Simple workaround:
- Print out picture of Apple Cinema Display
- Cut out stand
- Tape it below the screen so it hangs down
View attachment 681459
Nice, in few minutes you got 34likes, imagine if Jon Ive spends 2 months what would happen.
Simple workaround:
- Print out picture of Apple Cinema Display
- Cut out stand
- Tape it below the screen so it hangs down
View attachment 681459
Cheers for that, have not researched the LG to realise the bandwidth was saturated . This is one reason I'm not a fan of 5K , i would prefer daisychaining.
Other laptops, maybe, though I would not touch a 5K display or a 4K display right now, as I use my monitors for a variety of purposes, and one of them is gaming. 1440p all the way. I have a 4K display and 1440p display side by side, both powered by a Titan x pascal, 60 HZ is so inferior. In a few years I'll jump to 4K or 5K monitors when driving them becomes trivial and they break 100 HZ. I love the pictures on my 4K but geez it feels clunky compared to my 144hz 1440.
Yet again this is personal preference.
So what is Mr Ive up to these days ?
Not doing much design work by the look of it
1440p or 5K is the correct resolution for a 27" and Mac OS.
4K displays need to be 24" or smaller.
Curious, are there any 4K 120 Hz displays? Any with 10 bits/color? Theoretically, a TB 3 connection could drive such a display at 30 Gb/sec over a single cable with the excess bandwidth supporting two USB C 3.0 ports.
I think it will be a long time for 5K 10 bits/color at 120 Hz. AFAIK, there is no TB 4 being developed right now, so that would require two TB 3 outputs and cables. Have a feeling that may be an outlier situation and not happen.
Though I don't need one, nor do I have a computer that could drive it, I am curious about the LG 5K display picture quality. My 5K iMac with P3 gamut produces a stunning image. And that's with just 8 bits/color. The LG 5K with P3 gamut and at 10 bits/color must look amazing.
Ok -- it took me half an hour to find the link that I wanted to share but I now have it. (I'll save it this time!)
What I meant is simply that Mac OS is designed to look best at about 100-110 pixels-per-inch or at twice that much 200-220 ppi, in 'retina' mode, with perfect pixel doubling. This translates to an 'ideal' resolution of either 1080p (or 4K for retina) for a monitor in the 22" range or else a resolution of 1440p (or 5K for retina). This is the "correct" mode of displaying MacOS, but of course, as you say, one could just sit closer or further from the display. That's a different topic, Apple designs based on what it understands to be typical usage.
As you can see from this chart, a 4K 27" monitor is "wrong", because OS elements appear too small if used natively as 4K, and too large if used as "retina" 1080p (which is what the OS defaults to, by the way). Many people will go into the settings and run a 27" 4K monitor scaled to 1440p because, as most people would tell you, that just "looks" like the right size for Mac OS on a panel that size. But if you do that you are wasting money: you should have just bought a 1440p monitor instead of a 4K.
This is also why Apple never released an iMac 27" 4K, but waited until they could release a 5K 27" iMac, and a 4K 21.5" iMac. Ditto for the LG UltraFine. You will never see Apple officially endorsing a 4K 27" panel because its OS just looks bad on it.
This link is very helpful, and it contains this great chart, which I think every one shopping for an external display should take note of, and that MacRumors staff should understand before they claim that higher resolution is always better.
I have become convinced that this is an industry problem: they find it easy to manufacture 27" 4K panels right now, so this is what they are pushing. But for Mac users, 22" 4K or 27" 5K are more appropriate.
I personally don't have very strong eyesight (almost wrote iSight there), so maybe I would be content with a 24" 4K and things looking a bit big. But I had a 27" 4K and had to send it back, the OS elements were so big as to be goofy.
![]()
1440p or 5K is the correct resolution for a 27" and Mac OS.
4K displays need to be 24" or smaller.
Just waiting for the article that reads "LG and Dell to Showcase Mac Pro Clones with Licensed macOS at CES this week."
Seriously, if Apple has really decided to stop catering to pros, they should let LG and Dell do it.
You certainly have no taste in design if you find that Display gorgeous![]()
24" with something like 200% scaling?
You must have amazing eyesight![]()
That's not exactly it. Previously 21 - 24" meant 1920x1080 or 1920x1200. 4K applies pixel doubling to that.
NopeDoes that mean the image will be distorted - circles showing as ovals ?
I'll count that as big +
The problem is no one else is doing anything either, except the 'make the watch suck less' team and and 'make everything thin' team.
. Think of the foot as a Mac Mini, voila. Could even make the neck as a liquid cooled headsink with big, silent fans and chill the base via connected heatpipes.
Aware of that . Though I cannot image going back to a 24" monitor cause the resolution has doubled. You would need to scale the heck out of it to make use usable .
For $700 and in 2017, it is sub-par. It has a resolution on par with the 12" MacBook
Seriously? It isn't 5K, and the color gamut is sRGB.
The dell looks ok but why not 5k...?