I think I'm the one odd duck around here that likes the 27" 4K spot. I run two of them, and it works for my corner setup: computer back in the corner, monitors up front, and I sit about 2 ft away from the monitors. I ~almost~ jumped on a 48" OLED last year, but they are just too big without significantly re-arranging things, and the 42" that came out this year aren't exactly that much smaller. I have a 42" regular LCD down in my den, so I'm familiar with that size. I've been tempted to run my computer over to my 55" OLED in the family room and play around with it, but I don't want to futz with the KBM on the couch.
See, to my mind, that is the same thing as saying your computer is just too fast.27 is good for 1440 but not for 4k. Too small.
That is like using your 4k phone as a computer display for the best experience right? I like desktop space and running at native resolution without scaling from the OS. Only thing I scale on is my old laptop thst does have a 4k display that is utterly wasted on a 15.4 inch form factor.See, to my mind, that is the same thing as saying your computer is just too fast.
To small is never a problem, because you can always scale it up. You cannot, however, create more detail than pixels (unless you are DLSS, then .. magic)
Yeah I heard 1440p has just the right pixel density for 27" and the default ~2-ft viewing distance. For 4K you want something bigger, although I don't know what the minimum is supposed to be for that, maybe 32"?27 is good for 1440 but not for 4k. Too small.
Just plain economy of scale. There is a much bigger market for 55" OLED TVs than their are 27" OLED monitors.A grand for a 27" OLED, you gotta be kidding me. I recently saw a 55" LG C1 for $1200 (which is what I paid for my 37" LCD HDTV back in 2009). A 27" monitor should be around $300, even if it's OLED.
Without scaling, you'd want maybe 35"+ for 4k native. At 27" and 32", you'd want to use 150% scaling on the desktop unless you plan on viewing from 12" to 18" distance.Yeah I heard 1440p has just the right pixel density for 27" and the default ~2-ft viewing distance. For 4K you want something bigger, although I don't know what the minimum is supposed to be for that, maybe 32"?
So, scaling is now at the point of having considerably improved to being a preferred solution over native 1:1 pixel rendering. This is why you've seen such high resolutions on many smaller devices, and you'll note that it works extremely well.That is like using your 4k phone as a computer display for the best experience right? I like desktop space and running at native resolution without scaling from the OS. Only thing I scale on is my old laptop thst does have a 4k display that is utterly wasted on a 15.4 inch form factor.
You mean we've almost caught up with crt technology?Just plain economy of scale. There is a much bigger market for 55" OLED TVs than their are 27" OLED monitors.
Without scaling, you'd want maybe 35"+ for 4k native. At 27" and 32", you'd want to use 150% scaling on the desktop unless you plan on viewing from 12" to 18" distance.
So, scaling is now at the point of having considerably improved to being a preferred solution over native 1:1 pixel rendering. This is why you've seen such high resolutions on many smaller devices, and you'll note that it works extremely well.
Further, the technologies for ensuring a consistent UI experience across different DPI ranges is also fairly mature. All modern desktop apps and nearly all games do this exceptionally well by default, and some even provide UI scaling options to deal with corner cases.
the future is resolutionless
I guess that depends on what you consider 'technology'. CRTs still had an optimal resolution, above which they started to get blurry very quickly. Sometimes this was beyond their available bandwidth, sometimes not.You mean we've almost caught up with crt technology?
If I am sitting 3” away for some reason, then yeah, it would be.That is like using your 4k phone as a computer display for the best experience right?