Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
bthylafh wrote:If you're not doing graphic design work, why do you think you need a 10-bit panel?
Ryu Connor wrote:Those are both slightly amped up sRGB panels. It's arguable that either of them substantially benefit from 10-bit. 10-bit is just going to make them metamer machines.
As I recall the CHG70 is still under debate about being capable of 10-bit. IIRC other companies are using that panel and saying it's just an 8-bit panel as do several spec sheets for the panel in question.
jmc2 wrote:Changed to a 4K screen with 150+ dpi and now the screen appears smooth!
Important for me but you may not notice.
jmc2 wrote:Wish I did not because I would love to try that 32 inch CHG70.
If it was 4K I would buy it in a heartbeat!
just brew it! wrote:jmc2 wrote:Changed to a 4K screen with 150+ dpi and now the screen appears smooth!
Important for me but you may not notice.
It can be a detriment if some of the software you use (and/or your OS) does not scale well to higher DPIs. Running a full-screen Linux VM on a 28" 4K display had some issues (this was the setup I used at work for about a year). Now that I'm on a 42" 4K it works better. Yeah, text is not as smooth, but the random UI scaling glitches are gone.
LostCat wrote:jmc2 wrote:Wish I did not because I would love to try that 32 inch CHG70.
If it was 4K I would buy it in a heartbeat!
It actually does 4K over HDMI...they don't acknowledge the functionality anywhere. I assume there's a reason, but hell if I know what.
jmc2 wrote:Oh, it is just the actual monitor pixels themselves that I do not want to see.
I do not use or rarely use the 4K resolution. I use 1440p for my desktop.
just brew it! wrote:OK, now I'm just confused. You shelled out the $ for a 4K monitor, but aren't using it as one? Doesn't using a 4K native display at 1440p result in scaling artifacts?
just brew it! wrote:jmc2 wrote:Oh, it is just the actual monitor pixels themselves that I do not want to see.
I do not use or rarely use the 4K resolution. I use 1440p for my desktop.
OK, now I'm just confused. You shelled out the $ for a 4K monitor, but aren't using it as one? Doesn't using a 4K native display at 1440p result in scaling artifacts?
FWIW I sit far enough from my 42" 4K that I don't see individual pixels. Sitting close enough to see the individual pixels would mean sitting too close to clearly see the entire screen without constantly leaning back and forth, which would be annoying.
just brew it! wrote:LostCat wrote:jmc2 wrote:Wish I did not because I would love to try that 32 inch CHG70.
If it was 4K I would buy it in a heartbeat!
It actually does 4K over HDMI...they don't acknowledge the functionality anywhere. I assume there's a reason, but hell if I know what.
Are you sure that's 4K at a reasonable refresh rate? I've seen setups that'll do 4K over HDMI, but only if you back the refresh down to 30 Hz (which massively sucks).
jmc2 wrote:Have wondered if something like your 42" 4K would be usable/readable and not
have to turn my head to use the whole screen. The size/distance/readable issue
would be a very personal balancing act on exactly what to get.
just brew it! wrote:Are you sure that's 4K at a reasonable refresh rate? I've seen setups that'll do 4K over HDMI, but only if you back the refresh down to 30 Hz (which massively sucks).
LostCat wrote:just brew it! wrote:Are you sure that's 4K at a reasonable refresh rate? I've seen setups that'll do 4K over HDMI, but only if you back the refresh down to 30 Hz (which massively sucks).
It's 4K60. I assume most HDMI 2.0 mons are.