That’s technically true but isn’t how almost anyone uses the word on a display. Apple uses the term incorrectly on their Air page, for example.
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.
Samsung's New 32-Inch 'M8' Display vs. Apple's Studio Display
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That’s technically true but isn’t how almost anyone uses the word on a display. Apple uses the term incorrectly on their Air page, for example.
Nope. In regular usage for computers, your statement above is completely incorrect.
The usual definition of "resolution" in the context of computer displays refers to the actual number of pixels, and it says absolutely nothing about the pixel density. Just because that doesn't fit an alternative definition that may be used in other contexts is completely irrelevant.
Display resolution - Wikipedia
The display resolution or display modes of a digital television, computer monitor or display device is the number of distinct pixels in each dimension that can be displayed. It can be an ambiguous term especially as the displayed resolution is controlled by different factors in cathode ray tube (CRT) displays, flat-panel displays (including liquid-crystal displays) and projection displays using fixed picture-element (pixel) arrays.
It is usually quoted as width × height, with the units in pixels: for example, 1024 × 768 means the width is 1024 pixels and the height is 768 pixels. This example would normally be spoken as "ten twenty-four by seven sixty-eight" or "ten twenty-four by seven six eight".
Yes, but the other point I made is that a 27" 4K screen can be "Retina" using your 1 arc minute per pixel definition, if the seating distance is far enough. It is common for desktop computer users to sit at 2 feet or more away from the screen. At that common seating distance, 27" 4K is "Retina". Even 30" can be considered Retina (although that's really pushing it).
BTW, as I previously mentioned, my preferred seating distance is ~25 inches. Partially for this reason, I generally prefer desks that are 30" or more deep. If I'm going to be using a large monitor, I really don't like desks that are only 24" deep. It's fine for a laptop though, since I will have the screen much closer.
Last edited:
For me 1080p is acceptable at 24", and in fact Apple's 24" iMac used to be 1080p. The display in the article is not 24" but rather 32", and that's not really acceptable to me unless I'm primarily using it as a TV.
Still surprised by the lack of third-party 5K display options good enough to replace my iMac that's now literally 6 years old.
Nope. In regular usage for computers, your statement above is completely incorrect.
The usual definition of "resolution" in the context of computer displays refers to the actual number of pixels, and it says absolutely nothing about the pixel density. Just because that doesn't fit an alternative definition that may be used in other contexts is completely irrelevant.
Display resolution - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Ready further in that Wikipedia article. It says this:
Resolution properly refers to the pixel density, the number of pixels per unit distance or area, not the total number of pixels. In digital measurement, the display resolution would be given in pixels per inch (PPI).
Resolution ≠ pixel dimensions. You are mixing things.
I'm looking at a 32"/IPS/4k/144hz screen and I run it scaled for a bit less on screen than 1440p
It's bloody gorgeous
Folks need to evaluate on their own on this and not listen to the Apple elitists here who insist that ONLY 2x pixel doubling is acceptable. It's nonsense and so incredibly subjective.
What works for some may not work for others -- but there is absolutely no "one right way" for everyone, as much of the discourse here might lead one to believe.
It's bloody gorgeous
Folks need to evaluate on their own on this and not listen to the Apple elitists here who insist that ONLY 2x pixel doubling is acceptable. It's nonsense and so incredibly subjective.
What works for some may not work for others -- but there is absolutely no "one right way" for everyone, as much of the discourse here might lead one to believe.
Because that is the proper meaning of that word. As is mentioned in the Wikipedia, using the term resolution to describe pixel dimensions is a misnomer. It's wrong.
It's not about what is right for any individual person, it's about what is right for the way macOS works.
So you already know this is a silly debate. Glad we've cleared that up.
Indeed. As I already said earlier, there is the most common usage, and then there are alternate definitions utilized in a different context. Your post simply confuses the issue, because you have chosen to accept only the other definition that nobody in the real world actually uses when talking about mainstream computer hardware.
You're not helping matters by ignoring the main point of the article that applies to the vast majority of the mainstream, just to focus on a secondary point made in the article.
Someone literally wrote a 'correction' post in this thread to say that "resolution ≠ pixel density". As we've just cleared up, that 'correction' is itself incorrect by the proper (ie correct) definition.
Resolution = pixel density and NOT pixel dimensions.
And, in the context of this thread in general, this point is extremely important, because half the people posting in here don't get it. They are referring to 4k displays and not realizing that 4k or 5k are meaningless measurements if you divorce it from the size of the display. 4k sounds like it's quite high resolution, when on this Samsung it isn't, precisely because the PPI is very low - too low for macOS to work well. And that is the point.
This is why people get confused. Folks may think of a 32" 4k display but it would be much better to refer to that display as a 32" 138 PPI display, because that gives consumers a far better understanding of resolution.
What we are originally comparing here is a 32" 138 PPI VA display vs a 27" 220 PPI IPS display. There lies one of the main differences, a vast chasm in sharpness, plus the fact that macOS is only well optimised for circa 110 +I- or 220 +/- PPI numbers.
Last edited:
I guess I should point out that for most Retina Mac laptops sold in the last 5 years, macOS does not use 2X scaling by default.
For a purist, using resolution to mean pixel density makes more sense. It's more consistent with how we use the term with printers, cameras, etc.
From a practical perspective, nobody uses it that way. Manufacturers don't. Journalists don't. Users don't. Therefore, no, that's not the definition, since language is defined by how it's actually used, not by what some armchair academic thinks.
It really isn't, though. If you want to say pixel density, just say pixel density. You can use concrete terms when you want to be specific.
I was in your camp, waiting years for a display update. But as much as I love Apple quality and industrial design, it felt like I was being played when they pulled the $400 height-adjustable stand crap, on really what is the same panel as my 2015 iMac, but for more money. I checked them out at the Apple store the other day, and even the height adjustable version doesn't raise up all that far. I also don't need/want speakers in my display, nor a web cam (and certainly not two sets of these in a dual monitor set-up. So I've decided my money and high-minded aesthetics are better served elsewhere, like creating content for my clients. So (for now) I'm giving a 32" LG 4K a shot. Yup, not as bright, not "retina", black plastic, etc. but it's 1/3 the price of the ASD, bigger, and it'll at least display better that the 30" Apple Cinema Display that I had (and loved) for many years. Plus it's a got the height adjustable ergo stand, tiny bezel, etc. It's arriving today, so I'm both excited, and bummed as I lower my brightness and retina expectations, since Apple didn't present a solution I felt was good use of my $'s. We all make the choice that works for us, I guess.
Totally agree -- the inclusion of those things really seems to cement that Apple thinks of this mainly as the only external display in a given setup.
I do still wonder if a 27" XDR w/ ProMotion is coming (but no speakers/webcam - just the display).
Perhaps, but seems it would be an odd fit in the their lineup at this point. For me, I really wanted something wider than my 27" iMac. For Logic tracks and FCP timelines … the more single-screen space the better. Since I don't do much color critical work anymore, Adobe RGB, XDR, etc. are as much a priority/need anymore.
I just realized that my 2017 27" Core i5 iMac spec'd with 256 GB SSD cost US$2099 at launch.
The Studio Display is $1599, so basically I got the computer for $500, when comparing against the Studio Display (ignoring inflation for the moment). (Actually the numbers are little different since I got edu, and there was a significantly bigger discount on the iMac than there is on the Studio Display for edu, but you get the picture.)
In retrospect I guess in that context the display pricing is not quite as bad as it seems, since an entry level Mac mini is $699.
EDIT:
Apparently Mark Gurman says that the Pro Display XDR is getting an update.
The Studio Display is $1599, so basically I got the computer for $500, when comparing against the Studio Display (ignoring inflation for the moment). (Actually the numbers are little different since I got edu, and there was a significantly bigger discount on the iMac than there is on the Studio Display for edu, but you get the picture.)
In retrospect I guess in that context the display pricing is not quite as bad as it seems, since an entry level Mac mini is $699.
Yeah, the next monitor has to be a bigger one. I suspect it will have mini-LED, and I wonder if it might be a replacement for the 32" XDR, released along-side the Mac Pro 2022. If so, that would be way out of my price range, even if they reduced pricing.
EDIT:
Apparently Mark Gurman says that the Pro Display XDR is getting an update.
Last edited:
Still comparing a 4k lower PPI to the 5k I see. While we're at it why not compare a smart car to a Tesla. I mean they both have 4 wheels.
Yeah, but no one should be using scaling in macOS. It's simply not designed for that.
Funny, it is Apple that is copying all their stuff. And Apple still lacks features from flagship Android phones (which Apple will copy in the future at some point)
What? How did you come up with that notion? What was it designed for?
Are you saying that those who bought 4K displays are supposed to run them double-pixeled at 1080p?
It's not that simple. If it's "not designed for that", then Apple shouldn't have created this weird UI in the first plaec:
(I guess the "looks like" part is gone?)
And beyond that, for years, their flagship laptop was scaled by default.
Somebody needs to tell Apple that they’ve been doin’ it wrong for years then.
I’ve already mentioned that most of their laptops sold in the last 5 years shipped with a non-2X scaled resolution.
And guess what? Just about nobody complained. macOS looks so good on these machines that I suspect many just assumed they are 2X scaled, but they most definitely are not.