[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;46254757]yeh it is? you're gonna get pretty hugely significant frame drops going from one resolution standard up to the next. when i upgraded from a 1680 monitor to a 2560 one i went from getting like 50fps in a lot of games to 20[/QUOTE]
He means that developing for higher resolution adds no development time for video games vs producing better visuals. The consumer is hardware limited by how much detail the computer can handle for the number of pixels its pushing, but technically "more pixels vs more advanced graphics" isn't a mutually exclusive argument since once the advanced graphics are made, the number of pixels driven is only limited by client hardware, and can be pushed up to any arbitrary number.
There's no downside to having higher resolutions as standard because you can still run games at a lower resolution on a high resolution monitor without sacrificing FPS, whereas if you have the hardware to handle it you can run games at any given resolution without necessitating more development time for better picture quality.
I have one of Apple's old 30" displays. 2560x1600. Awesome display.
I'm not sure why they're stuffing double that in a screen 3" smaller. Would better suite 32" or 36" or something.
nobody wants a 32/36" computer monitor.
Eh, I'm happy with the 34 inch 3440x1440 21:9 monitor I'm saving up for.
[t]http://tstm.info/kuvat/lg34um951.jpg[/t]
It only requires 30% more GPU power than a 2560x1440 monitor so that's pretty sweet.
[QUOTE=.Lain;46255131] that is entirely situational.[/QUOTE]
How so? I can't think of a game type offhand where refresh rate doesn't matter in which the resolution does matter.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;46255096]it's because it's cheaper to make 16:9's. The manufacturers make mostly 16:9 and are shutting down most of their 16:10 operations, so way less 16:10 panels for companies to buy. That and since 16:10 is now legacy, there are almost no super high pixel density 16:10 screens being made, kinda like how there are no new computers with floppy drives in them because there are no floppy drives being made anymore.[/QUOTE]
Oh I know that's how it works, it's just a sad fate for 16:10. I never understood why people would have ever bought 16:9 over 16:10 for displays in the first place. The whole "no more black bars" was a damn dumb reason to give up real estate.
[editline]16th October 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=.Lain;46255934]nobody wants a 32/36" computer monitor.[/QUOTE]
As someone who's had a 30" since 2007 I disagree. I would love a 35".
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;46256059]How so? I can't think of a game type offhand where refresh rate doesn't matter in which the resolution does matter.[/QUOTE]
games where twitch reactions dont matter. 60fps at 4k with like 2xmsaa looks really nice. antialiasing at 1080p will never look as good as that
[editline]17th October 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ajacks;46256070]
As someone who's had a 30" since 2007 I disagree. I would love a 35".[/QUOTE]
you're a niche, as sad as the fact is. i like big monitors too but nobody really wants a monitor that big if they're going to be sitting so close to it
[QUOTE=.Lain;46256081]games where twitch reactions dont matter. 60fps at 4k with like 2xmsaa looks really nice. antialiasing at 1080p will never look as good as that
[editline]17th October 2014[/editline]
you're a niche, as sad as the fact is. i like big monitors too but nobody really wants a monitor that big if they're going to be sitting so close to it[/QUOTE]
I have to disagree. I have a 29'' 4K and everyone who comes over is amazed by how nice it is. They love how you can have so many windows open and how much you can read without scrolling a single time. These are normal people and I'm sure that when these monitors start becoming more mainstream, it's going to be the great new thing. There are always going to be people who want portability so they'll go with a laptop or tablet but the people who use desktops? They're going to love it.
[QUOTE=.Lain;46256081]games where twitch reactions dont matter. 60fps at 4k with like 2xmsaa looks really nice. antialiasing at 1080p will never look as good as that
[editline]17th October 2014[/editline]
you're a niche, as sad as the fact is. i like big monitors too but nobody really wants a monitor that big if they're going to be sitting so close to it[/QUOTE]
30"/27" Monitors have always been a niche market, only for the last two years has the price come down with the advent of cheap 27" monitors have they become more common, and they are only common because now they are sub-$800. This apple display targets a very specific high end market, the same people who were buying 30" displays for $2500 back in 2007. Years ago people would actually say 30" displays were too big, and that they were comfortable with 24" but that was only because they were highly priced. Now that the same people can afford 27" monitors they are jumping on them and singing their praises. a 35" display at 5973x3733 would be fantastic.
[QUOTE=elitehakor;46252997]imagine a triple monitor setup with these[/QUOTE]
Or you could buy a new car.(not new, you know what I mean)
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;46253865]It seems to have very limited use except for e.g. video editing as someone mentioned above. Even then I'd still say it's unnecessary.[/QUOTE]
photo editing? maybe programming where you don't need another or more monitors?
5120x2880... I'm guessing this is the price.
Just make a TV why don't ya?
[QUOTE=.Lain;46255131]and promptly suffer because of windows' awful dpi scaling
[/QUOTE]
I honestly think the lack of proper DPI scaling outside of OS X is a big stumbling block for higher resolution monitors becoming cheaper and more common place. As a mostly windows user I wouldn't go out and buy a 4K monitor due to how poor the DPI scaling in Windows is.
[QUOTE=Medevila;46255391]Good thing OSX handles DPI scaling properly..... wish I had that same convenience on Windows 8/ (Windows 10 TP) [or any other linux desktop environment for that matter, no, increasing the font size is [I]not a substitute[/I] for proper DPI scaling][/QUOTE]
Have you tried using mactype? It's a shot in the dark but it's an alternative font renderer
Honestly it's not even a matter of use if you ask me, increasing pixel density and resolution is something that's always a good thing. There's no reason we should ever settle for some "standard" pixel density or anything, having so many pixels you can't see them with the naked eye at any distance is something positive to strive for, the size of the fonts and menus can come later.
We should just invent paint on displays and get over with it.
[editline]16th October 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jsm;46256306]I honestly think the lack of proper DPI scaling outside of OS X is a big stumbling block for higher resolution monitors becoming cheaper and more common place. As a mostly windows user I wouldn't go out and buy a 4K monitor due to how poor the DPI scaling in Windows is.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'd like to use my monitor at full capacity, but at the same time I would like my icons and buttons to be [I]slightly[/I] larger than my pinkie nail.
[QUOTE=KingKombat;46254826]besides pressuring other companies to follow suit[/QUOTE]
In and of itself, this is what makes apple the best.
I just bought a 2560x1080p monitor, it's on it's way here
right now I have a 2048 x 1152, a weird resolution I know but It was great until the lamp started to die :(
5k seems great but I'm going to wait around 2 years
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;46253131]I would be on the fence about agreeing with you, but for a 27" display? Lol. Huge overkill. At least make a bigger damn monitor if you're going to do resolutions past 4K.[/QUOTE]
I like how Windows users aren't used to good DPI scaling so they think you'll need a magnifying glass to use this. It's going to expose a range of scaled resolutions that go from the real estate of 2560x1440 to something larger than 3200x1800 (the max scaling mode for 3840x2160) that I don't want to do the math for right now. This is coupled with being able to draw elements with a 1x or 2x backing scale as needed to have large enough interface elements and canvases that are 1:1 for lots of real estate. You can edit photos from a Canon T3 in this thing at 100% scale and have usable controls around it.
I'm a graphic designer who uses the Adobe Creative Suite day in and day out with Illustrator, Photoshop and Indesign open simultaneously. I'm currently on a 3/4 year old mac book pro which has done me well but has become very slow and hard to work on so I am in need of an upgrade. Will I benefit more from a 5k screen compared to the regular 27inch displays and if so why? (I'm not the most techy person)
[QUOTE=1 Duck;46259128]I'm a graphic designer who uses the Adobe Creative Suite day in and day out with Illustrator, Photoshop and Indesign open simultaneously. I'm currently on a 3/4 year old mac book pro which has done me well but has become very slow and hard to work on so I am in need of an upgrade. Will I benefit more from a 5k screen compared to the regular 27inch displays and if so why? (I'm not the most techy person)[/QUOTE]
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: A graphics designer needs as much clarity, color definition and space as possible on a monitor. A high resolution or pixel density gives you that and it will make your job a lot easier since you can distinguish details on your work a lot easier than on a low-res monitor.
I just read a review about two 4K monitors that were relatively cheap. I think they were both in the 400-600€ range or something.
Yeah these two:
[url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IEZGWI2?m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=lifehackeramzn-20[/url]
[url]http://www.amazon.com/PB287Q-28-Inch-Screen-LED-Lit-Monitor/dp/B00KJGY3TO[/url]
Those prices match how the conversion usually goes from US - Finland. Change $ to € and add 100-200.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;46259138]Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: A graphics designer needs as much clarity, color definition and space as possible on a monitor. A high resolution or pixel density gives you that and it will make your job a lot easier since you can distinguish details on your work a lot easier than on a low-res monitor.[/QUOTE]
Thank you.
I've read a lot of reviews saying the systems they are shipping with the iMac won't be able to handle the 5K screen so would be interesting to how it actually performs.
Coincidentally I just discovered today that I could use nVidia's DSR tech to downscale my system resolution from 5120x2880 on my 1440p monitor. The result made me realize just how bad Windows' scaling actually is. My cursor was so tiny I had trouble keeping track of it and the 'revert changes' button on the change resolution dialog was so tiny I could barely even see it, let alone make out the text on it. (Admittedly part of that issue being the fact it was 5120x2880 downscaled to 2560x1440 but even if it was at 5120x2880 it still would have been very difficult to read.)
[QUOTE=Ajacks;46253504]That looks like a fantastic monitor, and a good price as well. But answer me this, why can't it be 5120x3200 16:10? I hate the shift away from 30" Displays towards 27"s. You literally gain nothing with that aspect ratio over a 16:10. I would hate to downgrade to a 27" personally.[/QUOTE]
My current 1440p monitor is 27". The only reason it's this big is because it wasn't available in a smaller size and even then it still barely fits on my desk. I'd prefer higher pixel density personally because with how my room is laid out I sit rather close to my monitor. So higher density means being less likely to see individual pixels. At 5120x2880 and 27" the density would be high enough that I wouldn't have to worry about something like that.
Biggest problem with resolution scaling in Windows is that devs just don't have high density monitors to test with, Apple had the exact same problem (OS X supported resolution scaling for years, but it was broken as heck) but they just said "fuck it" and released the hardware anyway, letting devs very quickly fix the problems they encountered.
Hell, "modern" Windows (Vista+) implements DPI scaling the exact same way OS X does, but we're only just now starting to see generic PC monitors with high densities starting to hit the market.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;46259533]Biggest problem with resolution scaling in Windows is that devs just don't have high density monitors to test with, Apple had the exact same problem (OS X supported resolution scaling for years, but it was broken as heck) but they just said "fuck it" and released the hardware anyway, letting devs very quickly fix the problems they encountered.
Hell, "modern" Windows (Vista+) implements DPI scaling the exact same way OS X does, but we're only just now starting to see generic PC monitors with high densities starting to hit the market.[/QUOTE]
No Windows does not implement scaling the way OS X does. To begin with, there's no system-wide backing scale that runs in only 2 modes. Individual scaling needs to be done on a per-element basis per-app, and is also affected by whatever setting the user has chosen at the system level. Second of all, it doesn't do 2x offscreen rendering when using a non-integer scaling percentage in the same manner as OS X rendering 2x the resolution and then downscaling to the panel. Finally, the scaling and filtering are not custom filters designed for quality priority across any GPU, they use whatever is provided by GPU vendors which varies. These last two points mean that doing non-integer downscaling on OS X will always look sharper than using something like 150% DPI scaling on Windows.
The biggest issue on Windows is the fact that any Win32 app needs to be vastly overhauled if not rewritten, which is way too much to ask of developers, especially ones of massive applications like Photoshop. Nobody using Cocoa on OS X had to do that. That's why OS X has a HiDPI aware Photoshop with a 1:1 canvas and 4:1 controls, and on Windows it has absolutely no HiDPI awareness. Adobe has publicly stated that they're not going to work on this until Microsoft provides a better solution on their end.
Aren't 4ks arround 600€ now?
4k is coming but how fast it will come is debatable. I just bought an entirely new comp for 1k$, and it runs 1080p at max at about 40-60fps. For gaming enthusiasts willing to shell out 2500-4000$ for a new computer, or the imac, sure. (The specs on this 2500 variant don't really look like it would support a modern game maxed out with this res, but maybe?)
Even consoles that only came out 2 years ago (previous ones lasted, what, 7 years?) don't even support 4k. The 1k$ TV I bought last christmas was a 1080p one. and I'm sure many others did too and aren't going to throw it out for a new one for a few years.
Eventually we'll probably see another big transition as TV prices for 4k go down and new versions of current gen or next gen consoles hit the market. We'll probably see a lot of PC 2(already happening)-4k gaming earlier as soon as some hardware in the mid price range comes out that can handle 4k.
If all that happens in 2 years or 7, I dunno.
[QUOTE=eirexe;46260229]Aren't 4ks arround 600€ now?[/QUOTE]
Depends on the quality and the size. You pay around $2500 for the UP3214Q, but only $1000 for the UP2414Q.
[editline]17th October 2014[/editline]
For the record Dell's 27" 5120x2880 is supposed to be around $2500 (or was, maybe not after this). Due to DisplayPort limitations this iMac cannot be used as a monitor, so if you don't intend to use it as a Mac don't buy it. But if you do, Apple is basically throwing in a computer for free.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.