This is the problem. It’s completely an overblown issue. Native 1440 or 1080 is worse in every measurable way. I don’t get the overblown comments on how horrible macOS scaling is with 4K and using “looks like” 1440. I use this daily where the quality of my display matters. I don’t see the issues people constantly mention. Everything looks super crisp and not blurry/soft.
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.
Totally confused with resolution Mac mini and 4K monitor need help
- Thread starter Ravox
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For context, it's important to note that if you have a MacBook Air, you will also be suffering from a scaled screen: the 13.6" model is natively 2560 x 1664, and it displays content at 2940 x 1912. The difference is a lower percentage than 4k vs 5k, but it's the same phenomenon of blurring and non-pixel-perfect representation of content.
Have you heard people complain about this? I haven't. Are people selecting the MacBook Pro instead because of its pixel-perfect resolution? No, they're selecting it because of the mini-LED technology (and the faster processors and ports and everything, sure).
Have you heard people complain about this? I haven't. Are people selecting the MacBook Pro instead because of its pixel-perfect resolution? No, they're selecting it because of the mini-LED technology (and the faster processors and ports and everything, sure).
This is important to note. Apple hasn't used 2X integer scaling on MacBook Airs for years, and basically nobody has complained. That's because at 224 ppi, it is more than "Retina" at normal seating distances. It is considered "Retina" at >15.3".
People keep forgetting that distance is of key importance when talking about pixel density. Pixel density is meaningless if viewing distance isn't factored in.
224 ppi - Retina at 15.3" - 13.6" MacBook Air
218 ppi - Retina at 15.8" - 5K 27" Apple Studio Display
201 ppi - Retina at 17.1" - Hypothetical ~5K 30" Apple Cinema HD Display <-- These are my desired monitor specs.
184 ppi - Retina at 18.7" - 4K 24" display
163 ppi - Retina at 21.1" - 4K 27" display <-- This is fine for me and is what I use. (Well, 4K+ 3840x2560 28.2" to be exact.)
138 ppi - Retina at 25.0" - 4K 32" display <-- I find this pixel density too low for comfort for current macOS.
Now considering that my seating distance is approximately 22" to 25", that explains my preferences above.
Last edited:
I feel like a miracle human after reading through this. I can use Mac OS with nearly any monitor.
Fully agree with this. I do not like the trend of 32” 4K monitors. I’ll take 27” at 4K as it looks better. What frustrates me the most is I want an OLED and high refresh rate. But those only seem to be 32”.
Quote: "... the preferred DPI for macOS which is 218 DP"
@Fishrrman "Could you please point out where this is written by Apple?"
Quote: Apple: "While most displays max out at around 150 pixels per inch (ppi), our Retina display has 218 ppi, providing astoundingly sharp and detailed imagery. It’s a massive creative canvas that easily fits 4K content, your tools, and much more all in one screen."
The genesis of this philosophy goes back to the original Macintosh in 1984:
Since then, Macs have set the default display "DPI" to 72 PPI...
The choice of 72 PPI by Macintosh for their displays arose from existing convention:
The official 72 points per inch mirrored the 72 pixels per inch that appeared on their display screens.
(72 points is a printing term which by definition is an inch.)
WYSIWYG...
When higher resolution monitors were developed, for 'retina' resolution Apple settled on 72 X 3 ≈ 218ppi, which preserves the WYSIWYG.
In contrast Microsoft historically settled on 96ppi, so 'what you saw was a third larger than what you get'.
Which made viewing a monitor easier, but which handed Desktop Publishing lock stock and barrel over to Apple in the early years.
Quote: Wiki "...for example, a 10-point font on a Macintosh (at 72 PPI) was represented with 10 pixels, whereas a 10-point font on a Windows platform (at 96 PPI) at the same zoom level is represented with 13 pixels (i.e., Microsoft rounded 13+1⁄3 to 13 pixels) – and, on a typical consumer grade monitor, would have physically appeared around 15⁄72 to 16⁄72 inch high instead of 10⁄72. Likewise, a 12-point font was represented with 12 pixels on a Macintosh, and 16 pixels (or a physical display height of maybe 19⁄72inch) on a Windows platform at the same zoom, and so on. The negative consequence of this standard is that with 96 PPI displays, there is no longer a one-to-one relationship between the font size in pixels and the printout size in points."
Quote: Ars Technica "The fact is whith multisync monitors there is no fixed dots per inch measure and any OS that choses to set a default is doing us all a disservice, whether 72 dpi or 96dpi or 86dpi(on some UNIX systems).
Really the dpi setting should be what it implies, a reference to how many pixels make up an inch of monitor space. Without that WYSIWYG becomes a defunct idea.
I particularly hate the mishmash on the web of pixels for images and points for fonts, as between platforms you can no longer get a common experience (even a scalar one).
Basically there is no OS yet that has moved to purely vector based and resolution independent display, and specifying stuff in pixels runs you the risk of making your stuff irrelevant when we all are on 200dpi monitors.
Windows actually, to its credit, allows you to set system wide dpi, you can change that 96dpi number.
However, I don't believe software is built to truly take advantage of this. In the meantime, there are tons of god ugly assumptions floating to make one platform behave more like another without truly respecting what a point or dpi are meant to represent.
Case in point IE for the Mac does some sort of 72dpi to 96dpi conversion, and sites that used to dish a Mac only style sheets, suddenly found themselves boosting to huge font sizes with IE Mac."
@Fishrrman "Could you please point out where this is written by Apple?"
Quote: Apple: "While most displays max out at around 150 pixels per inch (ppi), our Retina display has 218 ppi, providing astoundingly sharp and detailed imagery. It’s a massive creative canvas that easily fits 4K content, your tools, and much more all in one screen."
The genesis of this philosophy goes back to the original Macintosh in 1984:
Since then, Macs have set the default display "DPI" to 72 PPI...
The choice of 72 PPI by Macintosh for their displays arose from existing convention:
The official 72 points per inch mirrored the 72 pixels per inch that appeared on their display screens.
(72 points is a printing term which by definition is an inch.)
WYSIWYG...
When higher resolution monitors were developed, for 'retina' resolution Apple settled on 72 X 3 ≈ 218ppi, which preserves the WYSIWYG.
In contrast Microsoft historically settled on 96ppi, so 'what you saw was a third larger than what you get'.
Which made viewing a monitor easier, but which handed Desktop Publishing lock stock and barrel over to Apple in the early years.
Quote: Wiki "...for example, a 10-point font on a Macintosh (at 72 PPI) was represented with 10 pixels, whereas a 10-point font on a Windows platform (at 96 PPI) at the same zoom level is represented with 13 pixels (i.e., Microsoft rounded 13+1⁄3 to 13 pixels) – and, on a typical consumer grade monitor, would have physically appeared around 15⁄72 to 16⁄72 inch high instead of 10⁄72. Likewise, a 12-point font was represented with 12 pixels on a Macintosh, and 16 pixels (or a physical display height of maybe 19⁄72inch) on a Windows platform at the same zoom, and so on. The negative consequence of this standard is that with 96 PPI displays, there is no longer a one-to-one relationship between the font size in pixels and the printout size in points."
Quote: Ars Technica "The fact is whith multisync monitors there is no fixed dots per inch measure and any OS that choses to set a default is doing us all a disservice, whether 72 dpi or 96dpi or 86dpi(on some UNIX systems).
Really the dpi setting should be what it implies, a reference to how many pixels make up an inch of monitor space. Without that WYSIWYG becomes a defunct idea.
I particularly hate the mishmash on the web of pixels for images and points for fonts, as between platforms you can no longer get a common experience (even a scalar one).
Basically there is no OS yet that has moved to purely vector based and resolution independent display, and specifying stuff in pixels runs you the risk of making your stuff irrelevant when we all are on 200dpi monitors.
Windows actually, to its credit, allows you to set system wide dpi, you can change that 96dpi number.
However, I don't believe software is built to truly take advantage of this. In the meantime, there are tons of god ugly assumptions floating to make one platform behave more like another without truly respecting what a point or dpi are meant to represent.
Case in point IE for the Mac does some sort of 72dpi to 96dpi conversion, and sites that used to dish a Mac only style sheets, suddenly found themselves boosting to huge font sizes with IE Mac."
Last edited:
Hey! I just bought a 27” 4K @144Hz monitor with 16:9 aspect ratio, to celebrate I’m getting the new Mac mini. And… I have a problem. Or should I say the problem is the lack of it?
I’ve been trying the different resolutions on the monitor, which is connected via HDMI 2.1 with a certified cable. And all of them look sharp! Is this possible? To the point that later on I’ve installed BetterDisplay, and surprise, no visual changes on the sharpness are visible.
I don’t know if it’s the monitor itself, the good cable, the new M4 Pro SoC, or what, but there’s literally no difference in sharpness between the looks like 1080p, the looks like 1440p, and other scales. Am I doing something wrong for not being able to reproduce the issue?
Now, I’d like you to ask for a final recommendation. The looks like 1080p scaling looks a bit too big, but the looks like 1440p scaling looks a bit too small (but I think I could get used to it). Do you recommend going for an intermediate scaling on the settings app?
My issue, rather than “not looking sharp enough” (which I reiterate looks really good), is the performance. In some situations, in some scales, the UI animations look a bit laggy or glitchy. Any advices?
I’ve been trying the different resolutions on the monitor, which is connected via HDMI 2.1 with a certified cable. And all of them look sharp! Is this possible? To the point that later on I’ve installed BetterDisplay, and surprise, no visual changes on the sharpness are visible.
I don’t know if it’s the monitor itself, the good cable, the new M4 Pro SoC, or what, but there’s literally no difference in sharpness between the looks like 1080p, the looks like 1440p, and other scales. Am I doing something wrong for not being able to reproduce the issue?
Now, I’d like you to ask for a final recommendation. The looks like 1080p scaling looks a bit too big, but the looks like 1440p scaling looks a bit too small (but I think I could get used to it). Do you recommend going for an intermediate scaling on the settings app?
My issue, rather than “not looking sharp enough” (which I reiterate looks really good), is the performance. In some situations, in some scales, the UI animations look a bit laggy or glitchy. Any advices?