What's the point of 30" 4K displays?

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by Basic75, Apr 12, 2014.

  1. Basic75 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    #1
    This is a serious question, because until we get true resolution independence there are two options:

    - Run it at native resolution, which makes everything really small, or

    - run it at retina-style pixel-doubled resolution, which means you have the effective space of 1920x1080 on 30", which is more suited to a 20" screen.

    PS: I know, 4K and UHD are not the same thing, but the difference doesn't make much difference for this discussion, no pun intended.
     
  2. whiteonline macrumors 6502

    whiteonline

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Location:
    California, USA
    #2
    I think apple need to fine-tune their methods. Pixel doubling looks nice, but is inflexible.
    I prefer the Windows method of native resolution with scaling the UI elements. It's much more flexible, and the elements stay sharp at whatever size you choose (unlike Apple's more-space options). Developers are still catching up, but with the increased use of High DPI displays, they will adapt.

    Either way, Apple, Microsoft (and Linux devs) will figure it out and apply their own methods. It's still a relatively new technology for the mass market.
     
  3. Basic75 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    #3
    "New technology?" Most of what was required existed 20 years ago on the Amiga.

    My impression is that Apple has given up, that the pixel-doubling is an admission of defeat regarding true resolution independent, i.e. scalable GUI.

    Why else can't I even change the font of the menu bar (like it was possible on the Amiga)?

    Anyhow, I hope you are right.
     
  4. rdowty macrumors 6502a

    rdowty

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    #4
    If you simply wanted something along the lines of a 15" MacBook Pro Retina but larger expanding to existing 4k resolutions would give you a desktop monitor of roughly 21" with 1920x1080 resolution. If you were to step up the PPI a bit to account for additional viewing distance 24" seems to be a good choice.
     
  5. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #5
    You do realize OSX gives you more than native and straight 1/4 resolution right? For example my rMBP I can do what basically amounts to 1080p which is neither 1440x900 or 3880x1800. The text still appears super crisp and gives me a much bigger desktop than 1440x900. Sure resolution independence would be better, but it is in a much better state than you give Apple credit for.....
     
  6. Basic75 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    #6
    It does that by first rendering to a 3840x2160 off-screen buffer and then down-scaling that to the display's resolution, an additional indirection that is exactly why I say Apple copped out, they did this cheap(ly to implement) hack to get around the real issue.
     
  7. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #7
    That wasn't my point. My point is that you stated you EITHER get full resolution which makes everything too small or you get 1080P which would be huge on a 30" screen. THAT is completely inaccurate. Regardless of how Apple accomplishes it, you aren't stuck with just two resolutions. Apple's solution (whether you agree with it or not) gives you MULTIPLE resolutions that you can pick from. Is it ideal, no. I already stated it would be better if they had resolution independence, but it also isn't as "dire" as you are trying to make it sound. It is important to be accurate and not dramatic.
     
  8. Basic75 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    #8
    Ok, that's reasonable, there is a third way that works already, and just because I don't "accept" it doesn't mean it isn't there.
     
  9. Donoban macrumors 6502a

    Donoban

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2013
    #9
    Yeah, this is the one big issue I have with OSX. Native resolution on a 27inch screen makes many of the ui elements too small in my opinion. (Long live keyboard short cuts I suppose)

    I'm hoping they make it a priority in their future versions of OS X. Would be great to run high res and also have control over the size of the UI elements.

    My brother ran his resolution a few notches lower on his iMac 27" to get the UI size up but this reduced the sharpness of the onscreen text.

    You have a top day sir.

    Dono
     

Share This Page