Apple's Studio Display vs. Dell's Latest $655 27-Inch UltraSharp Monitor

[yannisgk]

apple, and then chaos...(unless a product is pricier than an apple's one).

 

[yannisgk]

There is a very good article that I read via a YouTube video on displays suitable for Macs.

The upshot is the below graphic. Basically, the sweet spot for Mac to display properly is 217-218 for retina display and 109-110 for non-retina.

Some info from the article.



And more.

Mac external displays for designers and developers

If you’re considering an external display for your Mac, there’s a few important decisions to make. Apple doesn’t sell external displays any more, so you can’t just default to their wisdom. That’s an issue, because not all displays are well suited for Macs.

bjango.com

thanks for the post!!! (i've already liked it!!!)

 

[theorist9]

This article is not scientific in any way. You cannot compare pixel density of a 32"-38" monitor to a 20"-24" monitor, and put them in a common denominator.

Retina effect is a factor of pitch size and distance of viewing. Now, you can't be viewing a 20" and 38" monitor from the same distance. Obviously this would be wrong. Now, why would a 38" monitor need a 220ppi to have the retina effect, when you will be viewing it at double the distance at least.

If we go by that article, our 65" TVs will need to be 16K, which they are not, and we still perceive them as retina, don't we - because they are so far away.

I don't think you understood the article. It wasn't about resolution per se, it was about UI size. What they were saying is that Apple's UI is designed such that, at typical viewing distances (say 20-25"), it's the right size (font height, etc.) when you use ~100 ppi at 1 X scaling, ~200 ppi at 2 X scaling, or ~300 ppi at 3 X scaling. All of these will give the same UI size on the screen. I.e, the article's point is that, if you want to maintain integer scaling (and integer scaling is needed to avoid non-integer scaling artifacts, whcih can cause text to be blurry), you need the pixel density to be some integer multiple of ~100 ppi. That's why they're saying that, e.g, 160 ppi falls in the red zone: it's too small if you use 1 X scaling, and too big if you use 2 X scaling.

Having said that, the article is wrong, but not for the reasons you think. It's wrong because it doesn't recognize that different people can prefer different UI sizes. Some may like the somewhat larger UI obtained with 2 X scaling on a 4k 27" (163 ppi) monitor. It's entirely personal. And the 254 ppi screens on Apple's latest MBP's, which fall outside their green zone, shows that Apple agrees it doesn't have to follow this rigid formula.

 

[theorist9]

There is a very good article that I read via a YouTube video on displays suitable for Macs.

The upshot is the below graphic. Basically, the sweet spot for Mac to display properly is 217-218 for retina display and 109-110 for non-retina.

Some info from the article.



And more.

Mac external displays for designers and developers

If you’re considering an external display for your Mac, there’s a few important decisions to make. Apple doesn’t sell external displays any more, so you can’t just default to their wisdom. That’s an issue, because not all displays are well suited for Macs.

bjango.com

As I mentioned in another post, I think the article is wrong because it doesn't recognize that different people can prefer different UI sizes. Some may like the somewhat larger UI obtained with 2 X scaling on a 4k 27" (163 ppi) monitor. It's entirely personal. And the 254 ppi screens on Apple's latest MBP's, which fall outside their green zone, shows that Apple agrees it doesn't have to follow this rigid formula.