Best external monitor resolution for Mac

[Mark.g4]

At 27" I prefer 2560x1440 over 3840x2160. Did you not get my point that there is a subjective component to choosing a display? And that not everybody wants the same thing?

I really struggle to understand the motivations of those who choose a 27" 2k at 2560x1440 instead of a 4k at 2560x1440.

I was also in the same position, but before choosing I tried both solutions and found 4K significantly better than 2K.

What are the real reasons for this choice? Why do you prefer 2k?

 

[Basic75]

What are the real reasons for this choice? Why do you prefer 2k?

I don't like having to use indirect rendering with scaling just because macOS still can't do proper resolution independence. That's partly because I don't like the thought of it, but also because it just looks a bit off to me, especially when I lean in close, hard to explain. On the other hand the slight jaggedness of the lower resolution doesn't disturb me because it's perfectly uniform and very, for lack of a better word, precise. And 110ppi is still way better than what we had a few decades ago. The lower price doesn't hurt either, though 4K displays are also very affordable and if I purchased today then price wouldn't be a deciding factor. Well, for me price excludes the Studio Display, but that's on a different level.

 

[Mark.g4]

I don't like having to use indirect rendering with scaling just because macOS still can't do proper resolution independence. That's partly because I don't like the thought of it, but also because it just looks a bit off to me, especially when I lean in close, hard to explain. On the other hand the slight jaggedness of the lower resolution doesn't disturb me because it's perfectly uniform and very, for lack of a better word, precise. And 110ppi is still way better than what we had a few decades ago. The lower price doesn't hurt either, though 4K displays are also very affordable and if I purchased today then price wouldn't be a deciding factor. Well, for me price excludes the Studio Display, but that's on a different level.

there are no problem with indirecrt rendering with scaling, indeed it is precisely the mechanism that allows us to have more defined and precise images compared to a direct resolution. It is an advantage, however many point to it as a flaw, perhaps because they have not understood how it works (imho).
This is precisely the aspect that I define as an urban legend because we continue to read online, because someone repeats something they have read elsewhere but have not tried directly.
4k is sharper than 2k. 4k is much closer to 5k than 2k.

If 4k bothers you when you get closer, then 2k and its dot pitch should bother you even more, which is much more invasive on 2k.

Who in everyday life is so close as to be able to see the pixels of a 4K? or the dot pitch of a 2k? Who?
Have you ever tried 4k? I have the impression that you have never really tried a 4k with a 2k nearby.
My 2cent.

 

[Basic75]

there are no problem with indirecrt rendering with scaling, indeed it is precisely the mechanism that allows us to have more defined and precise images compared to a direct resolution.

IMHO it's a cheap hack because Apple can't be bothered to do true resolution independence.

How can anything be more precise than 1-1 pixel mapping?

Who in everyday life is so close as to be able to see the pixels of a 4K? or the dot pitch of a 2k?

If we aren't close enough to see the dot pitch of a "2K" display, why bother with more pixels?

And for the record, I know exactly how Apple's scaled indirect rendering works, I've explained it often enough here.

 

[Mark.g4]

IMHO it's a cheap hack because Apple can't be bothered to do true resolution independence.

How can anything be more precise than 1-1 pixel mapping?

If we aren't close enough to see the dot pitch of a "2K" display, why bother with more pixels?

And for the record, I know exactly how Apple's scaled indirect rendering works, I've explained it often enough here.

Difference between at 1x on a 1440p display and a 2x hiDPI on a high resolution display.
if you compare two monitors, one 2k and one 4k, you will notice that the 4k one is significantly more defined. It's a test that anyone can do.

It is precisely oversampling that offers better images.
On 4k Macs don't simply multiply by 1.5, but first multiply 2x and then scale to the screen resolution. This is an advantage and not a flaw as many say on the web.
Many on the forums complain about 4K and praise 2K, but in reality 4K looks better, more defined and you notice it very easily on the text.

 

[Basic75]

It is precisely oversampling that offers better images.

In some cases. Here's the pixel mess that you get with scaled 1 and 2 pixel wide lines with 1, 2 and 3 pixel distances (scaled up for better viewing).

 

[Mark.g4]

In some cases. Here's the pixel mess that you get with scaled 1 and 2 pixel wide lines with 1, 2 and 3 pixel distances (scaled up for better viewing).

View attachment 2291779

there are users who need to work with individual pixels, but 98% of users will never meet.
In these cases, to avoid problems, just set 1920x1080 to have a suitable display on 4k monitors.
if you need this type of work, you will go straight to a 5k or 6k monitor because you are a professional user, if you are a professional user, you will not buy a 2k in 2023.

For all other cases, a 4K definitely looks better than a 2K.

 

[Basic75]

there are users who need to work with individual pixels, but 98% of users will never meet.

That's all I'm saying, it depends, and it won't be the same for everybody.

 

[Mark.g4]

It is an objective fact that 4k is more defined than 2k and the display of content for almost all users is better on 4k, ever with oversampling.

With a 4k you can work perfectly in a 1x1 ratio just use
1920x1080
4096x2160

But we continue to criticize 4k monitors and discourage them by saying that they sell poorly due to oversampling, when the opposite is true.

Exalting 2K over 4K is really misleading for everyone.

If you need to work pixel by pixel you buy a 5k, not a 2k that is obsolete.

 

[Basic75]

Exalting 2K over 4K is really misleading for everyone.

So is blindly pushing one solution when there are several. Everything is a trade-off, and everybody can choose the one they prefer. I really don't understand what we are discussing anymore. Can you not accept that I choose differently than you?

 

[Mark.g4]

That's all I'm saying, it depends, and it won't be the same for everybody.

you can choose what you want,
I just keep saying that a 4K display looks significantly better than a 2K at any resolution and that oversampling is not a flaw but an advantage.

I have both display (4k and 2k), do you have both?

 

[Basic75]

I have both display (4k and 2k), do you have both?

Yes, I have a 2560x1440, a 3840x2160, and two retina MacBook Pros (2013 and 2021).

 

[Dutch60]

Not 4k but 27" 5k iMac here. Images look absolutely beautiful.
I know this is a more specific user case, but for photography (editing and preparing for printing), I use my second 27" 2650x1440p monitor (Eizo). Ofcourse way more colour accurate, but also easier to actually see what I' m doing (noise/sharpening/etc.).
And then my iMac is really nice to view images.

 

[xraydoc]

Difference between at 1x on a 1440p display and a 2x hiDPI on a high resolution display.
if you compare two monitors, one 2k and one 4k, you will notice that the 4k one is significantly more defined. It's a test that anyone can do.




View attachment 2291756


It is precisely oversampling that offers better images.
On 4k Macs don't simply multiply by 1.5, but first multiply 2x and then scale to the screen resolution. This is an advantage and not a flaw as many say on the web.
Many on the forums complain about 4K and praise 2K, but in reality 4K looks better, more defined and you notice it very easily on the text.


View attachment 2291763

In some cases. Here's the pixel mess that you get with scaled 1 and 2 pixel wide lines with 1, 2 and 3 pixel distances (scaled up for better viewing).

View attachment 2291779

I'd go as far as saying 4K is best for everyone who doesn't already know they require precise 1:1 pixel mapping or who want something less expensive than a 5K+ display.

If you need true 1:1, usually you already know it and have gone with either a standard display or are using true 4:1 mapping on a 5K or 6K display (or 4K @ 1920x1080).