Returning 4K Monitor

[fate0311]

27" 4k

Running it without scaling text GUI/text too damn small.

Scale it even one notch to 2560 and the GUI/text is too big. Seems counter intuitive and although the screen is larger the GUI makes it feel cramped still.

No happy medium.

Only use I see for this is for photo editors and even then you'd have to switch resolutions depending on whether your editing or dicking around the web etc.

Going back.

 

[beaub93]

Have you tried switchresX? http://www.madrau.com/

 

[fate0311]

Yes I did.

 

[RichMSN]

Strange.

I have my LG 4K connected with a USB-C cable directly into the machine. When I choose "Default for Display" it looks exactly like my desktop on the laptop.

I can choose other scaling options to make text, etc. look incredibly small, but I'm not sure why I'd want to do that. 4K video plays exactly the same with either setting, the monitor is crystal clear, and I'm happy with the purchase.

 

[double329]

I just purchased the LG 4K 27" to use with my rMBP 15. I love the monitor. I scaled it to default as well. It is super nice and it is as good as my iMac 27 5k. I thought OS X can and do best job in term of scaling properly for such high res monitor? Win is the one that I will not do 4K with, not now at least.

 

[fate0311]

I actually changed the resolution back to full 4K and although it is small I'm beginning to get use to it just after a few hours of sticking to it.

Does anyone else use full 4K without scaling?

I feel like scaling a 4K is counter-intuitive and makes it feel like I'm mirroring to a TV which always to me feels like I'm magnifying everything.

I want 4K for productivity (real estate) not magnification, which is why I'm trying to keep it unscaled.

 

[spacebro]

27" is really small for a 4k. You need a 40-50" to get text the right size.

 

[xraydoc]

Personally I'd rather have a 27" "retina" quality display with laser-sharp text at an effective 1920x1200 (i.e., Apple's pixel-doubled retina rendering) than a 27" display at native 4K resolution with tiny, tiny text - no matter how spacious the desktop.

 

[Freyqq]

Confused. My 4k screen lets me pick scaling levels just like the internal screen. I do "looks like 1080p," which is native res at 60hz but the display elements look like 1080p.

 

[dogslobber]

Personally I'd rather have a 27" "retina" quality display with laser-sharp text at an effective 1920x1200 (i.e., Apple's pixel-doubled retina rendering) than a 27" display at native 4K resolution with tiny, tiny text - no matter how spacious the desktop.

Most 4k are wide screen so only give 1080 vertical pixels for 1920 across.

 

[Salty Pirate]

I am running one of the LG 34 inch widescreen monitors. Not 4K, but it is fantastic. Very crisp and readable. Pretty sure I am 3880 x 1440. I had to buy the USB-C to Thunderbolt adapter.

I can have three full size apps side by side. Incredible work flow with the wide screen.

 

[macbook123]

That's why if somebody made a larger 4K monitor than 27", I would buy it in a heartbeat. I really don't understand why nobody does this. I had a 2560x1600 30" monitor for almost a decade that I loved. The resolution was sufficient. So a 35" 4k monitor would still have plenty resolution. But we can only pick between fifty 27" and twenty 21" panels. Quite sad and confusing really.

 

[xraydoc]

I think Sharp makes (or at least did) a 30" or 32" 4K display.

 

[CaliKW]

That's why if somebody made a larger 4K monitor than 27", I would buy it in a heartbeat. I really don't understand why nobody does this. I had a 2560x1600 30" monitor for almost a decade that I loved. The resolution was sufficient. So a 35" 4k monitor would still have plenty resolution. But we can only pick between fifty 27" and twenty 21" panels. Quite sad and confusing really.

NewEgg carries a bunch of 4K bigger than 28"

Also see: https://www.sven.de/dpi/ for calculation of DPI - retina is about 220ppi / dpi

 

[Hung_Solo]

I have my 4k monitor set at the scaled resolution of 2048 x 1152 which is absolutely perfect for me. Texts are very clear without being small and having a good amount of screen real estate for windows, iMessage, etc.

 

[jerryk]

I have my 4k monitor set at the scaled resolution of 2048 x 1152 which is absolutely perfect for me. Texts are very clear without being small and having a good amount of screen real estate for windows, iMessage, etc.

Have you noticed any performance impact versus running without the scaled external display?

 

[Hung_Solo]

Have you noticed any performance impact versus running without the scaled external display?

I haven't noticed anything when I have it unplugged from the display. Usually I have it plugged into the external for most of the day I use it, and then when it gets closer to bedtime I have my MBP in bed to surf the web and haven't seen any performances issues either.

 

[macmee]

I have two 4k and one 5k displays all scalred at 2560 x 1440 HiDPI.

You can actually set the retina scaling to any resolution you want. The 27" LG 4K display I just bought only let me scale to 1080p in OSX by default, but I followed these steps:

https://comsysto.github.io/Display-...or-with-HiDPI-Support-For-Scaled-Resolutions/

https://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/adding-using-hidpi-custom-resolutions.133254/page-23#post-1271885

and created a 2560 x 1440 profile. Works great.

 

[double329]

Does anyone else use full 4K without scaling?

I want 4K for productivity (real estate) not magnification, which is why I'm trying to keep it unscaled.

This sounds like you really want to use the full 4k resolution with fonts not being too small. As few other had mentioned, the only way to have large enough fonts on full 4k res is to get the bigger physical screen size, say 34+. As much I like to use the entire of 4k res on my LG 4K 27", the fonts are simply too small for me. I have no choice but scale the desktop. I was thinking about 4k 39" at one point, but that seems to big in size. Bottom line is: 4k 27" with scaling is acceptable for me for now.

 

[fate0311]

Weird, I went back into the Display settings in OS X and it seems it gave me more scaling options now. Before the first step down from full 4K was 2560 which was too big of a GUI....now I'm able to choose 3360x1890 which is a very happy medium for still utilizing real estate and not feeling like my external is just a magnify glass.

Why all of a sudden I have those other options I'm not sure....either that or I just did not see them before.

 

[KillaMac]

This is why I enjoy my Dell 34" Ultrawide curved monitor.

 

[trifid]

Weird, I went back into the Display settings in OS X and it seems it gave me more scaling options now. Before the first step down from full 4K was 2560 which was too big of a GUI....now I'm able to choose 3360x1890 which is a very happy medium for still utilizing real estate and not feeling like my external is just a magnify glass.

Why all of a sudden I have those other options I'm not sure....either that or I just did not see them before.

When you option-click on "Scaled" it gives a ton more resolution options.