There is that LG 5120x2880 27" model which is still available as you say, but there is also the LG 5120x2160 34" model, if that counts.
I still have the 27" thunderbolt studio display. would this be better?
Samsung recently introduced the M8, a new 32-inch 4K display that's priced at $700, making it less than half as expensive as the Studio Display from Apple. We picked up one of the displays and thought we'd compare it to the Studio Display in our latest YouTube video to see how it performs and whether you can save some money by going with a cheaper option.
In addition to serving as a display, the M8 also doubles as a 4K TV, featuring Tizen OS, built-in apps and an app store, a remote control, built-in Apple AirPlay support, and a 1080p webcam, all of which sounds great.
With a 4K resolution, the display looks great, but unsurprisingly, it's not quite as good as the 5K Studio Display, which definitely has the better screen. The Studio Display is sharper, more vibrant, and offers more accurate color, so it's definitely a better choice for those who are doing professional work.
As for design, the M8 looks to be inspired by the Studio Display and the 24-inch iMac, with Samsung offering it in white, blue, pink, and green aluminum. It looks good, and it's going to match your Apple devices because it's clearly an Apple-like aesthetic. The Samsung display is larger than the Studio Display at 32 inches instead of 27 inches, and out of the box, it's tilt and height adjustable, a feature that requires an upgrade on the Studio Display. There is no VESA mount option, though.
The Studio Display wins out when it comes to the speakers and microphone, and it features 4 USB-C ports, while the Samsung monitor has a couple USB-C ports and a micro HDMI port. The add-on camera attaches magnetically on the M8, and though the Studio Display offers Center Stage for FaceTime and other video apps, the M8 has a similar feature.
All in all, if you're looking for affordability and versatility, the M8 is worth the $700 because it also doubles as a TV, but if you want premium quality for professional work, the Studio Display is the better choice.
Article Link: Samsung's New 32-Inch 'M8' Display vs. Apple's Studio Display
I'm afraid that doesn't answer my question. I was referring to the following statement...if multiples of 110 ppi are so ideal, why would they use 254 ppi in the latest MBP's? Is it that if you are below 220 ppi, the non-ideality is perceptible, but that if you're above it it's not, and thus the net effect on text sharpness of going beyond 220 ppi more than makes up for deviation from ideality?
Mac Studio display has -one-Thunderbolt port and -three- USB C ports.
Samsung recently introduced the M8, a new 32-inch 4K display that's priced at $700, making it less than half as expensive as the Studio Display from Apple. We picked up one of the displays and thought we'd compare it to the Studio Display in our latest YouTube video to see how it performs and whether you can save some money by going with a cheaper option.
In addition to serving as a display, the M8 also doubles as a 4K TV, featuring Tizen OS, built-in apps and an app store, a remote control, built-in Apple AirPlay support, and a 1080p webcam, all of which sounds great.
With a 4K resolution, the display looks great, but unsurprisingly, it's not quite as good as the 5K Studio Display, which definitely has the better screen. The Studio Display is sharper, more vibrant, and offers more accurate color, so it's definitely a better choice for those who are doing professional work.
As for design, the M8 looks to be inspired by the Studio Display and the 24-inch iMac, with Samsung offering it in white, blue, pink, and green aluminum. It looks good, and it's going to match your Apple devices because it's clearly an Apple-like aesthetic. The Samsung display is larger than the Studio Display at 32 inches instead of 27 inches, and out of the box, it's tilt and height adjustable, a feature that requires an upgrade on the Studio Display. There is no VESA mount option, though.
The Studio Display wins out when it comes to the speakers and microphone, and it features 4 USB-C ports, while the Samsung monitor has a couple USB-C ports and a micro HDMI port. The add-on camera attaches magnetically on the M8, and though the Studio Display offers Center Stage for FaceTime and other video apps, the M8 has a similar feature.
All in all, if you're looking for affordability and versatility, the M8 is worth the $700 because it also doubles as a TV, but if you want premium quality for professional work, the Studio Display is the better choice.
Article Link: Samsung's New 32-Inch 'M8' Display vs. Apple's Studio Display
Looks nice.
Are you sure you understand how 4K monitors work on Macs? People usually downscale it to 2560 x 1440, which makes it look "kind of" like a 5K double-pixled monitor, but not quite as sharp.
This is wrong. Both 5K and 4K downscale to the 2560x1440 resolution-sized objects on screen. So, it’s the same exact real estate. What’s different is that the 5K display double-pixels to get to the 2560x1440 resolution-sized objects, whereas the 4K display downscales with “virtual” pixel displayed via more than one but less than two physical pixels (averaging this out across the entire display real estate). So, for text, the 4K display downscaled to the 2560x1440 results in less sharp font edges. However, most people can’t see the difference, don’t want to see the difference, or don’t care enough to pay twice for a 5K display to double-pixel the downscaling to 2560x1440.
According to System Preferences -> Displays, Mac OS's default resolution for my 4k display is 1920 x 1080, not 2560 x 1440. Since the native resolution of my display is 3840 x 2160, 1920 x 1080 gives exact pixel doubling, avoiding the issue you describe. So it seems the reason my 4k display doesn't look as sharp as a 5k display isn't because of scaling artifacts—it's purely pixel density.
Yes, it is. Which is good for me, I use it to design/work, contrast is important in AutoCAD and other software I use.
Pretty much stopped reading right there.
USB-C is a form factor. Thunderbolt 3, Thunderbolt 4, and USB 4 use USB-C form-factor ports. Thunderbolt 2 uses a miniDP form-factor port.
Well, having just spent the last month shopping for a prosumer monitor for my home office - where I was not shooting for amazing color accuracy or top of the line panel tech, without insane requirements either, but I need something that's better than the typical monitor out there with washed out colors and unreliable precision - all that without breaking the bank, $700 for a prosumer 4k monitor is really nothing.
OK, so I'm not going to dispute that's technically 5k, but as an ultra-wide its about the same physical height as a 27" and only has the pixel density (160ppi) of a 4k. My feeling is that the physical height is going to impose the same sort of scaling choices as a 27" 4k (if you think in terms of system font height/number of lines of text).
Apple Studio Display costs $1600
I'm not certain I fully agree. When used for center-stage, I would posit that the distances involved are not actually that different. Now, on average is the iPad closer to your gob? Sure. But that's just a use-case that doesn't apply for the studio display. The center-stage performance ought to be identical.
