They only confirmed 1 INPUT TB3 port, and no others (the HDMI 2.0a and DP 1.2 are unconfirmed). I would assume "integrated thunderbolt 3 dock" is referring to an additional OUTPUT TB3 port, but it seems like LG was sparse on details.
Nice to see them trying, but here's still waiting for those 22-24" 4k screens. There's basically only one endconsumer model available from Dell, or a handfull of very high priced professional ones.
I don't get that... Are you one of those people who sits with their nose pressed against the screen, further ruining your eyesight with every passing hour?
What's the point of having all those extra pixels on a 24'' (never mind 22'') screen, when on a screen that size at arm's length you'd need better than 20/20 vision to notice pixellation even at 1440p - never mind 4k?
Why is your phone even 720p? The screen is so small. Same reasons. The DPI for 1080p on a 24inch display is very low. Having a high DPI, allows you to have more details icons, images and text, making the overall usage of the system more enjoyable, especially if you work with text all day, as that becomes easier to read.
On a 21.5" display, 1080p has around 100 PPI. On a 38" 4K display, PPI is 116. A 21.5" panel at 1440p is actually substantially better than a 4K 38", in terms of pixel density - 136.
Meanwhile the OP is talking about 4K on a 22-24" display. Don't get me wrong, all else remaining equal it would be better than 1440p but at typical viewing distance it isn't nearly as important as it is for larger displays. There's lots of other factors that may be more or less important than resolution depending on use, so to each his own. But it is interesting to see how people feel about a "low" res count, without considering PPI.
What Apple calls "Retina display" or HiDPI mode - displays with things on screen sized as if it were a 1080p display, but using twice as many pixels each direction to increase sharpness of images/text. In Windows you just set to "200%" mode and it does similar.
I currently use a 22" FullHD display and at arms length with the keyboard infront I can still see single pixels.
And no, eyesight is not ruined at all. I'm sitting infront of a PC for over 30 years now and my vision is still 20/20. Working as a graphics designer for the last 20 years 10+ hours a day.
Even a 24" 4k monitor is far from magazine print-quality (300 dpi), which you read aswell at an armslength. 24" 4k is ~180 dpi. My 22" FullHD has ~100 dpi for comparison.
It makes a huge difference and you notice it very fast, if you spend a day with an iMac 21" 4k.
You read magazines at arm's length? So not like everybody else, with your elbows bent ~90 degrees?
I sit 6' from my 5K display and still see individual subpixels. That's real harsh.
There's a rule of diminishing returns and 4K at 22" is the model that rule is based on. I'm willing to bet 0.1% of people would actually make the difference and they definitely are all on this comment thread. And I know this because I have multiple monitors with different diagonals, different resolutions but the same approximate screen quality. It's fun to see people misjudge the quality and resolution based on their preconceived notions and false hints I give them. They all overestimate their abilities.
When I sit on my comfy couch and read a magazine, then my arms are allmost fully extended, yes.
And like I said, check out the 21.5" iMacs with their 4k displays to see the difference between a 4k display and a FullHD display at a normal working-position at your desk (arms length).
Seriously, if people don't see pixels at some ~90cm distance on a 24" FullHD display, then they should get glasses asap.
I have a 24" FullHD display right beside my 22" FullHD display and a 15" laptop with FullHD display so I can compare them right beside each other. 24" with 4k should be sub €500 standard by now for desktop displays imho.
I think 24" 4K monitors are quite standard. For some reason enthusiast websites don't report on them much and people seem to prefer bigger ones, but they are out there.
I personally got myself a Samsung 24E850R in the summer of 2016 to accompany a hackintosh installation and to be run with "100%" scaling. It is by no means perfect, but quite decent for £320. Colours after calibration are pretty decent and works nicely. In windows use 150% scaling has been pretty nice.
Currently I'd choose probably Dell P2415Q, because Samsung seems to be discontinued, which I find to be a shame. -- Personally I would appreciate a bit higher DPI. It is not really for discerning pixels as such, but for additional sharpness. For example using other than "100%" MacOS scaling looks bit fuzzier than I'd hope, despite the fact that I can't really claim to discern individual pixels. It is kind of the same thing that you can tell a difference between digital photograph that is perfectly in focus with Zeiss lens vs. kit-objective, despite the fact that even the kit lens should have way higher resolving power than your eyes...
If you draw two very thin lines, one horizontal and one at 3deg angle, you will need very high DPI to make the slightly angled line look "perfect" and identical thickness to the horizontal line. Angled line needs almost certainly to be antialiased to remove the jaggies and this in turn will reduce contrast of the line. To make contrast difference and blurriness indiscernible you will fore sure need more than 160dpi at 80cm distance (28" 4K monitor) for most good eyed viewers.
Problem is web media and apps are simply not adapted for high res, All websites are on averg 1024-1280px wide with the same text size and images to fit in that res.
@boeush Sure you don't get that because your brain is as big as a pea. And why would you even exaggerate about the distance of people's noses from their monitors? I also believe you have your nose closer to your phone's display than ours to our monitors.
I have several Dell monitors and one of which is 24" 1600p. Yet I can still see the jagged edges of text and icons from a normal sitting distance. I'm about to get a new monitor from Dell, P2415Q
You really deserve a prize for that. Most studies out there, backed up by science and extensive observation concluded that at 3' the benefits of 4K are visible at 34"-40" and above. If you can see the "jagged edges" your sitting too close to the screen (1 foot?).
I remember the audiophile fad a few years back when guys like you insisted on BS stuff like oxygen free copper cables, ceramic stands for the cables, directional cables, and so forth. They were also sure that they can defo hear the difference. They were also called on their BS.
Folks really claim to see pixels on a 5k display? On a 24" 1600p monitor? Man you guys have crazy good eyes. I am sitting in front of a 27" 1080p monitor and can't see pixels, no it isn't as crisp as the 27" 2k monitor I use at home but it's not terrible and I don't need to increase the size whereas on my 2k monitor I do need 150% scaling or I can't see squat.
More pixels are more better sure but there are diminishing returns.
And yeah cables are totally snake oil. WTF ddriver I think this is twice this week where I totally agree with your posting. Did you get therapy? :p
1600p monitors aren't 5K unless you're talking about extreme widescreen or something. If you're referring to them separately, I can definitely see pixels on a 24-inch 2560x1600 panel.
Icehawk, maybe we agree because it's pretty hard to swallow people's BS that they can see the dot pitch of less that 0.18mm from the regular viewing distance. Which should be about 3'. Or saying that text is "jagged" when every single OS out there does font smoothing making this statement an impossibility at every reasonable resolution.
Saying that the image is crisper is one thing, saying you can see individual pixels is just BS. Best think you can get a subjective impression that the image is better, not that you can see a pixel.
And I will quote real science for people like sonny73n, jrs77, mkozakewich, lmcd, and who know how many others insist they need 4K at 24" because otherwise they can see the pixels:
"At absolute best, humans can resolve two lines about 0.01 degrees apart: a 0.026mm gap, 15cm from your face. In practice, objects 0.04mm wide (the width of a fine human hair) are just distinguishable by good eyes, objects 0.02mm wide are not"
And that's at 15cm. But you guys can see 0.018mm at 3' or 100cm. I'd give you the BS of the year award but you still have a few more days to beat this one.
Interesting. Taking a quick look at my micrometer with a lcd as a backlight, I can start to see a line at about .0008 inches as I open it holding it about 15 inches (not cm!) from my face. That's about your .002 mm at what you claim is at best, yet at twice the distance. I lose most of the resolution of it when it goes out to arms length.
Just as a reference, these are 49 year old eyes, no glasses, but I did have lasik about 18 years ago.
I will say I really would disagree with someone who could see that at 36 inches. Once I get past 24-28 inches, it's gone.
The problem with your statement is, that you've inserted one too many zeros after the dot. The pixelpitch is not 0.0xx but 0.xx mm. Now do you r calculations again and see where it results in.
A fine mechanic pencil has 0.3mm which is clearly visible from a meters distance, so a pixelpitch of ~0.2mm isn't hard to detect at the same distance either.
@jrs77: You're not calling my BS you dumbass, you're calling my typo. It's pretty obvious since the first time it was written correctly. Maybe you're sitting to close to the screen to see 10 lines of text at the same time. Or your brain only has a 5 second buffer. Guess you'll never know ;).
But maybe you're right. If I can see your tiny IQ from all the way over here, maybe you can see a 0.18mm pixel form arm length away.
@bill.rookard That's not how it works. Pixels aren't all bright points or lines surrounded by darkness. And guess what? The eye is great at detecting bright points surrounded by darkness. Not so much the other way around. Use a regular test and even that won't tell you the whole story. Seeing a line and seeing a point are very different things (https://www.thorlabs.com/images/TabImages/variable...
I'll just write this explicitly because I think most people insist on missing the points that make them feel less special: It's easy to see a bright point on dark background. It's a lot harder to see a dark spot on a bright background. And seeing aliasing is yet another big step further in difficulty due to smoothing.
But you know, whatever makes (some of) you guys feel special. To the rest of us it looks like stuffing a sock or 5 in your undies to make you feel better.
Yeah, fleecing gullible people like you. Just like there's a reason a Tesla had 700HP. You just have to do 0 to supermarket in 2.something seconds. And you know phones with 4 cameras? There's a reason they're there.
There's always a reason. Whether it's good or it's just for people with more money than sense is a very different thing. There's a reason for me not explaining more to you. But you wouldn't get it ;).
Why the hell is ddriver still on this forum??? You play smart on every article, even though you are a dumb ass yourself, and you keep insulting the rest of the respectable members here.
Moderator Please do us all a favour and throw this dude out once for all!
I've seen pages of comments going astray because ddriver's off the course egoistic attitude.
My screen is 13.5" and 267 ppi, and I can still see the aliasing on a rotating line from three feet away. So yeah, I'm also wishing for something higher than the 100s on a desktop monitor.
At 4K, 200 ppi would be 22". I could accept a 32" screen at 8K, though!
Even 8K would be nice in 22”. There is no problem of making screens better and sharper. It is like hoping to have worse pixels in the books... why? There is no limit how sharp text in the book can be. The sharper, the better. Computer screen Are not even close to the quality of good books.
The problem is not the pixels but the distance between them, be 1080p/2k/4k/8k, it's different on CRT were the "pixels" show as rounded, masking way better the screen door effect.
We can blame that fruit company for this resolution craze with their claim to fame retina display in a 3.5" screen. Every one jumped on the band wagon. I'm typing this on a 60" 1080p TV and everything is crystal clear.The reason why it looks good is my viewing distance is 12 feet back from the screen. Now if I had my nose pressed up against the screen yes it would look very bad and make your eye's bleed. So you are pretty much spot on here with the point you made about this.
I have a budget 24" 4K IPS Acer display at home (K242HQK), it makes web content look really sharp, especially fonts, after using ctrl + mousewheel up to enlarge the content to fit the screen. There's no noticeable degradation in static size content (images, for example) either, 4K at 24" or 1080 at 24" showing the image at the same size doesn't magically reveal dithering or anything.
Really get tired of the asinine responses to better advances in technology, usually revolving around "But you don't need it! It doesn't do anything better than (old tech), and human senses won't be able to appreciably notice any difference anyways!". If it were up to people like you, we'd still be using campfires to cook food because any advancements in heating elements (and we have magnetic-induction stovetops in the current day) would just memed on about it not being appreciably better in any significant way than a traditional wood-burning fire source.
Just remove your head from your rear and if you don't need/want the technology, you can continue living in the stone age while others appreciably enjoy the advancements and benefits that come with better tech.
I doubt it. I've been waiting on the same preferred specs for about 5 years now. It seems a much bigger challenge than I would have imagined to put it all together.
Wow! I thought if anyone would push the limit in the PC monitor space it would be LG with their OLED technology. It seems that they never had intentions on bringing OLED into the consumer monitor space, instead they've developed this instead.
Maybe someday OLED Makers will find a way to get rid of the ghosting/memory problems that OLEDS have so they will finally be suitable for PC Gaming monitors.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
65 Comments
Back to Article
mamunoz - Friday, December 22, 2017 - link
How exactly do you daisy chain something that only has 1 TB3 port?DanNeely - Friday, December 22, 2017 - link
#2 connects to the LG via hdmi/dp I guess.FullmetalTitan - Friday, December 22, 2017 - link
They only confirmed 1 INPUT TB3 port, and no others (the HDMI 2.0a and DP 1.2 are unconfirmed). I would assume "integrated thunderbolt 3 dock" is referring to an additional OUTPUT TB3 port, but it seems like LG was sparse on details.mr_tawan - Tuesday, December 26, 2017 - link
Daisy chain only for DP link, perhaps?felix_w - Friday, January 19, 2018 - link
This video here ( https://youtu.be/8eWn8NpoEJU?t=69 ) shows 2 TB, 1 DP and 1 HDMI.This video here ( https://youtu.be/I3vt2EoAk-M?t=38) , shows the back with a different I/O range.
They may have more than one model, e.g. TB one for Mac users (in premium price) and DP/HDMI one for PC
jrs77 - Friday, December 22, 2017 - link
Nice to see them trying, but here's still waiting for those 22-24" 4k screens. There's basically only one endconsumer model available from Dell, or a handfull of very high priced professional ones.p1esk - Friday, December 22, 2017 - link
Google "LG UltraFine 4k"boeush - Friday, December 22, 2017 - link
I don't get that... Are you one of those people who sits with their nose pressed against the screen, further ruining your eyesight with every passing hour?What's the point of having all those extra pixels on a 24'' (never mind 22'') screen, when on a screen that size at arm's length you'd need better than 20/20 vision to notice pixellation even at 1440p - never mind 4k?
GoodBytes - Friday, December 22, 2017 - link
Why is your phone even 720p? The screen is so small. Same reasons.The DPI for 1080p on a 24inch display is very low. Having a high DPI, allows you to have more details icons, images and text, making the overall usage of the system more enjoyable, especially if you work with text all day, as that becomes easier to read.
quantcon - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
My phone is 1440p, because I often use it 20-30cm from my eyes, and for VR (where 1440p isn't actually enough).1080p on a 21.5inch display is a bit too low, however. I feel a 38inch 4K display would work great.
Alexvrb - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
On a 21.5" display, 1080p has around 100 PPI. On a 38" 4K display, PPI is 116. A 21.5" panel at 1440p is actually substantially better than a 4K 38", in terms of pixel density - 136.Meanwhile the OP is talking about 4K on a 22-24" display. Don't get me wrong, all else remaining equal it would be better than 1440p but at typical viewing distance it isn't nearly as important as it is for larger displays. There's lots of other factors that may be more or less important than resolution depending on use, so to each his own. But it is interesting to see how people feel about a "low" res count, without considering PPI.
chrnochime - Tuesday, December 26, 2017 - link
Easier to read as in making them smaller in size? Yeah that sounds right for keeping eyestrain to a minimum...CharonPDX - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
What Apple calls "Retina display" or HiDPI mode - displays with things on screen sized as if it were a 1080p display, but using twice as many pixels each direction to increase sharpness of images/text. In Windows you just set to "200%" mode and it does similar.It really does look far better.
jrs77 - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
I currently use a 22" FullHD display and at arms length with the keyboard infront I can still see single pixels.And no, eyesight is not ruined at all. I'm sitting infront of a PC for over 30 years now and my vision is still 20/20. Working as a graphics designer for the last 20 years 10+ hours a day.
Even a 24" 4k monitor is far from magazine print-quality (300 dpi), which you read aswell at an armslength. 24" 4k is ~180 dpi. My 22" FullHD has ~100 dpi for comparison.
It makes a huge difference and you notice it very fast, if you spend a day with an iMac 21" 4k.
ddrіver - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
You read magazines at arm's length? So not like everybody else, with your elbows bent ~90 degrees?I sit 6' from my 5K display and still see individual subpixels. That's real harsh.
There's a rule of diminishing returns and 4K at 22" is the model that rule is based on. I'm willing to bet 0.1% of people would actually make the difference and they definitely are all on this comment thread. And I know this because I have multiple monitors with different diagonals, different resolutions but the same approximate screen quality. It's fun to see people misjudge the quality and resolution based on their preconceived notions and false hints I give them. They all overestimate their abilities.
jrs77 - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
When I sit on my comfy couch and read a magazine, then my arms are allmost fully extended, yes.And like I said, check out the 21.5" iMacs with their 4k displays to see the difference between a 4k display and a FullHD display at a normal working-position at your desk (arms length).
Seriously, if people don't see pixels at some ~90cm distance on a 24" FullHD display, then they should get glasses asap.
I have a 24" FullHD display right beside my 22" FullHD display and a 15" laptop with FullHD display so I can compare them right beside each other. 24" with 4k should be sub €500 standard by now for desktop displays imho.
zepi - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
I think 24" 4K monitors are quite standard. For some reason enthusiast websites don't report on them much and people seem to prefer bigger ones, but they are out there.I personally got myself a Samsung 24E850R in the summer of 2016 to accompany a hackintosh installation and to be run with "100%" scaling. It is by no means perfect, but quite decent for £320. Colours after calibration are pretty decent and works nicely. In windows use 150% scaling has been pretty nice.
Currently I'd choose probably Dell P2415Q, because Samsung seems to be discontinued, which I find to be a shame.
--
Personally I would appreciate a bit higher DPI. It is not really for discerning pixels as such, but for additional sharpness. For example using other than "100%" MacOS scaling looks bit fuzzier than I'd hope, despite the fact that I can't really claim to discern individual pixels. It is kind of the same thing that you can tell a difference between digital photograph that is perfectly in focus with Zeiss lens vs. kit-objective, despite the fact that even the kit lens should have way higher resolving power than your eyes...
If you draw two very thin lines, one horizontal and one at 3deg angle, you will need very high DPI to make the slightly angled line look "perfect" and identical thickness to the horizontal line. Angled line needs almost certainly to be antialiased to remove the jaggies and this in turn will reduce contrast of the line. To make contrast difference and blurriness indiscernible you will fore sure need more than 160dpi at 80cm distance (28" 4K monitor) for most good eyed viewers.
Lolimaster - Monday, December 25, 2017 - link
Problem is web media and apps are simply not adapted for high res, All websites are on averg 1024-1280px wide with the same text size and images to fit in that res.Lolimaster - Monday, December 25, 2017 - link
That's because digital panel using many pixels for a display are more visible than the "pixels" on an analog display like the CRT.Lolimaster - Monday, December 25, 2017 - link
Or more exactly, the space between them (screen door effect) on digital panels.sonny73n - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
@boeushSure you don't get that because your brain is as big as a pea. And why would you even exaggerate about the distance of people's noses from their monitors? I also believe you have your nose closer to your phone's display than ours to our monitors.
I have several Dell monitors and one of which is 24" 1600p. Yet I can still see the jagged edges of text and icons from a normal sitting distance. I'm about to get a new monitor from Dell, P2415Q
ddrіver - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
You really deserve a prize for that. Most studies out there, backed up by science and extensive observation concluded that at 3' the benefits of 4K are visible at 34"-40" and above. If you can see the "jagged edges" your sitting too close to the screen (1 foot?).I remember the audiophile fad a few years back when guys like you insisted on BS stuff like oxygen free copper cables, ceramic stands for the cables, directional cables, and so forth. They were also sure that they can defo hear the difference. They were also called on their BS.
Holliday75 - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
But but but I'm special.Icehawk - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
Folks really claim to see pixels on a 5k display? On a 24" 1600p monitor? Man you guys have crazy good eyes. I am sitting in front of a 27" 1080p monitor and can't see pixels, no it isn't as crisp as the 27" 2k monitor I use at home but it's not terrible and I don't need to increase the size whereas on my 2k monitor I do need 150% scaling or I can't see squat.More pixels are more better sure but there are diminishing returns.
And yeah cables are totally snake oil. WTF ddriver I think this is twice this week where I totally agree with your posting. Did you get therapy? :p
iamlilysdad - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
Yes, ddriver claimed to see individual SUBPIXELS on his 5K display sitting 6' away. He didn't give the diagonal of the display, but it's likely 27".I call BS unless he has a VERY large 5K display.
ddrіver - Sunday, December 24, 2017 - link
@all: I call nor being able to read sarcasm ;) ("wink"). I also said I can see the SUBpixels just to make sure people catch it.It was addressed to the guys who insists 1600p at 24" is not enough. Maybe they're all teenagers. Just wait till they get in their 20s :))).
lmcd - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
1600p monitors aren't 5K unless you're talking about extreme widescreen or something. If you're referring to them separately, I can definitely see pixels on a 24-inch 2560x1600 panel.ddrіver - Sunday, December 24, 2017 - link
Icehawk, maybe we agree because it's pretty hard to swallow people's BS that they can see the dot pitch of less that 0.18mm from the regular viewing distance. Which should be about 3'.Or saying that text is "jagged" when every single OS out there does font smoothing making this statement an impossibility at every reasonable resolution.
Saying that the image is crisper is one thing, saying you can see individual pixels is just BS. Best think you can get a subjective impression that the image is better, not that you can see a pixel.
And I will quote real science for people like sonny73n, jrs77, mkozakewich, lmcd, and who know how many others insist they need 4K at 24" because otherwise they can see the pixels:
"At absolute best, humans can resolve two lines about 0.01 degrees apart: a 0.026mm gap, 15cm from your face. In practice, objects 0.04mm wide (the width of a fine human hair) are just distinguishable by good eyes, objects 0.02mm wide are not"
And that's at 15cm. But you guys can see 0.018mm at 3' or 100cm. I'd give you the BS of the year award but you still have a few more days to beat this one.
ddrіver - Sunday, December 24, 2017 - link
I mean when you say you need 4K at 21.5" (like the iMac) because otherwise you see the pixels and the jagged edges you can't be taken seriously.bill.rookard - Sunday, December 24, 2017 - link
Interesting. Taking a quick look at my micrometer with a lcd as a backlight, I can start to see a line at about .0008 inches as I open it holding it about 15 inches (not cm!) from my face. That's about your .002 mm at what you claim is at best, yet at twice the distance. I lose most of the resolution of it when it goes out to arms length.Just as a reference, these are 49 year old eyes, no glasses, but I did have lasik about 18 years ago.
I will say I really would disagree with someone who could see that at 36 inches. Once I get past 24-28 inches, it's gone.
jrs77 - Monday, December 25, 2017 - link
The problem with your statement is, that you've inserted one too many zeros after the dot. The pixelpitch is not 0.0xx but 0.xx mm. Now do you r calculations again and see where it results in.A fine mechanic pencil has 0.3mm which is clearly visible from a meters distance, so a pixelpitch of ~0.2mm isn't hard to detect at the same distance either.
Just calling your own BS here.
ddrіver - Tuesday, December 26, 2017 - link
@jrs77: You're not calling my BS you dumbass, you're calling my typo. It's pretty obvious since the first time it was written correctly. Maybe you're sitting to close to the screen to see 10 lines of text at the same time. Or your brain only has a 5 second buffer. Guess you'll never know ;).But maybe you're right. If I can see your tiny IQ from all the way over here, maybe you can see a 0.18mm pixel form arm length away.
@bill.rookard That's not how it works. Pixels aren't all bright points or lines surrounded by darkness. And guess what? The eye is great at detecting bright points surrounded by darkness. Not so much the other way around. Use a regular test and even that won't tell you the whole story. Seeing a line and seeing a point are very different things (https://www.thorlabs.com/images/TabImages/variable...
ddrіver - Tuesday, December 26, 2017 - link
I'll just write this explicitly because I think most people insist on missing the points that make them feel less special: It's easy to see a bright point on dark background. It's a lot harder to see a dark spot on a bright background. And seeing aliasing is yet another big step further in difficulty due to smoothing.But you know, whatever makes (some of) you guys feel special. To the rest of us it looks like stuffing a sock or 5 in your undies to make you feel better.
jrs77 - Tuesday, December 26, 2017 - link
0.18mm is 2/3 the size of a mechanical pencil tip. If you can't see that at an arms length, then you're legally blind.NyashaT - Sunday, December 24, 2017 - link
I see pixels on my 22" 1080p monitor at arms length. There is a reason the LG Ultrafine monitor for macbooks has a resolution of 4069 x 2304 at 21.5"ddrіver - Tuesday, December 26, 2017 - link
Yeah, fleecing gullible people like you. Just like there's a reason a Tesla had 700HP. You just have to do 0 to supermarket in 2.something seconds. And you know phones with 4 cameras? There's a reason they're there.There's always a reason. Whether it's good or it's just for people with more money than sense is a very different thing. There's a reason for me not explaining more to you. But you wouldn't get it ;).
ksheltarna - Saturday, May 26, 2018 - link
Why the hell is ddriver still on this forum???You play smart on every article, even though you are a dumb ass yourself, and you keep insulting the rest of the respectable members here.
Moderator Please do us all a favour and throw this dude out once for all!
I've seen pages of comments going astray because ddriver's off the course egoistic attitude.
surt - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
But who is 3 feet from their computer screen. That's crazy. I'm currently sitting at somewhere between 16 and 18 inches, less than half that distance.ddrіver - Sunday, December 24, 2017 - link
Then you're sitting too close by all professional accounts. I use a magnifying glass and if needed a microscope and I see the damn pixels. 128K FTW.mkozakewich - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
My screen is 13.5" and 267 ppi, and I can still see the aliasing on a rotating line from three feet away. So yeah, I'm also wishing for something higher than the 100s on a desktop monitor.At 4K, 200 ppi would be 22". I could accept a 32" screen at 8K, though!
surt - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
You want 4k at a minimum on basically every device these days to avoid artifacts being generated by the scaler when displaying 4k content.lmcd - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
As someone with 20/15 vision, yea it's useful for that.It's also just useful to fit more content on the screen.
haukionkannel - Sunday, December 24, 2017 - link
Even 8K would be nice in 22”. There is no problem of making screens better and sharper. It is like hoping to have worse pixels in the books... why? There is no limit how sharp text in the book can be. The sharper, the better. Computer screen Are not even close to the quality of good books.Lolimaster - Monday, December 25, 2017 - link
The problem is not the pixels but the distance between them, be 1080p/2k/4k/8k, it's different on CRT were the "pixels" show as rounded, masking way better the screen door effect.mr_tawan - Tuesday, December 26, 2017 - link
It would take a few year before GPU can drive 8K screen effectively.rocky12345 - Sunday, December 24, 2017 - link
We can blame that fruit company for this resolution craze with their claim to fame retina display in a 3.5" screen. Every one jumped on the band wagon. I'm typing this on a 60" 1080p TV and everything is crystal clear.The reason why it looks good is my viewing distance is 12 feet back from the screen. Now if I had my nose pressed up against the screen yes it would look very bad and make your eye's bleed. So you are pretty much spot on here with the point you made about this.JoeyJoJo123 - Wednesday, December 27, 2017 - link
I have a budget 24" 4K IPS Acer display at home (K242HQK), it makes web content look really sharp, especially fonts, after using ctrl + mousewheel up to enlarge the content to fit the screen. There's no noticeable degradation in static size content (images, for example) either, 4K at 24" or 1080 at 24" showing the image at the same size doesn't magically reveal dithering or anything.Really get tired of the asinine responses to better advances in technology, usually revolving around "But you don't need it! It doesn't do anything better than (old tech), and human senses won't be able to appreciably notice any difference anyways!". If it were up to people like you, we'd still be using campfires to cook food because any advancements in heating elements (and we have magnetic-induction stovetops in the current day) would just memed on about it not being appreciably better in any significant way than a traditional wood-burning fire source.
Just remove your head from your rear and if you don't need/want the technology, you can continue living in the stone age while others appreciably enjoy the advancements and benefits that come with better tech.
CharonPDX - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
I have a Samsung 23" 4K. $350 list price, often available less. https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/uhd-...lmcd - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
I'm literally sitting behind a ~$400 24in ASUS 4K60Hz IPS panel. Hello?Bullwinkle-J-Moose - Friday, December 22, 2017 - link
Can you measure the individual pixel fidelity to the source Camera Pixels?dimming blocks of backlight pixels can give you high contrast on crappy monitors, but there is no per pixel fidelity to the source (camera)
Getting to 100% of the color spectrum presents a similar problem...
Who care if you have the entire color spectrum if the color are different from the source material
Does this Picasso looking test image have 100% fidelity to the source?
96%
60%
???
Bullwinkle-J-Moose - Friday, December 22, 2017 - link
On a 5X5 grid of pixels, turning all pixels red except the center pixel which is blue, do you measure the center pixel as blue or purple?How many separate shades and colors can you measure on the center pixel when you change the 5X5 grid from white to black to red to green to blue?
How good or bad is the fidelility of the center pixel to the source when measured?
edzieba - Monday, December 25, 2017 - link
Go look up Sampling Theory: for captured (non-synthetic) images "1:1 pixels" means absolutely nothing whatsoever unless your software is broken.Likewise, replicating the emission spectra is pointless if you are looking at a screen with human eyes rather than spectrometers.
Sergiocrz - Friday, December 22, 2017 - link
When will we ever get a IPS 34 inch 4k monitor or 36 inch? They jump from 32 inch to 43... That's ridiculous!5080 - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
LG is releasing a 5k display at 34" with the same nano-IPS tech.Sergiocrz - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
It's not really 5k. It's a odd ultra wide 5120×2160 21.33:9.Real 5k is 5120×2880 16:9.
Diji1 - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
They're both marketing terms that are bandied about by fools instead of stating the resolution of the product.r3loaded - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
Very close to my ideal monitor, all it needs now is a >60Hz refresh rate and adaptive sync.Holliday75 - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
As soon as that comes out you'll have a new spec that is ideal.surt - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
I doubt it. I've been waiting on the same preferred specs for about 5 years now. It seems a much bigger challenge than I would have imagined to put it all together.sebastianer - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link
I'm just waiting for a 32" 100Hz+ 4K G-sync or FreeSync monitor, to get rid of my 28" 4K 60Hz GSync monitor.28" 4K is good for working, etc. But for games is small.
utmode - Sunday, December 24, 2017 - link
Apple will add this to their display and will call its their innovation. Good job LG, keep it up.Lolimaster - Monday, December 25, 2017 - link
They still insist with the crappy IPS, I can barely stand the low 3000:1 contrast of VA panel, but LG keep selling snake oil HDR on a 1000:1 display.Having a CRT Trinitron monitor, AMOLED Galaxy Tab S3 really makes you hate LCD + LED backlight technology.
Morawka - Monday, December 25, 2017 - link
Wow! I thought if anyone would push the limit in the PC monitor space it would be LG with their OLED technology. It seems that they never had intentions on bringing OLED into the consumer monitor space, instead they've developed this instead.Maybe someday OLED Makers will find a way to get rid of the ghosting/memory problems that OLEDS have so they will finally be suitable for PC Gaming monitors.