4K Monitor Advice Needed

[groove-agent]

Hey all, I bought a new desk and am looking to replace my 21:9 ultrawide monitor with a 16:9 32” because I’m becoming fairly near-sighted and need a bigger screen. I do a fair bit of photoshop and 4K video editing, but mostly I’m coding in Visual Studio Code on my 16" M1Pro MBP. I was hoping to find a 32" 4K monitor locally so I can easily return it if I don't like it, but they're really difficult to find. My budget is about $1000.

Do you think it's worth to pursue a 32" 4K or would text and objects be too challenging to read? There are quite a few FHD 32" monitors available but I feel that 4K would be more ideal if I'm editing 4K video.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Fishrrman]

You don't (generally) use a "4k" display at "full 4k" resolution.

With the Mac, by default, they operate in "HiDPI mode", which produces an image that "looks like 1080p". Also called "retina mode" on MacBook Pros.

I'm thinking a 27" 4k display would be more to your liking.

With a 32" 4k display...
- full 4k at 32" would produce text too small to read without squinting...
but
- running it at "looks like 1080p" would produce text TOO BIG to be useful.

If you want "real 4k" in a pixel-for-pixel resolution, you should be considering a 43" display (same form factor as a 43" 4k tv). Even at 43", text (displayed at normal font sizes) is still going to be "on the small side"...

 

[groove-agent]

You don't (generally) use a "4k" display at "full 4k" resolution.

With the Mac, by default, they operate in "HiDPI mode", which produces an image that "looks like 1080p". Also called "retina mode" on MacBook Pros.

I'm thinking a 27" 4k display would be more to your liking.

Thanks for the input.

So the only advantage of a 4K monitor is 4k video and high resolution photographs will look sharper?

That being said, isn't the 27" Apple display 5K? By the same token, wouldn't the text on that be super small to read?

 

[meson]

Thanks for the input.

So the only advantage of a 4K monitor is 4k video and high resolution photographs will look sharper?

That being said, isn't the 27" Apple display 5K? By the same token, wouldn't the text on that be super small to read?

On the 4k and 5k displays, particularly in the 27” size most people run them with a scaled resolution such as looks like 2560x1440. At that resolution everything looks the same size as it did on the 27” non-retina iMac, but sharper because it’s drawn with more and smaller pixels.

4k at 32” can be used at full resolution. The system text makes the menu bar items look a little small, but I can still read them just fine at my normal viewing distance. I do bump up the default text size a couple points in text heavy apps to make it a little easier on the eyes.

There is a scaled resolution 3008x1692 (default scaled resolution of Pro Display XDR) where everything is mapped to the old iMac size. I find it looks very good, but personally I find the display elements too large for my taste at that resolution.

I’m a huge fan of the screen real estate of my 32” 4k display.

 

[picpicmac]

I’m becoming fairly near-sighted

The distance from the screen will determine whether whatever PPI of the display is acceptable to you, as will the text size you select.

I cannot emphasize this enough: go to a big store (such as a big Best Buy) with lots of screens on display, and just look at them. Look at them closely. Your eyes will tell you what you can and cannot see.

There is much more to eye-strain than just the pixel density of the screen, such as brightness, the darkness of the blacks, etc.

Also, if you do any photo or video editing then ask yourself how important accurate color is to you.

Also, you might think about a screen you can rotate (say put it on an arm) for when you want to do any programming, if you want the most lines of text possible.

 

[xraydoc]

Thanks for the input.

So the only advantage of a 4K monitor is 4k video and high resolution photographs will look sharper?

That being said, isn't the 27" Apple display 5K? By the same token, wouldn't the text on that be super small to read?

With the super high resolution of the 5K displays, text and icons can be larger but drawn with more pixels for super sharp and detailed text and icons.

Photographs will generally be displayed at the monitor's native resolution (though dependent on the app).

Text drawn with equal number of pixels on both a 27" 4K and 27" 5K display will look physically larger on a 4K display since the 4K display's pixels are larger than a 5K display's. Make the 4K display a 32" one, and the text will be even larger -- but will continue to lose some sharpness at the pixels get physically larger and larger...

You can then shrink down the text on a 32" display to be the same size as on a 27" 5K display, but will again lose sharpness as the computer is now having to draw each letter with fewer pixels to make it the same size. Conversely, enlarging text on a 5K display will generally yield better results because, again, there's more (and smaller) pixels to draw with.

The best image quality comes when there's a 2:1 mapping of pixels to text size (using 1:1 pixel mapping as a baseline). For macOS, this is easier to do on a 5K display than a 4K display without making the text look too big and out of proportion to screen size; do it on a 4K display and text/icons can get comically large, especially on a 32" display -- tt'll look like a super sharp 1920x1080 display but with 1" high letters.

 

[groove-agent]

I cannot emphasize this enough: go to a big store (such as a big Best Buy) with lots of screens on display, and just look at them. Look at them closely. Your eyes will tell you what you can and cannot see.

Unfortunately the Best Buys where I live have pretty meagre offerings but it's possible I could try driving farther out and seeing what they have. No store near me has a 32" 4K monitor on display for me to see, or in stock for that matter. I'd have to order one, but usually when you special order one it's a pain to return.

 

[groove-agent]

I’m a huge fan of the screen real estate of my 32” 4k display.

Do you think a 4K 32" is significant improvement over a 2560 x 1440 monitor? Do you think you would miss a 4k if you had a 32" x 2560 x 1440?

 

[meson]

I find that 4k 32" is a significant improvement over 2560x1440. If you are at a viewing distance that makes using the full 4k resolution doable, the extra screen real estate is impressive. I can set up a grid of 6 windows that are 1280x1080 allowing me to reference quite a few sources simultaneously on the same screen. Since those windows are 1280 pixels wide, web sites won't collapse the side bars, which drives me nuts at times.

139 pixels per inch is a decent compromise between the traditional 109 pixels per inch and retina at 220 pixels per inch that Apple has used over the years. 4k 32" won't replace a Retina display, but it will be a noticeable improvement over older displays with larger pixels. I like that the pixels are large enough that you can use the display at its full native resolution, but the pixels are also small enough that scaled resolutions still look decent as well, something that definitely didn't work well on displays with larger pixels.

Until a little over a year ago, I worked primarily from my MBP and used external displays that were 21.5" 1080p and even an old 23" 1680x1050 external, so I've been willing to deal with a mixture of high res and low res displays for years. I would definitely miss 4k in a 32" display if I were to use a 32" 2560x1440 display. Since Apple has killed off sub-pixel antialiasing, macOS does not look great on displays with larger pixels. At 92 pixels per inch, the display will not look great unless it's pushed pretty far away. I wouldn't really consider 2560x1440 on a display larger than 27".

On most days, I could likely get by with a 2560x1440 display, but I would definitely miss 4k if that 1440p display were 32". Even if that is your preferred working resolution, it does look much better on a 4k panel due to it being drawn with more pixels. I'll drop down to 2560x1440 when I need to share my screen during meetings, and it doesn't look bad.

 

[Ben J.]

Just for some perspective on resolutions:

For many years now, I have had two displays in my living room; one 55" TV high on the wall, for watching movies, sports, news and also browsing and using mac apps - from around the room. Under the TV, on a desk, a 32" display for sitting closer like a regular office setup.

After experimenting over the years with different resolutions I've settled for 1600 x 900 on both screens. Lets me see everything on the TV from 3-4+ meters away, and also works just fine on the 32". (I also have Finder font at max (16), menu bar on large, etc. Most websites at around 130% to fill fullscreen.) Having both screens at the same resolution also makes managing spaces and displays very easy flowing and avoids some quirks.

I always wondered how people could live with thousands of pixels resolutions. OK, I can't with my setup, easily see many applications and their respective windows simultaneously, but I find that having apps in fullscreen on their individual spaces works nicely for me. (Tip: even drag'n drop between apps in different spaces is achieved with the switch spaces shortcut.)

 

[picpicmac]

I've settled for 1600 x 900 on both screens.

I always wondered how people could live with thousands of pixels resolutions.

Zoomed user interfaces have long been my preference. In the Chrome browser, for example, I up the font size. In Firefox I can zoom only the text. And so on.

A "looks like 1600 x 900" macOS UI setting, for a physical 2160p (aka 4K) screen is a zoom of 240%. Which sounds about right for viewing at a distance.

 

[Mark.g4]

Hey all, I bought a new desk and am looking to replace my 21:9 ultrawide monitor with a 16:9 32” because I’m becoming fairly near-sighted and need a bigger screen. I do a fair bit of photoshop and 4K video editing, but mostly I’m coding in Visual Studio Code on my 16" M1Pro MBP. I was hoping to find a 32" 4K monitor locally so I can easily return it if I don't like it, but they're really difficult to find. My budget is about $1000.

Do you think it's worth to pursue a 32" 4K or would text and objects be too challenging to read? There are quite a few FHD 32" monitors available but I feel that 4K would be more ideal if I'm editing 4K video.

Thanks in advance.

I use a 32" 4k monitor, I use 2560x1440 Hi-DPi resolution and I am very satisfied, I am sure you will not regret the purchase.
When I go back to the FHD or QHD monitors they seem grainy, especially on the texts.

 

[Ben J.]

A "looks like 1600 x 900" macOS UI setting, for a physical 2160p (aka 4K) screen is a zoom of 240%. Which sounds about right for viewing at a distance.

Here are three screenshots that shows what I see, whether it's on my TV from a distance, or sitting close to the 32":

You can see how it would work from a distance on a large TV, but for me it's perfectly fine for sitting close to a smaller screen also. I don't care about the screen's native resolution, I just use what I find works for me. And I need a screen to have good utilities to let me control luminence and color, of course.

Having text, objects, menus and everything smaller gives you more "screen realastate", but you will have to sit closer, depending on the physical size of the screen. That's why for me this is a question of screen size, distance, and resolution in macOS screen settings, and I don't care about native resolution of the screen.

Just offering my perspective. Litterally.

 

[meson]

Here are three screenshots that shows what I see, whether it's on my TV from a distance, or sitting close to the 32":

View attachment 2355970

View attachment 2355971

View attachment 2355972

You can see how it would work from a distance on a large TV, but for me it's perfectly fine for sitting close to a smaller screen also. I don't care about the screen's native resolution, I just use what I find works for me. And I need a screen to have good utilities to let me control luminence and color, of course.

Having text, objects, menus and everything smaller gives you more "screen realastate", but you will have to sit closer, depending on the physical size of the screen. That's why for me this is a question of screen size, distance, and resolution in macOS screen settings, and I don't care about native resolution of the screen.

Just offering my perspective. Litterally.

Nothing wrong with your approach. If it works for you, that’s great! It’s not all that different from what I do when I work at home and use the TV above my bar. I just don’t force it to the same resolution as my laptop.

I was a huge fan of the original implementation of spaces. When the spaces were arranged in a static grid, it was easy to group apps and navigate reliably. I don’t care for what it evolved into. Mission Control broke nearly everything I loved about Spaces.

As time went on the projects I worked on in grad school lended themselves better to extra screens than spaces. Now it seems I’ve come full circle and have the screen real estate to have most of my old spaces fit on a single screen.

Now that I’ve added a mini, I have work split between two separate single screen machines. Maybe it’s time to revisit the use of spaces again.

 

[Ben J.]

Maybe it’s time to revisit the use of spaces again.

I think Spaces and Mission control is just about perfect. I two-finger swipe between 5 or 6 spaces with fullscreen apps or browser windows. I hit F3 Mission Control to rearrange them, and I can drag a space from one screen to another, and it's perfectly fluent. I drag Lightroom to my 32" to work on my photos, while the tennis match contiues on my TV.

Just be sure you get its settings right. Don't let it auto-arrange orders f.ex. With multiple monitors, separate spaces for each monitor is cool. You can always hit cmnd-F1 to have all spaces on both screens, mirrored.

 

[iStorm]

I cannot emphasize this enough: go to a big store (such as a big Best Buy) with lots of screens on display, and just look at them. Look at them closely. Your eyes will tell you what you can and cannot see.

One caveat: These displays are almost always hooked up to Windows machines, which handles scaling much better than macOS does. So while something like 150% scaling will look sharp and crisp in Windows, it may be fuzzy in macOS. I suppose Best Buy doesn't let people test them out with their own MacBooks, do they?

 

[groove-agent]

Thanks to everyone who tried to help. I did some online research and ended up ordering a thunderbolt BenQ PD3220U 4K 32" designer monitor from NewEgg. Now that NewEgg does free returns I felt it minimized the risk. This monitor seemed to do everything I needed for content creation so it seemed like a no brainer.

Hopefully the larger screen will allow me to sit farther away and still be able to read it. Right now I'm about 19" away from the screen but will be installing an under desk keyboard so that will put me about 9-12 inches farther away.

The "hockey puck" controller thingy was pretty neat I thought. https://www.benq.com/en-ca/monitor/professional/pd3220u.html

 

[Mark.g4]

I'm not familiar with this monitor, but looking quickly it seems like a great device.
I'm using an Lg 32 4k UN880, it costs half the price, has the panel with the same specifications as the Benq but comes standard with a gas vesa stand. Take a look.

 

[Ben J.]

Thanks to everyone who tried to help. I did some online research and ended up ordering a thunderbolt BenQ PD3220U 4K 32" designer monitor from NewEgg. Now that NewEgg does free returns I felt it minimized the risk. This monitor seemed to do everything I needed for content creation so it seemed like a no brainer.

Hopefully the larger screen will allow me to sit farther away and still be able to read it. Right now I'm about 19" away from the screen but will be installing an under desk keyboard so that will put me about 9-12 inches farther away.

The "hockey puck" controller thingy was pretty neat I thought. https://www.benq.com/en-ca/monitor/professional/pd3220u.html


View attachment 2356158

I'm sure you'll be happy with it. I've had the BenQ PD3200U for a few years for photo work mostly, and have had no problems. If the BenQ PD3220U is anything like mine, it will come with a custom color profile built-in (created at the factory for your specific screen) that installs itself on first run and shows up in systemsettings/displays/colors. Then set your preferred brightness/contrast on the "hockey puck" and enjoy.

I absolutely hate the "puck" myself, but it looks like yours has a rotating knob on it, which seems like an improvement over mine.