Resolved 4k Display Confusion...

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by scarrab666, Jan 3, 2017.

  1. scarrab666 macrumors member

    scarrab666

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Sydney
    #1
    Howdy All,

    I just got myself an LG 27UD88 with USB C...

    Its a lovely machine, and connecting my MacBook (12" early 2015) is really nice...

    However...

    For the life of me I can't work out how to get it to full 4K resolution without my icons/text going Teeny tiny!

    Is there a way to display in 4K without Icons, menus and dock going super small (much like how it displays in 1080) or is it a case of being one or t'other?

    Basically I want 4K but want to keep the size of everything the same.
     
  2. kepler20b macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2014
    #2
    in display settings select scaled resolutions
     
  3. scarrab666 thread starter macrumors member

    scarrab666

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Sydney
    #3
    Hi kepler, and thank you for your reply; I've set the scaled resolution, but sadly this is where the problem arises...

    Scaled at the 'normal' (as in my normal size) only displays at:
    'Larger Text' = 1920 x 1080 @ 60Hz (1080p)
    Whereas
    'More Space' = 3840 x 2160 @ 60 Hz (which is 4k) gives me the teeny tiny effect...

    I'm looking for scaled to display the 'Larger Text' at 3840 x 2160 @ 60 Hz (is that possible?)
     
  4. Admiral, Jan 4, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017

    Admiral macrumors regular

    Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2015
    #4
    Yes. Scaled resolutions always use the 4K display's full 3840 x 2160, even though it appears to be a different resolution. Think of your Macbook itself. Its panel is 2304 x 1440, but most people use it at a scaled resolution which has the appearance of a lower resolution (in my case, I like the "more space" setting that looks like 1440 x 900). The extra pixels are used to give a smooth appearance.

    I have an LG UD68 4K monitor, and keep it at an apparent resolution of 2560 x 1440. Sadly I have as yet been unsuccessful getting it to give a 60Hz refresh rate with my 2016 Macbook because apparently the patch does not yet work with Mac OS X Sierra 10.12.2. It works great with my other computers, though, and looks wonderful. It's a great monitor for US$399. Hope springs eternal for a solution for this 2016 Macbook. Maybe I should spring for a DisplayPort adapter instead of using HDMI with the Apple USB-C dongle.

    Do you not get any scaled resolution options other than 1920 x 1080 or 3840 x 2160?
     
  5. andy9l macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    England, UK
    #5
    I use my Early-2015 MacBook with a 27UD88 with the scaling setting in System Prefs. set to "Looks like 2560x1440", or "More space". It's the second from left, just after the default.

    This still runs all 4K pixels at 60Hz, but scales the UI accordingly. It is much, much sharper than any native 2560x1440 monitor. This is how HiDPI works on any screen, in any OS.

    The Apple adapter is HDMI 1.4. It cannot do 4K at 60Hz. You need a different adapter to use your monitor at 60Hz since it doesn't have USB-C.
     
  6. scarrab666 thread starter macrumors member

    scarrab666

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Sydney
    #6
    Thanking you both... Out of curiosity, if one were to watch a 4k movie in 'fullscreen' (lets say Netflix) would it be in 'true' 4k? Still a little confused, but thanks for enlightenment!
     
  7. andy9l, Jan 4, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017

    andy9l macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    England, UK
    #7
    Yes, most apps are aware of scaling - certainly all Apple apps and modern browsers. If you watch a 4K YouTube video it will indeed display in full 4K at full screen.

    Think of it this way:

    The 5K iMac runs by default scaled to 2560x1440 but has 5120x2880 pixels
    The iPhone 7 runs by default scaled to 375x667 but has 750x1334 pixels.
    The iPad Pro runs by default scaled to 1366x1024 but has 2732x2048 pixels.

    When I say 'scaled' I simply mean the UI is being displayed at 2x its native size. Otherwise everything would be incredibly tiny, with the issue only magnifying on smaller screens.

    With 4K, 2x scaling is 1920x1080 (since most 4K displays are 3840x2160). The issue is, 1920x1080 looks silly on a 27" screen. As such, we need to adjust the 2x scaling so it's a bit less than 2.

    2560 is 33% less than 3840
    1440 is 33% less than 2160

    This means 2560x1440 can scale proportionally from a native 3840x2160 resolution, but still utilise all of the pixels. Since this scaling is being done by macOS, it can relay the fact that this is happening to apps like iMovie, Photos, Safari or Photoshop.

    Therefore whenever one of these "retina-ready" apps wants to display an image or video, it can remove the scaling for just that image or video - you therefore get a lovely 1-to-1 pixel mapping for your videos.

    As such:

    - a 1080p movie in Quicktime will fill exactly one quarter of your screen at full resolution
    - a 4K movie will be run at native 4K in full screen
    - an 8MP photo will look super sharp and fill almost the entire screen at full resolution
    - icons and images on websites (that are coded/designed correctly) will be super crisp
    - text will always be super sharp unless an app is not retina-ready (very rare nowadays)

    tl;dr - only the UI is scaled (but remains sharp), other images/videos smartly utilise the full potential of your HiDPI display, thanks to macOS and your respective app developers.
     
  8. scarrab666 thread starter macrumors member

    scarrab666

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Sydney
    #8
    Andy, this is a perfect reply; and makes sense to me now... I must admit the Monitor is nice, but dunno if its worth the price. From my initial thoughts on the monitor I reckon I'll not make the investment into a 4k TV just yet (though again it is nice!).
     
  9. andy9l macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    England, UK
    #9
    Glad it helped.

    I use my 27UD88 with both my MacBook and a newly built Windows gaming rig. I get 4K gaming and near-retina macOS through one good-looking monitor that truly "just works". I love it.

    I've been very impressed with both of my LG products - a 43" 4K Smart TV and this monitor.

    I watched The Grand Tour via Amazon Prime TV app in 4K on the TV - some scenes really did amaze me, but looking at Jeremy Clarkson in 4K isn't worth any money at all!
     
  10. Admiral, Jan 4, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017

    Admiral macrumors regular

    Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2015
    #10
    That's unfortunate. It means I should have plumped for the UD88. Nuts. Oh well, I guess I wait for a Thunderbolt 3 monitor to be released and then plug the UD68 into an HDMI 2.0 or DisplayPort on the dock I'll end up buying, and connect the Thunderbolt 3 MacBook Pro or 2017 Retina MacBook I'll end up buying. Or, if I'm really lucky, the as-yet unreleased Thunderbolt 3 monitor will be a dock and have those ports to connect an additional monitor.

    The system we really want is always coming Real Soon Now™, isn't it?
     
  11. Dunbar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #11
    I will say that Windows 10 is better than Mac OSX when it comes to scaling UI elements on a 4k monitor. I use both OS's connected to my 4K monitor and Windows lets you adjust how much you want to blow the UI elements up. With OSX you can't fine tune the size of the UI elements to your desired preference.
     

Share This Page