Better Text with 27 inch 4k Monitor?

[chikorita157]

Interesting and informative discussion. I note that neither of the available 5K monitors (LG 27MD5KL-B or Apple Studio Display) has HDR. That may be more important to me than slightly better text.

Also, is there a possibility that the performance of a 4K monitor could be improved in future releases of MacOS?

Doubt it. 4K at 27” and 32” are never optimized for macOS since they lack the proper DPI. 163 DPI and 137 DPI on 27” 4K is around 81 DPI and 68 DPI, which is the DPI found on crappy 27” and 32” 1080p monitors, which look terrible. 4K is only really work with 24” or 21 inch monitors, which 183 DPI will give acceptable results since it’s close to 95 DPI, which the 24” Apple LED Cinema Display used in the past. But macOS works best with 109 or 218 DPI, there is no way around it. macOS only supports integer scaling, which require these DPIs. These monitors will only work best with Windows as it can do non-integer scaling, but it requires the developer to add high DPI support to their apps to scale properly.

While some won’t mind, 4K will never be as good as 5K in macOS and I would never consider a 4K monitor above 24” since I experienced 5K and the benefits behind it. Apple may release a 27” 5K monitor with HDR, miniLED, and possibly high refresh rate, but it will most likely cost more than a Studio Display.

 

[theorist9]

Also, is there a possibility that the performance of a 4K monitor could be improved in future releases of MacOS?

Nah, MacOS has moved in the opposite direction, reducing support for non-Retina monitors with their abandonment of subpixel text rendering after High Sierra. You can get decent (but not great) text sharpness with a 4k 27" if you use 2:1 scaling (1920 x 1080; worth it for the extra text sharpness over 2560 x 1440). [I run a 5k 27" and a 4k 27" side-by-side.] The UI on the 4k is bigger, but I actually prefer the larger UI because it makes it easier to grab scroll bars and other features when I'm working rapidly, and because my apps have small UI's the amount of real estate I lose is minimal.

 

[xraydoc]

Nah, MacOS has moved in the opposite direction, reducing support for non-Retina monitors with their abandonment of subpixel text rendering after High Sierra. You can get decent (but not great) text sharpness with a 4k 27" if you use 2:1 scaling (1920 x 1080; worth it for the extra text sharpness over 2560 x 1440). [I run a 5k 27" and a 4k 27" side-by-side.] The UI on the 4k is bigger, but I actually prefer the larger UI because it makes it easier to grab scroll bars and other features when I'm working rapidly, and because my apps have small UI's the amount of real estate I lose is minimal.

Apple believes 4K should be for 24” displays. LG makes a 24” 4K Ultrafine. 1920x1080 is appropriately sized on it. The PPI is close to Apple’s ideal of 218ppi. It is, however, $600 I think, which is very expensive for a basic 4K display. But then again, Apple’s 5K Studio Display is $1500, so there we are.

However, like I said, I personally think 2560x1440 scaled on a 27” 4K display looks pretty good. Only you can decide if the sharpness of 5K is worth 4x the price.

 

[chikorita157]

Apple believes 4K should be for 24” displays. LG makes a 24” 4K Ultrafine. 1920x1080 is appropriately sized on it. The PPI is close to Apple’s ideal of 218ppi. It is, however, $600 I think, which is very expensive for a basic 4K display. But then again, Apple’s 5K Studio Display is $1500, so there we are.

However, like I said, I personally think 2560x1440 scaled on a 27” 4K display looks pretty good. Only you can decide if the sharpness of 5K is worth 4x the price.

LG 24UD58-B is an alternative to the 24” Ultrafine 4K, which is still being made, but of course, it’s a stripped down version of the Ultrafine 4K as it doesn’t have P3 color and brightness, but it’s way cheaper than the Ultrafine 4K at $279.

I don’t agree that 2K scaled on a 27” 4K looks good, considering that half of 4K on 27” is 2x of a 1080p 27” monitor, which is terrible given the lack of pixel density. 32” at 1080p is even worse.

 

[theorist9]

I don’t agree that 2K scaled on a 27” 4K looks good, considering that half of 4K on 27” is 2x of a 1080p 27” monitor, which is terrible given the lack of pixel density. 32” at 1080p is even worse.

It sounds like you're saying a 2x scaled 27" 4k (=> "looks like 1920 x 1080") doesn't look good because it effectively gives you the same pixel density as a 1920 x 1080 27". If so, that's incorrect. You lose no sharpness by choosing 2x scaling; you simply change the magnification of the UI. I.e., 10-point text displayed at 2x scaling will look identical to 20-point text displayed at 1x scaling.

And the same thing applies when you use Retina displays at 2x scaling (which is the default). This doesn't reduce their pixel denisity to displays that have half the resolution.

 

[chikorita157]

It sounds like you're saying a 2x scaled 27" 4k (=> "looks like 1920 x 1080") doesn't look good because it effectively gives you the same pixel density as a 1920 x 1080 27". If so, that's incorrect. You lose no sharpness by choosing 2x scaling; you simply change the magnification of the UI. I.e., 10-point text displayed at 2x scaling will look identical to 20-point text displayed at 1x scaling.

And the same thing applies when you use Retina displays at 2x scaling (which is the default). This doesn't reduce their pixel denisity to displays that have half the resolution.

I have word it wrong, but I am making a comparison to a 4K 27" and a 1080P 27". While the 4K 27" have a higher DPI and will look better, it will never be as good as a 5K 27" since 4K is never optimized for 27" let along 32" at 4K. For non-retina, 27" in monitors are optimized for 1440p, not 1080P, which is why a 2K looks better on a 27" than a 1080P and it has to do with pixel density.

The same holds true with 5K vs 4K at 27". 163 DPI is not optimal for 27" for the same reason 1080P looks bad. Granted, 4K at 27" will look better than a 1080P, but it will look too big at 1080P at 2x scaling, which doesn't give a good experience on macOS since it prefers 109 DPI or 218 DPI. 91 DPI is really the bare minimum. 4K at 27" only provides 163 DPI, which non-retina is 81.5, which is not optimal since it falls below 91 DPI. macOS only does integer scaling, so that is the reason why 2K scaling at 4K won't look as good compared to 2K at 5K. At 32 inches, it's even worse and you don't have access to the scaling options since the DPI is too low (139.87 DPI, which half of that is 69.93 DPI). Not to mention, 2K scaling on 4K introduces bunch of issues that you won't see on a 5K display.

4K at 27" and 32" are only really optimized for Windows and Linux since they don't use integer scaling, which is why it looks better on those operating systems. However, this requires the developer to add support for High DPI, which for Win32 apps, it can be a hit-and-miss most of the time.

Hope that clears up the explanation. 4K above 24" is just a compromised experience and it will never be as good as 5K/6K. It's a sad reality as there is a lack of 5K options besides two, but there is always the hope for more with growing popularity of Macs thanks to Apple Silicon. Also, I wonder if 8K might be a solution to the lack of Retina display options.

 

[xraydoc]

I don’t agree that 2K scaled on a 27” 4K looks good, considering that half of 4K on 27” is 2x of a 1080p 27” monitor, which is terrible given the lack of pixel density. 32” at 1080p is even worse.

This is why Apple makes the 5K Studio Display. One man’s slight loss of detail is another man’s unacceptable loss of detail.

 

[kasakka]

I have word it wrong, but I am making a comparison to a 4K 27" and a 1080P 27". While the 4K 27" have a higher DPI and will look better, it will never be as good as a 5K 27" since 4K is never optimized for 27" let along 32" at 4K. For non-retina, 27" in monitors are optimized for 1440p, not 1080P, which is why a 2K looks better on a 27" than a 1080P and it has to do with pixel density.

The same holds true with 5K vs 4K at 27". 163 DPI is not optimal for 27" for the same reason 1080P looks bad. Granted, 4K at 27" will look better than a 1080P, but it will look too big at 1080P at 2x scaling, which doesn't give a good experience on macOS since it prefers 109 DPI or 218 DPI. 91 DPI is really the bare minimum. 4K at 27" only provides 163 DPI, which non-retina is 81.5, which is not optimal since it falls below 91 DPI. macOS only does integer scaling, so that is the reason why 2K scaling at 4K won't look as good compared to 2K at 5K. At 32 inches, it's even worse and you don't have access to the scaling options since the DPI is too low (139.87 DPI, which half of that is 69.93 DPI). Not to mention, 2K scaling on 4K introduces bunch of issues that you won't see on a 5K display.

4K at 27" and 32" are only really optimized for Windows and Linux since they don't use integer scaling, which is why it looks better on those operating systems. However, this requires the developer to add support for High DPI, which for Win32 apps, it can be a hit-and-miss most of the time.

Hope that clears up the explanation. 4K above 24" is just a compromised experience and it will never be as good as 5K/6K. It's a sad reality as there is a lack of 5K options besides two, but there is always the hope for more with growing popularity of Macs thanks to Apple Silicon. Also, I wonder if 8K might be a solution to the lack of Retina display options.

It does not need to be "optimized", we are talking about simple integer scaling. And please don't say 2K, that means 1080p or specifically 2048 × 1080 digital cinema standard which is not used by any desktop monitor. The term you want is 1440p aka 2560x1440.

Here's a table for some scaled resolutions.

Native resolution	Scale factor	"Looks like" resolution	Integer scalable?
6016x3384 (Apple XDR)	2	3008x1692	Y
5120x2880 (Apple Studio)	2	2560x1440	Y
3840x2160 (4K)	2	1920x1080	Y
6016x3384	1.5	4011x2256	N
5120x2880	1.5	3414x1920	N
3840x2160	1.5	2560x1440	N
6016x3384	1.2	5014x2820	N
5120x2880	1.2	4267x2400	N
3840x2160	1.2	3200x1800	N

So you can see here that the higher the res, the more desktop space 2x scale factor will give you, with perfect scaling. You have to go all the way up to 8K to have integer scaling being viable at 5K, 4K, 1440p and 1080p "looks like" resolutions.

On a typical 4K 27-32" screen you will most likely use a scale factor of 1.5 or 1.2 as that results in an appropriate desktop size where it doesn't feel cramped. With these non-integer scalable options this will result in some lost fidelity as it doesn't align 1:1 with the display pixels but for most users this is an acceptable compromise to have the size of UI and desktop space they prefer. For every HiDPI resolution, MacOS will double the target resolution and then downscales it to native resolution so you still reap the gains of higher fidelity compared to running at "low res" version of the same resolution without scaling.

Windows instead forces text rendering to a pixel grid, which helps it handle text at non-integer scaling levels a bit more gracefully at the expense of how good fonts look on it. Otherwise it's afaik not that different from how scaling in MacOS functions.

Remember that how "retina" the screen looks is also related to viewing distance. I used a whopping 48" 4K OLED TV with MacOS for two years. But it was at 1m viewing distance and 1.2 scale factor and to me it looked fine. Obviously it's nowhere near as sharp as a smaller 4K+ screen but it was more than acceptable while still being visually sharper than say a 1440p screen at its native resolution.

With 5K and above your options are so limited, Apple displays only support 60 Hz and even then have poor pixels response times. The Apple Studio Display looks great when the image is not moving, but I'd rather have a 4K 120+ Hz screen at this point as it feels more responsive and looks clearer in motion. For me non-integer scaling has never been much of an issue, even when I used a LG 5K 27" at work I would use the 1.5 scale factor setting because it gave me better desktop area.

For MacOS, I say just get a 4K+ res display at a size you prefer and you will be fine. I do wish we could get more options between 5-8K. Especially someone else making a 32" 6K screen at a more reasonable cost would be welcome.

 

[CubeApril]

I've found that defaults -currentHost write -g AppleFontSmoothing -int 1 ends up with slightly less awful text on a 4K screen, but YMMV.

 

[xraydoc]

I've found that defaults -currentHost write -g AppleFontSmoothing -int 1 ends up with slightly less awful text on a 4K screen, but YMMV.

I have no association with the following app, but it allows (amongst other things) you to make some changes to macOS's font smoothing. But as noted above, YMMV.

TinkerTool: Description

Product description for the latest generation of TinkerTool

www.bresink.com

 

[Colstan]

Apple believes 4K should be for 24” displays. LG makes a 24” 4K Ultrafine.

Actually, 21.5-inch with the 22MD4KA UltraFine is appropriate for 4K at ~218ppi. I managed to get a brand new one off of Ebay last Summer for half the original MSRP, despite being canceled back in 2019. It's the same panel that was used in the iMac of the same size.

The 24-inch LG UltraFine, that is sold on Apple's website, is ~183ppi, and therefore still requires some amount of scaling to view screen elements at proper proportions. Why LG canceled the original in favor of this inferior model, I'm not certain.

Apple considers 4.5K to be appropriate for 24-inch, as evidenced by the M1 iMac. Here is the PPI comparison (from the bjango article) of the current 24-inch UltraFine to the 24-inch iMac with a 4.5K screen:

Despite having a better density than a bog standard 27-inch 4K, the LG is still in "the bad zone" according to bjango.

This is why Apple makes the 5K Studio Display. One man’s slight loss of detail is another man’s unacceptable loss of detail.

Exactly this. The reason I gambled on Ebay for the 21.5 instead of just getting the 24 off of Apple's website is because I don't consider anything less than ~218ppi to be acceptable. It's entirely dependent upon the user. I'm babying my 21.5-inch 4K because affordable "Retina" ~218ppi monitors are currently rare to non-existent.

 

[CubeApril]

The one big downside of these LG screens (both the 22" and the 24") is that they absolutely guzzle power. The 22" consumes 120W, and the 24" consumes 140W.

While not the end of the world, this compares to 30W for the Apple Studio Display, and 40W for the LG 24UD58. I would love for them to release an updated 22MD4KA with a more power efficient backlight.

(unless the documents I've read about the displays are wrong in some way)

 

[chikorita157]

The one big downside of these LG screens (both the 22" and the 24") is that they absolutely guzzle power. The 22" consumes 120W, and the 24" consumes 140W.

While not the end of the world, this compares to 30W for the Apple Studio Display, and 40W for the LG 24UD58. I would love for them to release an updated 22MD4KA with a more power efficient backlight.

(unless the documents I've read about the displays are wrong in some way)

I have a 27" Ultrafine 5K on my Mac Studio setup and haven't experience a large increase of power usage, probably around 40-50W. Then again, I don't run my displays at full brightness.

The one big downside of these LG screens (both the 22" and the 24") is that they absolutely guzzle power. The 22" consumes 120W, and the 24" consumes 140W.

While not the end of the world, this compares to 30W for the Apple Studio Display, and 40W for the LG 24UD58. I would love for them to release an updated 22MD4KA with a more power efficient backlight.

(unless the documents I've read about the displays are wrong in some way)

My guess is that LG find it cheaper to produce 23.8" 4K displays since other manufacturers are probably using 24" 4K panels. Still, there is always the hope that LG make an updated Ultrafine, but use the 24" 4.5K panel from the 24" iMac. Of course, that is wishful thinking, but it would beat the current one.

 

[kvic]

The one big downside of these LG screens (both the 22" and the 24") is that they absolutely guzzle power. The 22" consumes 120W, and the 24" consumes 140W.

While not the end of the world, this compares to 30W for the Apple Studio Display, and 40W for the LG 24UD58. I would love for them to release an updated 22MD4KA with a more power efficient backlight.

(unless the documents I've read about the displays are wrong in some way)

I didn't check to what 'standards' these displays were tested. I'm quite sure to say they were tested in different standards and hence the power consumption numbers are not directly comparable. I very much prefer the old practice that vendors simply document the maximum power consumption at brightest backlight setting. Then I do my own interpolation for my typical use case.

I looked at power consumptions for displays before. Realized there was a technological breakthrough in LEDs around 2011/2012. Best displays after that period consumed less power than their counterparts right before the break.

My brightness settings usually <50%. I know lots of people at >50%. For end users, perhaps a kill-a-watt is the best way to convince yourself you're wasting or not too much power with your old monitors.