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's New 32-Inch 4K OLED UltraFine Display for Mac Now Available to Order
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
4k=3,840 x 2,160=8,294,400 pixels
5k=5120 x 2880=14,745,600 pixels
your tv can only display 8.3 million pixels out of those 14.7
so you are really looking at 8.3 million pixels on a 2560x1440 resolution in retina mode, which is better than 3,686,400 pixels (2560x1440 non retina), but definitely not 5k.
With that said it still looks good, but non 1:1 or 2:1 scaling does affect performance and sharpness.
Native (1:1) is always better, but might be too small to read comfortably, and 2:1 scaling is too big.
This is a little confusing.
Connected to my 4K LG monitor (not a TV), I get this report:
SwitchResX reports my current res as HiDPI:
...but 2560 x 1440 is not 2:1 from the native 3840 x 2160. That would be 1920 x 1080.
I certainly can't tell any performance difference or difference in sharpness (between HiDPI scales) between any particular screen res or scaling.
“looks like 2560x1440” mode works by rendering the screen at 5k internally and then down-sampling that to the actual screen resolution (3840x2160 in this case). As far as your software is concerned, it is writing to a 5k display. That’s why it gets reported as 5k by some tools. If you take a screen shot, you’ll get a 5120x2880 image.
What is actually on your screen is a 3840x2160 image. Your screen can’t display 5k of detail - but it can do a lot better than 2560x1440. scaling down from 5k gives you considerably more detail than you‘d get by scaling up from 2560x1440.
Unless you’re using outdated software that hasn’t been updated for retina displays the only way “2560x1440” really comes in to it is that menus, icons window furniture etc. will be the same physical size (relative to the screen size) as on an old-school 2560x1440 monitor - but they can contain significantly more detail.
You underestimate the effect - doubling the distance doubles the angular "pixels per radian" resolutions, which is the key number. I.e. you need to increase the viewing distance in proportion to the increase in screen size. We're not talking about moving the display to the next county here.
Apple defined "retina" as 300 PPI at 12" viewing distance (...specifying both PPI and distance makes it an angular resolution) as the point at which most people can't see individual pixels.
There's a useful tool here - https://www.designcompaniesranked.com/resources/is-this-retina/ - that tells you the required viewing distance to make a particular resolution and screen size meet this definition of "retina". This give us:
3840x2160 x 27 inches diagona (163 PPI)l: becomes retina at or over 21 inches viewing distance
3840x2160 x 32 inches diagonal (137 PPI): becomes retina at or over 25 inches viewing distance
3840x2160 x 48 inches diagonal (91 PPI): becomes retina at or over 37 inches viewing distance
25" would fit on my desk, and 37" would easily be done by mounting the display on the wall behind, or a VESA mount clamped to the back edge of the desk (which wouldn't be a bad idea for a large display anyhow).
...and that's by Apple's overkill definition of retina, based on high-contrast text and line art, which is suspiciously similar to the 300 DPI "standard" for print-quality DTP (which Apple's laserwriter played a major role in establishing, and also established that people working in the print industry didn't understand the difference between dots per inch, lines per inch and pixels per inch).
I think people were mainly laughing at (a) the stand and (b) the comparison with the $20,000 Sony reference monitor with pixel-accurate dimming. There was (still is AFAIK) nothing cheaper that gives 6K resolution - but after 2 years maybe time for that tech to start to drop in price.
What more reasonable people were complaining about was the lack of a more affordable 5k option from Apple (the 5k LG Ultrafine did the job but didn't look the part).
But you wouldn’t “double the distance” compared to other desktop screens.
OK, here’s a dumb question: what the heck is the point of buying a big screen, then giving it the same resolution as a smaller screen (that costs a tenth as much), then placing it further away so you don’t notice the low resolution?
A 4k display shows the same amount of detail whether it is 24", 27", 28" or 48" - 3840x2160 pixels of information is 3840x2160 pixels of information. There may be differences in colour rendering, dynamic range, different sub-pixel arrangements etc. but PPI tells you nothing about that. Nor does paying a huge premium for OLED get you better PPI than a cheap LCD. I've already shown in another post how the sort of differences in PPI we're talking about can be negated by fairly modest changes in viewing distance.
Except many people who are "serious about image quality" are doing professional video production, and a high-end TV (viewed from a reasonable distance) is the best setup that you can expect your target audience to experience & what you should really be testing against.
When it comes to professional colour grading against industry standards, to meet contractual requirements, what matters is whether the industry accepts this type of device as a reference (fairly or otherwise), not what LG claims in its' blurb. Apple made similar claims about the XDR display vs. $$,$$$ reference monitors which didn't really hold water.
Nor would you "halve the PPI". Read the rest of the post.
We were talking about a smaller screen that costs four times as much vs. a big screen with the same resolution. Higher PPI always tends to be more expensive. Not vice-versa.
Lots of other reasons why people might prefer working in a screen from a yard or so away rather than spending all day straining your eyes focussing at arm's length, esp. if they are producing video that isn't meant to be watched with your nose pressed to the screen...
Apple clearly thinks ~220ppi is the correct ppi for any desktop display. This doesn’t come close.
First, I don’t really care. If increasing the ppi would further increase the price tag of this mediocre screen, that’s not my problem to solve.
Second, Apple’s display is pricey for several reasons, including that Apple likes to make pricey products. But also, that its illumination far exceeds what this one can provide. 250 nits? For $2k?
If they are producing video, one would hope they value color accuracy, which raises the question why they would want an OLED display at… bahahaha 250 nits 😆
Wow! This really is quite embarrassing. Ever since Apple paired up with LG (inexplicably) to produce their last hideous and pedestrian piece of junk, they now feel comfortable touting this at the price in 2021?! This is a seriously hard pass. I cannot imagine who would by this, and why.
OK, I think you're talking specifically about the LG 32" OLED 4k vs. the Apple XDR and I'm talking about expensive 27-32" monitors vs. cheaper large-screen TVs. Happens in conversations with multiple threads...
Yes, Apple have always had a tendency to keep the PPI fixed and make the screen area bigger (At one point, when DTP was the Mac's Unique Selling Point, all Apple screens used to be 1 pixel = 1 point and there was no choice of resolution or scaling, a bigger screen git a bigger sheet of paper). That's not the only valid way to do it, though, esp. when you're working with video or something that isn't going to end up on a sheet of paper of known size.
With ppi, I’m talking about any of Apple’s internal or external displays — so, chiefly, iMacs and the Pro Display XDR.
There was an effort ca. 10.4 Tiger to make the UI more resolution-independent, but it created all kinds of edge cases, and Apple ultimately just went with integer scaling only.
Windows has fractional scaling, but it still after many years breaks (including some of MS’s own apps).
So Apple’s experience is more pure, and Microsoft’s more flexible.
Regardless, I don’t know why you would think this is a good resolution. You’re buying a very pricey display with a low pixel density and low brightness; the only redeeming factor is its high contrast. At that point, a TV might indeed be a much better choice.
Glad you agree it’s misleading
“UltraFine Display for Mac Now Available”
Hope they are not marketing it as such!