5K Screen not good enough. 8k needed ASAP.

[Macmamamac]

First of all i love the 5k screen on the new iMac. Easily the best screen i have ever seen.

However, Its still blocky when reading close up.

I like to put my elbows on the computer desk table when i'm reading emails and browsing internet etc, so i'm quite close to the screen, and the pixels are really noticeable.

Will 8k solve this issue, or would a screen have to be 16k to have a pixel free viewing experience?

 

[makrom]

You would probably be best off by putting the screen/iMac further back. Unless you have some humongous peripheral vision capabilities, you won't really use the 27" screen to its full extend at close distances anyway.

Other than that, your questions can't reallybe answered with the information you provided. It depends on your vision and on the distance, as well as on what you would like to be able to no longer distinguish. There are images where you could tell the difference between a 16 and a 32k screen from 20' away.

 

[keysofanxiety]

How close must you be viewing it to see the pixels?

Retina Display just means that the human eye can't distinguish the pixels at normal viewing distance. If you press your face to it you're not really getting the full benefit of the 27" LCD experience IMO - it's counterproductive.

TL;DR: you're looking at it wrong

 

[alexxk]

wait... what??

 

[Macmamamac]

You would probably be best off by putting the screen/iMac further back. Unless you have some humongous peripheral vision capabilities, you won't really use the 27" screen to its full extend at close distances anyway.

Other than that, your questions can't reallybe answered with the information you provided. It depends on your vision and on the distance, as well as on what you would like to be able to no longer distinguish. There are images where you could tell the difference between a 16 and a 32k screen from 20' away.

Ok, maybe if i could rephrase the question to be a bit more specific.

If i look really closely at text in a book, i can't see any dots. So the question is what resolution would be needed for a pixel free viewing experience on a computer monitor, regardless of how close or far away you was from the screen.

It will probably be a bit different for everybody so lets just assume the person had perfect 20/20 vision.

 

[shaunp]

this is a joke right? You must be wearing strong reading glasses and have your nose actually touching the screen either that or viewing the screen through a macro lens.

 

[Macmamamac]

How close must you be viewing it to see the pixels?

Retina Display just means that the human eye can't distinguish the pixels at normal viewing distance. If you press your face to it you're not really getting the full benefit of the 27" LCD experience IMO - it's counterproductive.

TL;DR: you're looking at it wrong

When i read a book i don't like it to be miles away from my face, same when reading something on a monitor. Like i say i seem to naturally go on my elbows and get quite close to the screen, the 5K screen is a lot better for my eyes but i think if the pixels were eliminated alltogether, it would be even better.


Obviously, technology isn't going to stop at 5K, so 8k will follow then 16k. Computer monitors are always in front of TV's, so its only matter of time until the 5k iMac is obsolete.


I just want to know will 8k solve the pixel problem or will it be 16k?

 

[Macmamamac]

this is a joke right? You must be wearing strong reading glasses and have your nose actually touching the screen either that or viewing the screen through a macro lens.

I don't wear reading glasses, i'm over 12 inches away when the pixels start to become visible. My eyesight isn't the best either. When i put on glasses its even further back.

 

[keysofanxiety]

When i read a book i don't like it to be miles away from my face, same when reading something on a monitor. Like i say i seem to naturally go on my elbows and get quite close to the screen, the 5K screen is a lot better for my eyes but i think if the pixels were eliminated alltogether, it would be even better.


Obviously, technology isn't going to stop at 5K, so 8k will follow then 16k. Computer monitors are always in front of TV's, so its only matter of time until the 5k iMac is obsolete.


I just want to know will 8k solve the pixel problem or will it be 16k?

May be best to enable zoom. If you go into Accessibility in System Preferences you can set it so that you zoom into the screen by holding the Ctrl key and scrolling forward on the mouse. Just so you retain a good posture while viewing.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

4K hasn't even made it mainstream yet in most of the world, 5K has only 2 suppliers the iMac and one 5K monitor that costs almost as much as an iMac.
8K is about a decade away from being mainstream as far as I can tell so don't get your hopes up there.

As others have noted if you are sitting close enouch to see the pixelation then you are sitting too close that is not good for your posture or your eyesight.

You could set the screen to full resolution (instead of the scaled 1440p it is set at by default) and see how that looks but it will be nightmare size wise for everything.

 

[WilliamG]

4K hasn't even made it mainstream yet in most of the world, 5K has only 2 suppliers the iMac and one 5K monitor that costs almost as much as an iMac.
8K is about a decade away from being mainstream as far as I can tell so don't get your hopes up there.

As others have noted if you are sitting close enouch to see the pixelation then you are sitting too close that is not good for your posture or your eyesight.

You could set the screen to full resolution (instead of the scaled 1440p it is set at by default) and see how that looks but it will be nightmare size wise for everything.

Full res would just look more pixel-y since every letter and word would be made up of even fewer pixels than 1440p Retina (as the 5K iMac runs by default).

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Full res would just look more pixel-y since every letter and word would be made up of even fewer pixels than 1440p Retina (as the 5K iMac runs by default).

You really don't understand scaling do you?? Currently your screen is scaled so that each scaled pixel is actually 4 real pixels if you set it to full res everything be a quarter as big but very sharp. How that will translate if you zoom in or adjust text size I don't know but I doubt it will be a very good experience.

 

[joe-h2o]

Ok, maybe if i could rephrase the question to be a bit more specific.

If i look really closely at text in a book, i can't see any dots. So the question is what resolution would be needed for a pixel free viewing experience on a computer monitor, regardless of how close or far away you was from the screen.

It will probably be a bit different for everybody so lets just assume the person had perfect 20/20 vision.

This is not true. A book is printed using offset printing which uses 300 dpi plates. You can still see the dots if you look very closely, unless they all bleed into each other (i.e., blur) because of the paper stock being used.

If you want a distance-independent "perfect" experience with your monitor then you need to be above the visual threshold of your eye. Given that your eye has a focus limit (you'll not be able to tell the pixels apart if your eye is only one inch from the screen because you won't be able to effectively focus). The formula is a = 2 arctan (h/2d) where a is the subtended angle, h is the pixel height and d is the distance from the screen.

h and d are inversely proportional.

 

[makrom]

Ok, maybe if i could rephrase the question to be a bit more specific.

If i look really closely at text in a book, i can't see any dots. So the question is what resolution would be needed for a pixel free viewing experience on a computer monitor, regardless of how close or far away you was from the screen.

It will probably be a bit different for everybody so lets just assume the person had perfect 20/20 vision.

What resolution you would need to no longer want to be able to see a single bright pixel on a black background... I guess a whole lot. Like 1M maybe? Given the right brighntess it should be even higher.
But for distinguishing pixels, 20/20 vision means 1 arcminute. At a viewing distance of 6" that would be like 13k or 571 DPI. These values are antiproportional to the viewing distance.

 

[makrom]

You really don't understand scaling do you?? Currently your screen is scaled so that each scaled pixel is actually 4 real pixels

But this isn't how font and image rendering works in OS X.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

But this isn't how font and image rendering works in OS X.

What so it doesn't upscale everything into 4 times the number of pixels and then smooth it out on the edges??

 

[WilliamG]

You really don't understand scaling do you?? Currently your screen is scaled so that each scaled pixel is actually 4 real pixels if you set it to full res everything be a quarter as big but very sharp. How that will translate if you zoom in or adjust text size I don't know but I doubt it will be a very good experience.

I really think you don't understand how this works. The smaller you make any given object, the more pixelated that object will look because there are fewer pixels comprising that object. That's what will happen when you run the 5K iMac at native 2880p and don't increase text size (cause it's REALLY small at 2880p native). Nobody's saying it won't be still sharp at native 2880p. I'm saying if you have stellar visual acuity, you may well be able to see the pixel makeup of words that small more easily. Of course words etc at the same size font either at 2880p native or 1440p retina will look identical. At standard 1440p retina on the 5K iMac, Apple doesn't let things get that small, of course. (menu bars etc).

E.g. I'm typing this on my iPhone 6s Plus. If I zoom this WORD to be really big on my screen, it's really sharp. Is it flawless? No. But it's very sharp. If I now shrink that WORD to be quite small, it's noticeably more jaggy/aliased/stair-steppy at the same viewing distance because each letter is made up of far fewer pixels. The number of pixels has therefore decreased for that word at the same viewing distance.

 

[makrom]

What so it doesn't upscale everything into 4 times the number of pixels and then smooth it out on the edges??

No. Otherwise having 5k displays would be pretty pointless when you run them at 1440p. HiDPI introduces a new abstraction layer, an application exposed resolution as well as an internal resolution. Applications can just run at 1440p like they always did and OS X scales them to the internal resolution. Normal content is just stretched, some API like system font rendering or anything shell related gets rendered at the internal resolution.
You can clearly see this when looking at fonts in games since most games use their own font renderer or some framework that doesn't pass font rendering on to the system. There it is exactly as you describe, 1 application pixel = 2*2 real pixels.
HiDPI isn't some simple interpolation algorithm. otherwise it wouldn't be much good for image processing.

 

[WilliamG]

No. Otherwise having 5k displays would be pretty pointless when you run them at 1440p. HiDPI introduces a new abstraction layer, an application exposed resolution as well as an internal resolution. Applications can just run at 1440p like they always did and OS X scales them to the internal resolution. Normal content is just stretched, some API like system font rendering or anything shell related gets rendered at the internal resolution.
You can clearly see this when looking at fonts in games since most games use their own font renderer or some framework that doesn't pass font rendering on to the system. There it is exactly as you describe, 1 application pixel = 2*2 real pixels.
HiDPI isn't some simple interpolation algorithm. otherwise it wouldn't be much good for image processing.

Yup. This. And that's why e.g. running Diablo 3 at 2560x1440 on my 5K iMac does not look as sharp as running 2560x1440 on my old 2012 1440p iMac.

 

[shaunp]

I don't wear reading glasses, i'm over 12 inches away when the pixels start to become visible. My eyesight isn't the best either. When i put on glasses its even further back.

I'm on a 4K monitor and the only time I can see the pixels is if I take a photo from around 2 inches away and then zoom in on the photo. This is with Safari, Word 2016, etc. At over 12" away from the screen no way can you see the pixels unless you are using an application that renders the text extremely badly and you are then zoomed into this.

Just for comparison I've been looking at the screen on my work laptop - a crappy Lenovo T420s with a 1600 x 900 screen and at normal viewing distances I can't see the pixels on this either.

I am unable to tell the difference at normal viewing distances between a 4K and a 5K screen too which is why I went for a good 4K screen and saved myself a lot of money. As photographer I'm used to looking at things at 1:1 resolution and with such high resolution displays there's no way you can see the pixels unless you zoom in.

Having seen that I have to zoom in to a photograph of the screen taken from 2 inches away to be able to see the pixels, and even then they are small, I refuse to believe that you can see them from over 12 inches away. Utter nonsense!

 

[WilliamG]

I'm on a 4K monitor and the only time I can see the pixels is if I take a photo from around 2 inches away and then zoom in on the photo. This is with Safari, Word 2016, etc. At over 12" away from the screen no way can you see the pixels unless you are using an application that renders the text extremely badly and you are then zoomed into this.

Just for comparison I've been looking at the screen on my work laptop - a crappy Lenovo T420s with a 1600 x 900 screen and at normal viewing distances I can't see the pixels on this either.

I am unable to tell the difference at normal viewing distances between a 4K and a 5K screen too which is why I went for a good 4K screen and saved myself a lot of money. As photographer I'm used to looking at things at 1:1 resolution and with such high resolution displays there's no way you can see the pixels unless you zoom in.

Having seen that I have to zoom in to a photograph taken from 2 inches away to be able to see the pixels, and even then they are small, I refuse to believe that you can see them from over 12 inches away. Utter nonsense!

The point is not that one can see the difference between a 4K screen and a 5K display. The key is to maintain a 2560x1440p usable space, which is only accomplished by a 5120x2880 display. 4K (well, 3840x2160) in Apple's retina mode is only 1920x1080 of usable real estate. I wouldn't go near that on a 27" monitor.

That's one of the reasons the MacBook Pro line is so flawed. The 15" model for example has the real estate of 1440x900. Ridiculous.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

I really think you don't understand how this works. The smaller you make any given object, the more pixelated that object will look because there are fewer pixels comprising that object. That's what will happen when you run the 5K iMac at native 2880p and don't increase text size.

E.g. I'm typing this on my iPhone 6s Plus. If I zoom this WORD to be really big on my screen, it's really sharp. Is it flawless? Nor. But it's very sharp. If I now shrink that WORD to be quite small, it's noticeably more jaggy/aliased/stair-steppy because each letter is made up of far fewer pixels. The number of pixels has therefore decreased for that word at the same viewing distance.

But on a 5k imac at full resolution it would be tiny and no more pixelated, pixels are an absolute they don't change size, poor scaling can make things look more pixelated but that doesn't change the pixel size. If the OP sits close enough to distinguish the pixels then there is pretty much nothing that can be done for them, but they can play around with resolution, scaling and text sizes to get whats most comfortable for them, not that I think it will be any better as i pointed out in my post. I agree it was a simplification of what happens and I explained poorly though so I'm gonna leave this one here.

 

[WilliamG]

But on a 5k imac at full resolution it would be tiny and no more pixelated, pixels are an absolute they don't change size, poor scaling can make things look more pixelated but that doesn't change the pixel size. If the OP sits close enough to distinguish the pixels then there is pretty much nothing that can be done for them, but they can play around with resolution, scaling and text sizes to get whats most comfortable for them, not that I think it will be any better as i pointed out in my post. I agree it was a simplification of what happens and I explained poorly though so I'm gonna leave this one here.

If the OP sits 12 inches away and has great eyesight, the smaller letters etc will look more pixelated. Larger fonts of the same letters will look less pixelated.

 

[shaunp]

The point is not that one can see the difference between a 4K screen and a 5K display. The key is to maintain a 2560x1440p usable space, which is only accomplished by a 5120x2880 display. 4K (well, 3840x2160) in Apple's retina mode is only 1920x1080 of usable real estate. I wouldn't go near that on a 27" monitor.

That's one of the reasons the MacBook Pro line is so flawed. The 15" model for example has the real estate of 1440x900. Ridiculous.

4K might not be technically 'retina', but who cares - I can't see the pixels and the screen is considerably sharper than my last 27" monitor. Science is one thing, but in the real world 4K at 27" is very good. I'm looking at it right now.

 

[Macmamamac]

I'm on a 4K monitor and the only time I can see the pixels is if I take a photo from around 2 inches away and then zoom in on the photo. This is with Safari, Word 2016, etc. At over 12" away from the screen no way can you see the pixels unless you are using an application that renders the text extremely badly and you are then zoomed into this.

Just for comparison I've been looking at the screen on my work laptop - a crappy Lenovo T420s with a 1600 x 900 screen and at normal viewing distances I can't see the pixels on this either.

I am unable to tell the difference at normal viewing distances between a 4K and a 5K screen too which is why I went for a good 4K screen and saved myself a lot of money. As photographer I'm used to looking at things at 1:1 resolution and with such high resolution displays there's no way you can see the pixels unless you zoom in.

Having seen that I have to zoom in to a photograph of the screen taken from 2 inches away to be able to see the pixels, and even then they are small, I refuse to believe that you can see them from over 12 inches away. Utter nonsense!

I'm using safari on this website with default settings ( no text resizing etc ) and text starts to become ragged from roughly 12 inches away.

I can't see pixels on photos, just text and icons.