided the monitor is the exact same size and at the same distance from your eyes, of course.
>>54388753
>>54388790
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.
>>54388753
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 /g/ 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.
>>54383553
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.
>>54388943
not the guy you're replying to, and you do you or whatever, but the "future" of displays is going to be in doubled pixel density as illustrated in >>54388926. it's the least turbulent upgrade path, it doesn't require everyone to make space for 40" monitors, and with the standards (displayport, hdmi, etc...) and products (monitors, video cards capable of 4k at 60 or 120hz, etc...) getting cheaper, it's inevitable that higher resolution displays will become the norm.
in the meantime, sure, use a 4k 40" monitor, but (and i'm saying this more to the general camp of 40" 4k folks) please stop parroting this half-baked nonsense about tiny letters and whatnot. it was stupid in 2011, it's stupid now, and it will always be stupid.
>>54383406
Faggots react to Apple like Republicans to Obama.
Doesn't matter what Apple does, it's wrong.
>>54383265
High PPI isn't a meme
Retina™ is a meme
>>54388981
there's little love lost for apple on my part, but those anti apple zealots are absolutely toxic. they're like evangelicals in the conservative party.
>>54389006
I tend to associate them more to the regressive left.
I mean, replace "you're a fucking white male" with "you're a fucking apple fag".
I don't like most Apple products but I don't go shitting on them. And I use hackintosh.
>>54383708
It's nice, but the laptops it's available on are terrible because of the thin = modern = stylish = buy it meme.
You know, the retina macbook would actually have battery life worth a shit sans throttling if apple made it thicker with more battery. Hell, they'd even have room for more ports.
>>54388996
Only apple OS can handle high PPI nicely. Windows pretty much blows. I don't know about linux though.
>>54389155
Windows 10 has gotten better about it, but it's true that os x is still ahead of the rest of the competition in this shit, but it's not that surprising since they made a point of it being a key feature in their flagship products more than 4 years ago now (even more than that if we count the iPhone).
i don't much care about apple, and it bothers me that apple seems to be the only one that has the focused effect of getting competitors to do really interesting shit (like finally get higher resolution displays in laptops and other devices, and push MS and linux projects to handle that screen density well), but trying to deny that this is the effect apple has would be really absurd.
>>54389155
Linux can be set up properly for that.
It's a shame. Windows hasn't changed font rendering in ages. People think it doesn't matter. The hell it doesn't. I like my eyesight.
>>54389226
How is Windows 10 better?
Now if you use something like mactype (which has kerning issues by the way) it only applies to half of that system. It's really stupid. Not only that, set custom DPI and the taskbar icons be fucked.
>>54389231
as far as i can tell (and admittedly i haven't looked hard, so if you know of pointers please feel free to correct me), "works out of the box" linux distributions don't seem to have been configured to be on par with OS X in terms of scaling and whatnot on machines that i would think are pretty easy to target (on account of their consistent hardware configurations - e.g. the rMBP).
When apple makes a laptop, linux distro projects that want to appeal to everyday people (so, not debian or arch necessarily, but definitely the *buntus) should make sure their shit works 100% on one or more of apple's flagship products. it may be that thinkpads are more in line with the ethos of linux, but if it takes 10 hours for a developer to get any random thing working on a single hardware configuration, then you want to target issues in the following ways:
1) go after the hardware configurations that are most popular
2) go after the "random things" (e.g. wifi drivers, display scaling settings, multiple display management, etc...) that are the most noticeable to users.
the second criterion *requires* user research, usability testing, and heuristic analysis that i honestly don't think open source projects do at all. and that's sad, but at least it's a clear path forward to making open source software more compelling.
>>54389246
I mean it's better than Windows 8, not better than other contemporary operating systems. And it's visibly better in that it handles disparate pixel densities across multiple monitors reasonably (they each have their own settings, which honest to god used to not be the case in previous versions of windows, or at least it wasn't clear how to disconnect DPI settings to a reasonably competent user).
>>54389259
Which is why I said can be set up, not that it works just out of the box.
Which I agree I think there aren't that many apple laptops out there to have such amount of difficulty supporting them. More than just scaling I'm concerned about trackpads. OSX + Bettertouchtool make the trackpad a really useful tool. On linux I had nothing but difficulties to get half of that functionality.
>>54389259
its works and is easy to set up but has a problem with fixed layout windows (like the system settings window). Also doesnt work on the Steam windows but i guess they just want people to use big screen mode for it. I have a small screen so maybe someone will post a proper representation.
I would live with it.
>>54388392
No it's not. I've owned a 120hz monitor and the only time you noticed anything was in the UI, even then it was barely noticeable 99% of the time.
>>54388442
What does the angle matter? Are you going to argue that it makes things magically look more pixelated?
>>54388305
>>54388616
I'm the guy who posted it, and I thought it'd be more than obvious that that was a joke.. your fucking body doesn't see, your eyes do, and the perceived ppi is relative to your eyesight and distance to the screen. thanks for ruining a joke though.
>>54388981
>implying there's a difference between Republicans and Democrats
>>54391143
Republicans are openly sexist, racist and transphobic.
Democrats are secretly sexist, racist and transphobic.
Personally? I appreciate honesty.
>>54383265
It is on phones.
>>54383918
*Linux handles scaling fine for the most part.
Windows scaling sucks.
OSX and Linux works fine.
>>54388926
> 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.
I am this guy >>54388943 and I do use 1:1 rendering and I do find it useful. I can't say it's all beneficial to what I'm working on, but if you have an irc channel or two visible it already takes one fourth of the screen. Then Skype/discord/mumble/teamspeak/whatever takes another 1/4. Then browser occupies one more fourth and suddenly you're left with just one 1080p monitor's worth of space on your screen to use for your work. Fitt's Law can't touch me when 1/2 of the screen is mostly just stuff that is there for me to conveniently look at it.
For me the big plus with a 40" 4k monitor is definitely that I can have lots of information displayed on the screen at once and I don't have to switch between windows every time I want to look at something.
Screencap not included because it would be a pain to edit out everything I don't want to show.
>>54396695
>if you have an irc channel or two visible it already takes one fourth of the screen
Maybe on a fucking 1366x768 workarea with yuge fonts.
>>54396695
>Not using high PPI 8k
4k work spaces are 2big
