Is 27" too small for a 5K Display?

[Geoff777]

I'm wondering if I did the right thing getting the Apple Studio Display instead of a cheaper monitor with lower resolution.
I absolutely love it and it's a high quality piece of kit, but I run it at "default" most of the time (2,560 x 1,440) or even have to go to the next "larger text" if I'm using Word.
If I select the far right "More Space" (3,200 x 1,800) I can't read anything!

Also, I thought a 5K display should have horizontal resolution of 5,120 so why is the Studion only 3,200? I am missing something, somewhere! 😂

 

[turbineseaplane]

You've hit on a problem I have that turns me off to the point sizes Apple has blessed as "correct" for their Retina displays in the last few years.

What I personally want/need, with my aging eyes, is 5k at 32" and effective 2560 x 1440
At 27", things are too small and if I start using scaling to make things larger, it very much negates the whole reason for spending more on a Retina display to begin with

 

[Geoff777]

I found the 5K option (have to go to advanced and show list) - there is no way I can read anything on it! I wear glasses but I can't see how people with 20/20 vision can read anything at that resolution.

 

[Amethyst1]

Also, I thought a 5K display should have horizontal resolution of 5,120 so why is the Studion only 3,200? I am missing something, somewhere!

The Studio Display always runs at 5120×2880. The 2560×1440 or 3200×1800 modes are just scaled modes in macOS to give you the same real estate as a display with that native resolution would, albeit sharper since they’re still using all 5120×2880 pixels. The sharpest setting is 2560×1440.

 

[Fishrrman]

That's a good question.
I have "older eyes", and -- for me -- YES, 27" @5k IS "too small".

I'd like a 32" 5k display (running at "looks like 1440p").
But... no one makes a display in that size and resolution.

Instead, I use a Dell 27" 4k (running at the default "looks like 1080p").
Nice and clear, works for me.

 

[Christopher Kim]

To build on what @Amethyst1 mentioned, the whole reason to get 5K on a 27" monitor is to use macOS's "HiDPI" scaling, commonly called "pixel-doubling" the resolution.

So text and icons are the size as it would look at 2560 x 1440 (hence, "Looks like 2560 x 1440"), which is generally considered a nice "size" for a 27" monitor that balances useable space with text and icon size. But every "pixel" uses 4 real pixels of the monitor. (eg. 2560 > 5120 pixels wide, and 1440 pixels > 2880 pixels high). So macOS basically does some really nice smoothing to make everything look extra crispy.

I actually do the same thing on my 4K 27" monitor, running it at "Looks like 2560 x 1440". What macOS does is take the 2560 x 1440, "pixel-double" everything to 5120 x 2880, and then do a fractional downsizing to fit this on my 3840 x 2160 (4k) of actual pixels on my monitor. And even this looks pretty good, although doing it on a true 5K monitor would be better.

I don't think anyone actually uses a 5K monitor (on 27" or 32") or even a 4K 27" monitor to run it at the actual resolution. As you noticed, text is basically unusably small!

 

[MikeDr206]

You've hit on a problem I have that turns me off to the point sizes Apple has blessed as "correct" for their Retina displays in the last few years.

What I personally want/need, with my aging eyes, is 5k at 32" and effective 2560 x 1440
At 27", things are too small and if I start using scaling to make things larger, it very much negates the whole reason for spending more on a Retina display to begin with

You could get a 32 inch 6k monitor (e.g., U3224KB from Dell), and set the resolution to “looks like” 2560x1440. Of course there would be fractional scaling, but I doubt that you’d notice it much if at all.

 

[picpicmac]

To add to what some others have written: the reason Apple goes with 218dpi screens has to do with the human eye. Your acuity and distance from the screen determine whether you can identify individual dots on a screen.

Apple decided their products should have displays where LCD elements (or OLED diodes) are no longer discernible at typical viewing distances. It's a design choice. Most people seem to like it.

What you're doing in the Control Panel settings is changing the zoom for the user interface.

Many of us with older eyes will find we like larger text on the screen. Hence the macOS settings for "looks like" values that give the UI larger text.

 

[turbineseaplane]

You could get a 32 inch 6k monitor (e.g., U3224KB from Dell), and set the resolution to “looks like” 2560x1440. Of course there would be fractional scaling, but I doubt that you’d notice it much if at all.

yes, I have thought about that Dell 6K

I just don’t know if I’m gonna buy any more monitors that aren’t high Refresh rate, is the thing.

My days of being happy with just 60hz are over mostly, at least for new purchases

 

[Amethyst1]

[...] 4K 27" monitor, running it at "Looks like 2560 x 1440". What macOS does is take the 2560 x 1440, "pixel-double" everything to 5120 x 2880, and then do a fractional downsizing to fit this on my 3840 x 2160 (4k) of actual pixels on my monitor.

As you say, that downscales a 5120×2880 framebuffer to 3840×2160.

You could get a 32 inch 6k monitor (e.g., U3224KB from Dell), and set the resolution to “looks like” 2560x1440.

That upscales a 5120×2880 framebuffer to 6016×3384 (Pro Display XDR) or 6144×3456 (U3224KB).

Genuine question: Which approach is going to look better? The difference in pixel density across the monitors (unless the 4K is 21.5") should probably also be taken into account.

 

[tstafford]

yes, I have thought about that Dell 6K

I just don’t know if I’m gonna buy any more monitors that aren’t high Refresh rate, is the thing.

My days of being happy with just 60hz are over mostly, at least for new purchases

That's the rub - if you want high refresh, you aren't getting retina clarity. There's nothing above 60hz right now.

Of course another factor is those of us w/ M1P or M1M machines are more or less stuck at 60hz anyway.

 

[turbineseaplane]

That's the rub - if you want high refresh, you aren't getting retina clarity. There's nothing above 60hz right now.

Of course another factor is those of us w/ M1P or M1M machines are more or less stuck at 60hz anyway.

Yep -- So far I prefer high refresh -- makes things "feel" more responsive and faster, and none of the retina options are actually normal/preferred 2x at point sizes my old eyes like anyhow

 

[TracerAnalog]

The Studio Display always runs at 5120×2880. The 2560×1440 or 3200×1800 modes are just scaled modes in macOS to give you the same real estate as a display with that native resolution would, albeit sharper since they’re still using all 5120×2880 pixels. The sharpest setting is 2560×1440.

And: you need the high native resolution to allow for the lesser modes to be alias free when displaying text. Try a cheap 4K screen and lower the resolution: looks horrible.

 

[Geoff777]

Thanks very much everyone for replying - there is some really helpful information there and it's made me feel a little better about shelling out so much for a monitor! 😂

 

[frou]

While I understand what people are getting at, I think it's wrong to talk about "pixel-doubling" and smoothing because that implies that there's interpolation of low-res UI assets going on (i.e. "Computer, enhance!"). That's not the case - the assets have been authored in high-res to start with for years now.

The 5K@27" image is not synthetic. It's rendered at high-res and shown physically at the same high-res. In some ways the existence of non-Retina Mac displays is just historical trivia - they're not somehow more fundamental than Retina displays. i.e. Retina-grade rendering is a peer to non-Retina-grade rendering, not a derivative of it.

The key thing to understand about macOS UI is the distinction between a Point and a Pixel. Any commentary framed in pixels only is a recipe for confusion.

TL;DR: If you like sharp image quality then you didn't make a mistake buying the Studio Display, OP. It's significantly better than cheap monitors for macOS.

 

[splitpea]

Unless you’re trying to read it from 12” away, 4K provides plenty of pixel density for comfort at 27” even if you’re accustomed to a Mac Retina display. There’s nothing WRONG with 5k at that size, but I don’t see the extra price buying much increased perceived quality/comfort.

5k just doesn’t seem like a useful resolution to me, but 6k should be just about right for 32” or 8k for 36-40”.

YMMV depending on what you use the computer for, especially if that’s professional graphics or video. For me it’s general browsing and business use, programming, and light graphics work.

 

[LeeW]

I looked at the Studio display in the store when it came out, and I immediately thought, "Nope, too small." I am currently on a 32" 4K LG; it's a sweet spot of size and resolution for me.

 

[Christopher Kim]

While I understand what people are getting at, I think it's wrong to talk about "pixel-doubling" and smoothing because that implies that there's interpolation of low-res UI assets going on (i.e. "Computer, enhance!"). That's not the case - the assets have been authored in high-res to start with for years now.

The 5K@27" image is not synthetic. It's rendered at high-res and shown physically at the same high-res. In some ways the existence of non-Retina Mac displays is just historical trivia - they're not somehow more fundamental than Retina displays. i.e. Retina-grade rendering is a peer to non-Retina-grade rendering, not a derivative of it.

The key thing to understand about macOS UI is the distinction between a Point and a Pixel. Any commentary framed in pixels only is a recipe for confusion.

TL;DR: If you like sharp image quality then you didn't make a mistake buying the Studio Display, OP. It's significantly better than cheap monitors for macOS.

This is helpful, I didn't really understand how it works. So what you're saying is, designers / developers already work in "high-res" space (like 5K 5120 x 2880). And the image quality is native. You just get to see it in its "full glory" on a 5K monitor. And the "Looks like 2560 x 1440" is mostly related to fonts and text "sizing".

 

[picpicmac]

This is helpful, I didn't really understand how it works. So what you're saying is, designers / developers already work in "high-res" space (like 5K 5120 x 2880). And the image quality is native. You just get to see it in its "full glory" on a 5K monitor. And the "Looks like 2560 x 1440" is mostly related to fonts and text "sizing".

Complicated.

The LCD panels themselves never change their physical liquid-crystal-display windows (they are tiny LCD devices that variably dim) or layout. This is unlike the old days of cathode ray tubes where the actual scan line frequency could change.

So if an LCD (or for that matter OLED) display never really changes, what does?

The user interface is changed. I prefer the term "zoom" over Apple's choice of "looks like" in the System Preferences panel.

macOS has built into it large libraries for the graphical user interface and application developers use these libraries to do everything you see on the screen.

When you change the System Preferences display setting to a "looks like" setting you are telling these operating system routines how large to draw whatever on the screen.

This takes considerable processing but modern chips (like the M1/M2/M3 family) have the capability to do this processing readily.

However, since the beginning of computer graphics on displays with discrete elements ("pixels") the challenge has always been how to draw lines at any angle and not make the line look jagged, or stair stepped.

Apple's decision a while back is to only sell displays in which the individual physical pixels are so small that the human eye cannot discern individual pixels at usual viewing distances.

And this is why Apple's computers have displays with 218 pixels per inch. The iPhone has higher density, but phones are held more closely to the face.

Downside of Apple's decision: if you use a Mac with a display that is much less than around 218ppi then you will see the individual pixels at normal viewing distance. Hence people complain about said displays not being as "sharp" as the Apple displays.

As for text: in System Preferences you will be given a choice for scaled (i.e. zoomed) user interface settings. The default setting choices are the best because all the fonts are natively designed for those settings. The optional settings require items like fonts to be adjusted, and if your display physically is less than around 218ppi you will notice that the adjusted (scaled) text does not look as nice as the native settings.

If your eyes are good enough... and you sit close enough.

 

[Nebrie]

I recently got an Apple studio display and put it right next to my high end LG 4k 27" gaming monitor and I could not believe the difference in text clarity and sharpness. It's not just the resolution but also the fact that all other display makers put a cheap plastic matte filter in front of their screens which adds blurriness. I'm now buying a second studio display and the parts I need to hook it up to a Windows PC.