Gd forbid companies actually sold monitors these days without webcam, speakers and microphones
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
LG Unveils UltraFine 6K Display With Thunderbolt 5 Support
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Gd forbid companies actually sold monitors these days without webcam, speakers and microphones
What did Steve about that?
But to answer your question sure there are. Heck Microsoft came up with a better iMac design(also 3:2 aspect ratio is amazing being only 1" bigger but the aspect ratio gives you massive amount of extra space and blew me away and I say this as a iMac owner). Apple should just steal the design and allow you to dock a Mac Mini at the bottom.
I use 3 displays at my desk, I do not need a mic, camera, and speakers in all of them. One reason I havent picked up the dell equivalent to this is the massive, permanent, non-removable camera baked in
I dont think you understand the scaling problem. Apple does integer scaling. That’s a pain on UHD displays of this size because to get the best looking graphics without things looking tiny running at no scaling you need to run it at “looks like” 1920x1080, which makes everything look comically massive on a 32” screen, on a 6k display the equivalent “looks like” resolution is 3072x1728, which is totally fine
No. You don’t understand high PPI or device pixel ratios standardized with how they work and are defined even on browsers to wrongly asset 5K only makes sense with Apple’s handling of scaling .
5K is the minimum for a 27-inch panel to without doubt be pixel-dense enough to be a high PPi device.
You need 6K minimum for 32-inch.
And that’s that.
Some can settle with less and happily have. That’s fine
It's worth noting that all the Apple shills here can't even see anything on these desktop 218 PPI screens, as objects are too small 💀
Apple came up with this PPI number for their laptop screens and proclaimed it to be The One and Only, but they forgot to consider that desktops are meant to be viewed from farther away. Now all Mac desktop users suffer*, though only a few are bold enough to say the quiet part out loud.
* unless they buy 4K 27" displays, of course.
Amen to this
It's why that just announced Acer 32" 5k high refresh rate monitor is so juicy!
1440p at 32" (with retina density via 5k panel) is a much more pleasant to use combo
I honestly don't even use Apple chosen densities on their laptops either
My eyes were most happy in 2003 on a 17" 1440x900 PowerBook G4
(for the size of things on screen -- obviously a retina version of that would be better)
Both of you are severely uneducated on this topic. I don't think you even understand what "resolution" is at all.
The problem with PPI has to do with MacOS interaface design and scaling, and especially font scaling.
There are many resources on this topic, but here, you can check this one out: https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/
It feels like a flat earth society convention in here 😂
Imagine having to explain to them that iOS scales with a factor of 3 because the Pixels Per Inch (PPI) of those phone displays are 460.
Anyway I want to say that even higher PPI is preferably like 8K on an 31.5-inch display (279 PPI) which makes 4K HiDPI look awesome. This is my daily driver and nothing is too small (for me).
If Apple enabled the iOS scaling factor of 3 on macOS you could run the 8K display at 2560x1440 pixels as well.
Imagine having to explain to them that iOS scales with a factor of 3 because the Pixels Per Inch (PPI) of those phone displays are 460.
Anyway I want to say that even higher PPI is preferably like 8K on an 31.5-inch display (279 PPI) which makes 4K HiDPI look awesome. This is my daily driver and nothing is too small (for me).
If Apple enabled the iOS scaling factor of 3 on macOS you could run the 8K display at 2560x1440 pixels as well.
What consitutes "high PPI" depends entirely on viewing distance (and apparently a made up thresold). Do you really think people use the 21.5" iMac 4k (219 ppi) at the same distance as the 32" 6k (218 ppi)? Unlikely, I'd suspect.
If the former is "retina" at a closer distance, it can lose PPI and maintain the same angular resolution to your eyes at a greater distance. But then you lose integer-multiple scaling which macOS does not like very much.
I think they want to make 8k the next display standard (it will be for video at least, eventually) but the cost is massive and the benefit is slim, so 5k or 6k will be the high end for now. The percieved pixel density increases linearly while the number of pixels (to produce and feed with data) increases exponentially.
FYI all of the "bad zone" PPI monitor sizes/resolutions in that chart look and work great with MacOS, even for the overwhelming majority of design/creative work.
The fact that viewing distance isn’t included in that table makes it a pretty poor analysis.
I'm actually wildly over educated on this topic from being "in it" for decades now 😂
Maybe you're just not understanding what we mean
Things look at best with macOS with no scaling (perfect 2x retina) so the resolution of the panel in question determines what will look "best".
Apple has decided that 2560x1440 is the "proper" size default for macOS at 27" (Studio Display and iMac 5k, etc) and that 6016x3384 is at 32" (Pro XDR), which necessitates a 6k panel to get the correct 2x ppi
What some of us are saying is that, for our preferences, we prefer something like 2560x1440, but at a 32" physical screen size ... which to get the "correct/best" 2x scaling for retina needs a native 5k panel (5120 × 2880), which hasn't been a "thing" yet ... until the recently announced Acer
Does that make more sense?
I have no idea why you got a "laughing" reaction - you're spot on
Viewing distance is an absolutely critical metric that determines everything else in the equation for what is perceived as "retina"
The thing to realize is that monitors can be "retina-enough" on the PPI front and it can be essentially imperceptible to many us beyond a certain point
An example I have in front of me is the LG Ultrafine 4k 24" ... that used to be a 21" monitor offering with higher PPI (as shown on chart above) but it got bumped to a 23.5" monitor -- I presume for business reasons.
I've owned both and actually had them side by side for a while -- and there was absolutely no meaningful difference to me at all (literally looked identical in terms of on screen quality) -- I ended up only keeping the 24" because I like things to be a little larger while maintaining a reasonably high quality PPI
A side topic that's funny here is that Apple has had they've sold where they were shipping with scaled resolutions out of the box! Marco Arment used to talk about this on ATP
Even Apple have broken the "rules" about Retina (their own marketing concoction)
An example I have in front of me is the LG Ultrafine 4k 24" ... that used to be a 21" monitor offering with higher PPI (as shown on chart above) but it got bumped to a 23.5" monitor -- I presume for business reasons.
I've owned both and actually had them side by side for a while -- and there was absolutely no meaningful difference to me at all (literally looked identical in terms of on screen quality) -- I ended up only keeping the 24" because I like things to be a little larger while maintaining a reasonably high quality PPI
A side topic that's funny here is that Apple has had they've sold where they were shipping with scaled resolutions out of the box! Marco Arment used to talk about this on ATP
Even Apple have broken the "rules" about Retina (their own marketing concoction)
This, of course, has nothing to do with reality.
200% scale is «Retina». 175% or 225% is not, because of how badly scaling is implemented in macOS; it would look just fine in more advanced operating systems. Which is a problem, because you're severely limited in choosing the display for a Mac.
So you get Apple displays if you have an eyesight of an eagle, or if you can mash this display directly into your face. You get 4K 27" if you're a normal person, or you get 4K 32" if you're slightly impaired in vision.
That's it; all other information on this subject is fake and incorrect.
This is incorrect. Apple itself uses non-integer scaling by default for some of its Retina displays.
I believe it is 178% for the MacBook Air.
Passable not great. There’s a huge difference.
Also note what’s outlined is a not coincidental means software such as browsers and movie apps decide if a display is good enough to render high PPI content
…Plainly speaking, viewing distance enables millions of humans to get away with less than ideal resolution for TVs that panels for stuff like monitors and phones cannot.
The ergonomic optimal distances for monitors and phones need higher resolutions than TVs to enable ideal sharpness that again has standardized criteria to be considered high pixel density towards 4K not being enough for a monitor with a panel
larger than 24 inches.
OSes/software intended for mobile devices and desktop computers behave in the matter I described to output high PPI content or not.
This is indisputable and has been the case for well over a decade.
Again: A panel needs a DPR of 2 and above and a PPI of around ~218 at minimum to be considered a pixel-dense screen.
8K is what TV manufacturers are pushing as the concerted effort for them to sell newer TVs.
It’s common knowledge by UXers, engineers, and Human-Computer-Interaction (HCI) computer science experts that resolution is overrated in representing sharpness of a screen.
Rhetoric text such as “4K” is easier and cheaper to consistently market than pixels-per-inch (PPI), device pixel ratio (DPR), pixels per degree (PPD)—you know the things software actually use and care about the most to decide whether or not a screen can be considered a pixel-dense-screen.
5K for 27” and 6K for 32” is the minimum for large panels to catch up to where mobile devices have been for over a decade.
4K resolution beyond 24 inches is ill-equipped to provide high pixel density—it’s the McDonalds of resolution targets to shoot for on a large display.
It’s definitely convenient and prevalent—doesn’t mean it’s good for you!
8K, 16K, and higher is obviously more ideal—as well as necessary for large displays to catch up to the pixel density prevalent on mobile devices today—but you’re right the costs can be prohibitive for manufacturers and some end users to justify
Did they announce a date? Not until Fall?
Bummer :-(
Sorry if I missed that - I'm personally in love with my 65" OLED as my monitor (from 6-8' away) and likely never going back to primary use of much smaller displays. My eyes love this setup
Sure, if you are running it at native panel resolution (1x). But the correct option is to run them at half that resolution (2x) so everything is twice as large and easy to see while still being exceptionally sharp in rendering.
Last edited: