Opinion: Apple should offer consumer-priced Retina external monitors.

[theorist9]

I have no interest joining the sub pixel font rendering discussion...'cos it's such old tech, so well understood by many, not much of use in HiDPI displays. We shall just move on from here The digression on sub pixel font rendering is almost derailing this otherwise nice thread. @theorist9 I think you just need to sit down and think it through.

So don't join that portion of it. Confine yourself to discussing the main topic.

I believe you're the one not thinking it through: After all, if I'm going to start a thread saying Apple needs to offer Retina external monitors, I need to give a reason why the ubiquitous 4k 27" monitors aren't good enough (the loss of subpixel text rendering). So that's what I did. And that was all I intended to say about it. The one who decided to challenge me about it is motrek; nothing wrong with that, but if you really don't like the side-discussion why didn't you also direct your post towards him?

 

[motrek]

for points of comparison, this is what "looks like 2560x1440" on a 4K display looks like:

This is what it will looks like on either a 5K monitor or when you run your 4K monitor with "looks like 1920x1080":

For me, it's not just the fonts being blurry, the distortion on the line edges is unacceptable as well. It's like looking at the UX through a Zoom screencast. It's not how the OS designers, the app designers, or the web designers expected things to look like and appreciation of those details is big part of the reason why people use Macs.

Where are you getting those images from?

I run my 4K display at "looks like 1440p." I just took a bunch of macro photographs of text being displayed on my monitor and none of it has any of the distortion/aliasing that's in your "scaled" image.

Your "scaled" image has the same sort of aliasing you would get if you ran it through a sharpening filter. I think somebody has tricked you.

 

[motrek]

So don't join that portion of it. Confine yourself to discussing the main topic.

I believe you're the one not thinking it through: After all, if I'm going to start a thread saying Apple needs to offer Retina external monitors, I need to give a reason why the ubiquitous 4k 27" monitors aren't good enough (the loss of subpixel text rendering). ...

I mean, they are good enough, for certain definitions of "good enough."

Having higher resolution is better regardless of what method is being used to antialias text.

 

[edanuff]

Where are you getting those images from?

I run my 4K display at "looks like 1440p." I just took a bunch of macro photographs of text being displayed on my monitor and none of it has any of the distortion/aliasing that's in your "scaled" image.

Your "scaled" image has the same sort of aliasing you would get if you ran it through a sharpening filter. I think somebody has tricked you.

yes, I edited the post with a bilinear scale from photoshop and indicated as such. The edges are still going to be blurred although not with the same edge artifact. There’s no getting around that the Mac OS is pushing every pixel of the entire 5K frame buffer through a rescale function with “looks like 1440p”. Fonts, lines, everything gets resampled. IMHO, a 27" 4K display should be run at "looks like 1080" and just live with the larger UX, at least you won't get this second layer of scaling distortion added.

 

[tornado99]

I'm guessing at that price it's a cheap TN panel. For reasonable text quality you want an IPS panel, and I've not seen those for under $400. Still, I think Apple could sell a 4.5k 24" Retina for $700 and have a generous profit margin.

Nope its a 10 bit IPS panel in a cheap plastic casing. The cost of manufacturing a high quality 4K display is a lot less than you might imagine.

 

[Prototypical]

Not. Gonna. Happen.
(reason why: not enough $$$ in it for Apple...)

True, and Apple has an army of online evangelists who happily believe and proselytize that Apple’s own overpriced displays are the only solution for Mac users.

Apple doesn’t need to cater to the masses if they can convince the devoted to spend $1800-6000 on a single display.

 

[motrek]

yes, I edited the post with a bilinear scale from photoshop and indicated as such. The edges are still going to be blurred although not with the same edge artifact. There’s no getting around that the Mac OS is pushing every pixel of the entire 5K frame buffer through a rescale function with “looks like 1440p”. Fonts, lines, everything gets resampled. IMHO, a 27" 4K display should be run at "looks like 1080" and just live with the larger UX, at least you won't get this second layer of scaling distortion added.

I don't know what went wrong with Photoshop but it's clearly doing some sharpening in addition to scaling. I just took a similar screen shot on my computer and scaled it down to 75% in Affinity Photo (also using bilinear sampling) and it looks fine. It's obviously lower resolution but it doesn't have any of the sharpening artifacts that were in your image.

Edit: It occurs to me that the distortion in your image also looks a bit like JPEG compression artifacts. Is it possible that you resized the image and then saved it as a JPEG?

 

[theorist9]

Nope its a 10 bit IPS panel in a cheap plastic casing. The cost of manufacturing a high quality 4K display is a lot less than you might imagine.

Surprised to hear it's 10 bit. Are you sure? Even the ASD isn't 10 bit. Among Apple's externals, only the Pro Display XDR is 10-bit (don't know about their laptops).

And may I ask how you know it's IPS and 10 bit? I searched through both the link you posted, as well as the linked PDF spec sheet, and nowhere do they mention either. Those would be big advertising pluses, so if and when a monitor has those features the sellers nearly always mention them-prominently! It's with the TN monitors that they're mum about the type of panel. Honestly, if this were a true 10 bit IPS 4k display, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops, so color me skeptical.

 

[mikey_photo]

A common configuration for consumer buyers of Mac laptops is to pair them with a large external monitor for home use. Through High Sierra, a consumer could get beautifully sharp text by spending ~$500 for a 4k 27" display (163 ppi). Beginning with Mojave, however, Apple eliminated something called subpixel text rendering*. Effectively, this means that getting optimally sharp text with MacOS now requires a Retina monitor. Some also dislike non-Retina screens because of the UI size.

The problem is that Apple doesn't offer a single consumer-priced Retina external display, i.e. something priced for the type of buyer who spends ~ $1000- $2000 for a laptop (which is probably the largest segment of Apple's Mac market). Thus any consumer who buys a Mac laptop and wants to able to use it with an external monitor and have an optimal MacOS experience, can't, unless they move up to prosumer pricing (the $1,600+ Studio Display).

In sum, given that Apple has changed MacOS to effectively require Retina displays for optimum performance, they should offer some Retina externals for their largest market, which is consumer-class buyers.

This would also help them attract Windows switchers: Right now a big plus of Windows is that a 27" that looks great with text is within much easier reach than it is with MacOS—$500 for a 27" 4k does it with Windows, while with MacOS you need a $1600 27" 5k. Those willing to switch of course would accept paying more for Apple products, but not >3x as much to get about the same effective text sharpness. [Windows still has subpixel text rendering, and also has vectorized scaling, which allows UI size to be adjusted to non-integer ratios without losing sharpness like MacOS does.]

So what should be the pricing of these displays? Honestly, I'm not exactly sure. But as a first effort:

The 2020 27" iMac's base price was $1800, so if half of that was for the display and half for the computer, I'd say $900 for the 27". Then, proportionally by area, we have:

24" = $700 (consistently, this is also half the $1300 starting price of the 24" iMac, rounded up to the nearest $100)
27" = $900
32" = $1,300

And make the stock stand height-adjustable.

I've included the 32" for higher-end consumers who need a larger screen and can't afford, and don't need, a $5,000+ Pro Display XDR. And display analyst Ross Young observed the market is moving towards larger (above 27") displays.

*Beginning with Mojave, Apple eliminated subpixel text rendering from MacOS. Subpixel rendering significantly increases the effective pixel density in the horizontal direction by using the vertical R/G/B subpixels to more finely render text. With subpixel rendering, MacOS could look really crisp with a $500 27" 4k monitor (163 ppi). By eliminating this with Mojave, Apple effectively changed MacOS to require a Retina monitor for optimum viewing. There are probably a couple of reasons Apple eliminated it: (1) It requires knowledge of the display's pixel substructure; and (2) With the way MacOS does scaling, it creates artifacts with anything other than integer scaling. Having said that, it did seem to work pretty much without issue through High Sierra.

The market totally exists for such a display.

I would like to see them do a barebones version of ASD. Essentially, the same case and display minus the speakers, web cam and (if necessary) an older chipset to lower cost. I would price it in $1000-$1100 price range.

I think two potential markets exist for this product:

Those who want a 5k 27" display but don't want the web cam or internal speakers and are looking for a lower cost entry point.

Those who want a second display to pair with the ASD they've already purchased (again at a lower price point). Purchasing 2 ASD does come with some unneeded redundancies.

This also allows an upgrade path for either scenario.

 

[motrek]

Just a quick comparison of 5K vs. 4K set to "looks like 1440p" vs. what you'd see on an actual 1440p display.

4K with scaling is obviously not as good as 5K but it's not awful.

I will happily buy one of these Chinese 5K panels once they start making them, but until then, I've gotten used to my 4K display and am pretty satisfied with it.

 

[chikorita157]

True, and Apple has an army of online evangelists who happily believe and proselytize that Apple’s own overpriced displays are the only solution for Mac users.

Apple doesn’t need to cater to the masses if they can convince the devoted to spend $1800-6000 on a single display

Still, it's sad there aren't any third party 27" 5K options besides the LG Ultrafine 5K, which has it's own share of problems, although I haven't experience any issues. Also, it's still kind of pricy for it's wobbly stand and plastic casling, but at least it can height adjust and you don't have to pay extra.

Looking at 4K, 1440p scaling on 4K at 27" is not acceptable. Plus, there is a performance penalty for using that scaling, especially on M1 and M2 Macs when using 3D applications or GPU intensive applications as seen in this video:

In my opinion, 4K is only acceptable for 22-24 inch monitors, not 27" as mentioned earlier. LG still sells a low end 24" 4K monitor, but not color accurate and the Ultrafine 4K, which has P3 color. While it's not 218 DPI, it's closer to the DPI of 1080P and 1200P monitors at 24", which has a DPI of 91-95 DPI. 91 DPI is the bare minmum. I hate 4K 27" monitors as they are the 27" as they are the 1080P 27" monitors of today at 81 DPI, very compromised and at 2x (163 DPI), the UI is too large and the text, while better than a 1080P 27" is a just a waste due to drop of screen real estate, unless you do 2k scaling, which will never be sharp as a 5K monitor and introduce a bunch of problems, some may be a turn off for those who need pixel perfect. That is why 27" 2K monitor will always beat a 1080P 27" one, likewise a 27" 5K will look better than a 4K 27".

Plus, I can tell the difference since my monitors are about 15-18 inches away.I have a 2K display, which I had for a while and with the 5K, it's not as sharp, so I will definitely discern the difference with 4K. That is why I went with 5K since I am at my computer a lot and the sharp text the 5K provides strains my eyes less.

 

[theorist9]

Apple doesn’t need to cater to the masses if they can convince the devoted to spend $1800-6000 on a single display.

I doubt those masses have. The "masses" are the buyers of laptops like the Air (that's the most popular Mac) and I suspect the proportion of those that have also bought an ASD to use as their external is pretty small.

 

[motrek]

...
Looking at 4K, 1440p scaling on 4K at 27" is not acceptable. Plus, there is a performance penalty for using that scaling, especially on M1 and M2 Macs when using 3D applications or GPU intensive applications as seen in this video:
...

This is a dumb video.

The guy is saying that 4K scaled is slower than 1440p and he's blaming it on the scaling.

Of COURSE it's slower, the computer is rendering 4x the number of pixels internally, and then scaling.

Who in their right mind would blame the slowdown on the final downsampling process and not the fact that the computer is doing 4x the work.

 

[theorist9]

Still, it's sad there aren't any third party 27" 5K options besides the LG Ultrafine 5K, which has it's own share of problems, although I haven't experience any issues. Also, it's still kind of pricy for it's wobbly stand and plastic casling, but at least it can height adjust and you don't have to pay extra.

Looking at 4K, 1440p scaling on 4K at 27" is not acceptable. Plus, there is a performance penalty for using that scaling, especially on M1 and M2 Macs when using 3D applications or GPU intensive applications as seen in this video:

In my opinion, 4K is only acceptable for 22-24 inch monitors, not 27" as mentioned earlier. LG still sells a low end 24" 4K monitor, but not color accurate and the Ultrafine 4K, which has P3 color. While it's not 218 DPI, it's closer to the DPI of 1080P and 1200P monitors at 24", which has a DPI of 91-95 DPI. 91 DPI is the bare minmum. I hate 4K 27" monitors as they are the 27" as they are the 1080P 27" monitors of today at 81 DPI, very compromised and at 2x (163 DPI), the UI is too large and the text, while better than a 1080P 27" is a just a waste due to drop of screen real estate, unless you do 2k scaling, which will never be sharp as a 5K monitor and introduce a bunch of problems, some may be a turn off for those who need pixel perfect. That is why 27" 2K monitor will always beat a 1080P 27" one, likewise a 27" 5K will look better than a 4K 27".

Plus, I can tell the difference since my monitors are about 15-18 inches away.I have a 2K display, which I had for a while and with the 5K, it's not as sharp, so I will definitely discern the difference with 4K. That is why I went with 5K since I am at my computer a lot and the sharp text the 5K provides strains my eyes less.

I think whether 2:1 scaling gives an acceptable UI size with a 4k 27" depends on the app you're using; with my workflow it works great. The UI's on the apps I most commonely use typically take up very little space. Thus I actually prefer the UI size of my 27" 4k to my 27" 5k (both at default 2:1 scaling), since the real estate I give up is minimal, and in exchange I get more generously-sized features (e.g., wider scroll bars), enabling me to target them more quickly and with less effort when I'm trying to work rapidly. I.e., it reduces my "friction".

Though I still significantly prefer my 5k, but for reasons of sharpness rather than UI size.

Here's Mathematica, full (top-to-bottom) half-screen, 4k on left, 5k on right. I don't actually use the Palette, the drop-down is just show for illustrative purposes.

 

[chikorita157]

This is a dumb video.

The guy is saying that 4K scaled is slower than 1440p and he's blaming it on the scaling.

Of COURSE it's slower, the computer is rendering 4x the number of pixels internally, and then scaling.

Who in their right mind would blame the slowdown on the final downsampling process and not the fact that the computer is doing 4x the work.

No, this is not correct. When you choose a scaled resolution, the message "Using a scaled resolution may affect performance" will appear.

For instance, if you use 2K scaling on 5K, your GPU will use a virtual screen to render that in 5K and downscale it to 4K to create a image on the screen that can fit. Since this is not a native scaling, it impacts performance. Of course, it won't be as noticeable on M1 Pro or higher SoCs since it has more GPU cores.If you want to prove your point, run benchmarks in Blender in 2x scaling and 2K scaling on a 4K monitor and see if there is a big difference.

Regardless, 27" 4K will always be inferior to 5K. Some won't tell the difference, but I certainly can and 1080P 2x scaling to me is just a big waste on a 27" display due to loss of screen real estate, but some may like it

 

[Colstan]

I am late to this discussion, so I apologize if I haven't properly digested everything that has been said here, and unintentionally cover ground that others have already tread. In regards to "Retina" displays, I'm surprised that the article from bjango hasn't made an appearance, and there's a more recent explainer written by the esteemed Dr. Howard Oakley. These articles don't cover pricing or address a less costly consumer device, but provide context for Apple's definition of what is and what isn't considered "Retina" class and why a user would want one.

As per the topic, to my knowledge, the only three monitors currently available that fulfill the ~218ppi requirement are the 5K LG UltraFine, the Apple Studio Display, and the Pro Display XDR. The 24-inch UltraFine generally requires scaling to render screen elements at an acceptable size, so I don't see that as a truly "Retina" experience. At ~183ppi, it's better than the ~163ppi of bog standard 27-inch 4K PC monitors, but still not the same as an unscaled image.

Besides the two Apple monitors and the 5K UltraFine, other options have historically been limited. Alternative manufacturers, such as Dell and Iiyama released 27-inch 5K monitors but were not a commercial success. It appears that Mac users are the primary market for such a device, and therefore these products did not gain traction outside of select users; namely Mac desktop users or laptop users that require an external monitor, but want "Retina" quality. That's a niche market. PC users seem to be fine with mass market 27-inch 4K monitors, but in my opinion, PC fans tend to be fine with a lower quality experience, in general, compared to Mac users.

The only other notable option was the 21.5-inch LG UltraFine (which used the same panel as the iMac with the same display dimensions) and was discontinued by LG in 2019. This was the only model, which didn't require scaling, that was somewhat affordable, at an MSRP of $700.

On a personal note, I somehow managed to snag a brand-new, unopened 21.5-inch UltraFine off of Ebay last Summer for half the original MSRP. Where this technological leprechaun was hiding, I don't know, but I am babying it because affordable ~218ppi monitors are currently non-existent. While smaller, the panel inside roughly matches the specs of the LG 5K and Studio Display, so I am fortunate to have it. I don't know if I could justify spending $1,600+ on the Studio Display.

In regards to the future, I think ~218ppi monitors will remain a product that serves Mac users, and only a subset of us who aren't aren't satisfied with using regular ~163ppi PC monitors and want to avoid scaling. There is a persistent rumor of Apple using a mini-LED panel for a standalone monitor and/or a theoretical iMac Pro. However, that would be another high-end product, likely costing more than the Studio Display. Whether it is meant to replace the XDR, or falls somewhere between the two, is not certain.

That is assuming this product ever becomes reality; Apple is constantly testing devices which never see daylight beyond their secretive skunkworks. You need an advanced degree in Kremlinology to understand the inner workings of Apple's product plans.

Do I think Apple will ever release an affordable "Retina" display? I doubt it, especially with inflationary pressures and they are just now catching up with demand for the Studio Display. I do think that, at some point, they will release a more advanced version with newer display technology, such as mini-LED or QD-OLED, but those devices will also likely have a price in the same region as the Studio Display, if not higher. The 21.5-inch UltraFine, which I am fortunate to own, is likely to be the closest thing to an affordable ~218ppi monitor that will ever reach mass production.

Having used a "Retina" display for a year now, and having compared it to standard resolution and ~163ppi 4K PC monitors, I can't see myself going back, despite the "Apple tax". The clarity and quality difference is too great. So, while I would like a more affordable option in the future with more advanced technology, I don't see it happening.

Lastly, I appreciate the thought-provoking post @theorist9, I always enjoy the intriguing and insightful discussions that you provide.

 

[theorist9]

I am late to this discussion, so I apologize if I haven't properly digested everything that has been said here, and unintentionally cover ground that others have already tread. In regards to "Retina" displays, I'm surprised that the article from bjango hasn't made an appearance, and there's a more recent explainer written by the esteemed Dr. Howard Oakley. These articles don't cover pricing or address a less costly consumer device, but provide context for Apple's definition of what is and what isn't considered "Retina" class and why a user would want one.

It's interesting you mention the bjango article. I had it in mind when I wrote this post (https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...rs.2354451/page-3?post=31335338#post-31335338), since I'm an iconoclast when it comes UI size. Specifically, I disagree with their "green zone" UI's—I actually like the UI size I get with 2:1 scaling on a 163 ppi monitor. I think people often take the Retina UI size as gospel, when it's it's really more a matter of taste and workflow. It's also interesting to note that Apple's newest 254 ppi displays also fall outside their green zone.

[I was quite excited when I found that the Ventura beta seems to indicate MacOS will (finally!) be supporting 8k (or at least the Dell 8k Dell specifically), since I was thinking of picking one of those up and running it at 3:1 integer scaling. At 280 ppi and 3:1, that would give me a super-sharp 32" display with same UI size as a 187 ppi display at 2:1, which would be pretty sweet—at least I thought so, until I was told that, because HiDPI on MacOS always uses a 2x framebuffer, 3:1 scaling would result in an undersampled desktop, meaning that beautiful 8k clarity would be wasted.]

Besides the two Apple monitors and the 5K UltraFine, other options have historically been limited. Alternative manufacturers, such as Dell and Iiyama released 27-inch 5K monitors but were not a commercial success. It appears that Mac users are the primary market for such a device, and therefore these products did not gain traction outside of select users; namely Mac desktop users or laptop users that require an external monitor, but want "Retina" quality. That's a niche market.

One other 27" 5k, also lost to history, was the HP Z27q (https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model-display/b5b7e43).

You may have missed it, but earlier in this thread poster kvic mentioned that BOE has announced they will be producing large high-ppi panels (210 ppi @27" and 31.5", and 280 ppi @31.5"). So perhaps we will see large mass-market-priced Retina-class monitors in the future (unless BOE decides to make these super-premium products as well):

BOE Latest Panel Development Plans – July 2022 - TFTCentral

Share this contentWe have some updates from one of the smaller LCD panel manufacturers BOE about their panel development plans. This is BOE as a panel manufacturer, as opposed to....[click link for more]

tftcentral.co.uk

And there's always the used market. On Craig's List a couple of months ago, I saw an NIB 27" 5k Ultrafine for $700. And there's a used one posted now for $300. Alas, I run two external monitors off my 2019 iMac, and it can't drive both a 5k and a 4k, so deals such as those will need to wait until I next upgrade.

PC users seem to be fine with mass market 27-inch 4K monitors, but in my opinion, PC fans tend to be fine with a lower quality experience, in general, compared to Mac users.

Granted, PC users are, on average, more mass-market than Mac users. Having said that, I think the main thing that's going on when PC users are happy with 4k 27" monitors is that, on Windows, those displays look pretty good: For those who care about sharpness, Windows still offers subpixel text rendering. And for those who care about UI size, Windows has vectorized scaling that enables pixel-perfect rendering at continous UI sizes. So I think it's not so much that they're settling for a lower end experience, but that Windows enables them to have a higher-end experience with a 163 ppi monitor than is available on the Mac. MacOS requries Retina for that.

Lastly, I appreciate the thought-provoking post @theorist9, I always enjoy the intriguing and insightful discussions that you provide.

Likewise! I've been meaning to get around to responding to your intriguing thread on Talked About, in which you argue that Mac users should stop waiting until ~v. xx.6 to upgrade to the next Mac OS. I have some thoughts on that....

 

[motrek]

No, this is not correct. When you choose a scaled resolution, the message "Using a scaled resolution may affect performance" will appear.
...

Right. It MAY affect performance.

Note that the message doesn't say "downsampling to this resolution will be the ONLY and ENTIRE reason for any slowdowns when using GPU-intensive programs."

But of course the guy in the video basically concluded the latter. SMH.

Also, I'm certain that there's basically no performance impact of using a scaled resolution (due to downsampling) on an Apple Silicon Mac. I have an AS MacBook, I run my external monitor at "looks like 1440p" all day, the UI is perfectly fluid, and the GPU temperature is same regardless of whether or not I have the external monitor plugged in. Meaning that the GPU is essentially doing no work to downsample.

And the process of downsampling a 5K image showing cat pictures in Safari is the same as the process of downsampling a 5K image showing Blender.

So it's nonsensical to think that downsampling might be a huge burden on the GPU, but only when you're running Blender, and not when you're looking at cat pictures.

 

[motrek]

...
Granted, PC users are, on average, more mass-market than Mac users. Having said that, I think the main thing that's going on when PC users are happy with 4k 27" monitors is that, on Windows, those displays look pretty good: For those who care about sharpness, Windows still offers subpixel text rendering.

Microsoft started phasing out subpixel-AA with DirectWrite in 2008:

ClearType - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I would be surprised if anything you see in Windows today uses subpixel-AA.

And for those who care about UI size, Windows has vectorized scaling that enables pixel-perfect rendering at continous UI sizes. ...

You mean, Windows programs have the option to render lines etc. on pixel boundaries. Which is of dubious value on higher resolution displays.

There's nothing about "vector scaling" that implies "pixel-perfect" anything.

I have yet to see a vector image that looks meaningfully different when rendered directly at 4K vs. rendered at 5K and scaled down to 4K. But if you can find some examples I'd be interested to see them.

 

[tornado99]

Surprised to hear it's 10 bit. Are you sure? Even the ASD isn't 10 bit. Among Apple's externals, only the Pro Display XDR is 10-bit (don't know about their laptops).

And may I ask how you know it's IPS and 10 bit? I searched through both the link you posted, as well as the linked PDF spec sheet, and nowhere do they mention either. Those would be big advertising pluses, so if and when a monitor has those features the sellers nearly always mention them-prominently! It's with the TN monitors that they're mum about the type of panel. Honestly, if this were a true 10 bit IPS 4k display, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops, so color me skeptical.

It's this panel. I've unscrewed the casing to check. 23.8 inch. 4K. 185 dpi. 10 bit. IPS. deltaE < 2.

BOE MV238QUM-N20 Overview

BOE MV238QUM-N20 datasheet 3 files, 1879 stocks, 11 suppliers, price, photos, compatible model. a-Si TFT-LCD, 23.8', 3840×2160, 300 nit, 1000:1 (Typ.), 1.07B color, 60Hz, WLED, eDP (4 Lanes)

www.panelook.com

The problem is entirely one of marketing not manufacture cost. Americans don't want to buy a small 4K monitor hence one is not sold. There is the monitor I mentioned in the UK, and several based of this panel available in the Chinese market. None are particularly expensive.

 

[theorist9]

It's this panel. I've unscrewed the casing to check. 23.8 inch. 4K. 185 dpi. 10 bit. IPS. deltaE < 2.

BOE MV238QUM-N20 Overview

BOE MV238QUM-N20 datasheet 3 files, 1879 stocks, 11 suppliers, price, photos, compatible model. a-Si TFT-LCD, 23.8', 3840×2160, 300 nit, 1000:1 (Typ.), 1.07B color, 60Hz, WLED, eDP (4 Lanes)

www.panelook.com

The problem is entirely one of marketing not manufacture cost. Americans don't want to buy a small 4K monitor hence one is not sold. There is the monitor I mentioned in the UK, and several based of this panel available in the Chinese market. None are particularly expensive.

I don't see anywhere that it says "IPS" in that list of specs. It does say 10-bit, but it may not e a true 10-bit panel, and instead achieves 10-bit by applying temporal dithering to an 8-bit panel (that's what the ASD does). It says it was discontinued in 2005, so perhaps that's why the displays that use it are so inexpensive (?).

 

[tornado99]

I don't see anywhere that it says "IPS" in that list of specs. It does say 10-bit, but it may not e a true 10-bit panel, and instead achieves 10-bit by applying temporal dithering to an 8-bit panel (that's what the ASD does). It says it was discontinued in 2005, so perhaps that's why the displays that use it are so inexpensive (?).

IPS is an LG trademark. The other manufacturers have equivalent technologies. It says viewing angle 89/89/89. The majority of mainstream LCD panels are 6 bit+FRC (marketed as 8 bit), and some higher-end/modern panels are 8bit+FRC(marketed as 10 bit). The sister-panel of this 23.8" is used in the Asus ProArt (https://www.asus.com/uk/Displays-Desktops/Monitors/ProArt/ProArt-Display-PA279CV/). Production status on Panelook can be inaccurate, and in any case it says Q3 2021, not 2005.

I have two of these monitors. They are high quality panels in a low quality case. They are auto-detected as Retina in OS-X and render a lovely sharp desktop. They aren't available in America. What else can I say?

 

[theorist9]

IPS is an LG trademark. The other manufacturers have equivalent technologies.

....The sister-panel of this 23.8" is used in the Asus ProArt (https://www.asus.com/uk/Displays-Desktops/Monitors/ProArt/ProArt-Display-PA279CV/).

Other manufacturers that use IPS can and do label their panels as IPS. For instance, here's Samsung, another IPS panel manufacturer, talking about its IPS panels:

What is an IPS panel monitor?

IPS panel monitors have some advantages over TN and VA panels — with a few caveats. Here's how to compare the monitor panel types.

insights.samsung.com

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPS_panel

What's the source your info. that this is the same panel used in the Asus?

 

[tornado99]

The manufacturer isn't Samsung. It's BOE. They have their own physically different technology to IPS which is visually equivalent.

Also, I am literally looking at this monitor right now. It has IPS-like viewing angles.

I won't reply further as I have a sense you seem to think I'm lying for some strange reason.

 

[theorist9]

Microsoft started phasing out subpixel-AA with DirectWrite in 2008:

ClearType - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I would be surprised if anything you see in Windows today uses subpixel-AA.

Thanks for letting me know. I don't use Windows directly myself (I sometimes have to remote into Windows computers), so I wasn't aware of this.

You mean, Windows programs have the option to render lines etc. on pixel boundaries. Which is of dubious value on higher resolution displays.

There's nothing about "vector scaling" that implies "pixel-perfect" anything.

I have yet to see a vector image that looks meaningfully different when rendered directly at 4K vs. rendered at 5K and scaled down to 4K. But if you can find some examples I'd be interested to see them.

I'm not an expert on Windows, but it's my understanding that, because of vectorized scaling, it can render displays at non-integer scaling ratios without suffering the artifacts seen with MacOS. Is that not correct?