[HN Gopher] The next best thing to OLED is getting cheaper
___________________________________________________________________
The next best thing to OLED is getting cheaper
Author : rbanffy
Score : 35 points
Date : 2022-02-18 11:12 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| willis936 wrote:
| Mini LED has a marketing issue in my opinion. Afaict it is a
| rebranding of FALD. Rumors several years ago made it seem like
| "mini LED" would be LCD with per-pixel backlighting. "Mini LED"
| turned out to be a nothingburger. We have nearly the same number
| of dimming zones as we did 5 years ago. It's woefully
| insufficient.
|
| The real story in monitors this week was the alienware QD-OLED
| 32" ultrawide (ugh) curved (ugh) for only $1300.
| shadowoflight wrote:
| Eh, the only "ugh" thing about that new Alienware monitor, to
| me, is the low resolution - 1440p at 27"/34"? No thank you,
| 2160p or better + fractional scaling just looks _so_ much
| better for those of us editing text and /or code all day.
| Filligree wrote:
| 200% scaling might be fine, but fractional scaling still
| isn't well supported on Linux. I'd prefer such a monitor,
| yes, _if_ it wasn 't going to limit what systems I can run.
| fredley wrote:
| Mini LED, but it's rather hamstrung by only being 2560x1440.
| binkHN wrote:
| "Cooler Master also announced a 4K 160 Hz version of this
| monitor, the GP27-FUS. This device is also cheaper than other
| mini LED monitors. With similar specs to the GP27-FQS, save for
| a bump to HDMI 2.1, the monitor will cost $1,100 when it debuts
| alongside its lower-res sibling."
| MrFoof wrote:
| This. I've been using multiple 1440p displays since 2010, and
| actually had a 2560x1600 LED back in 2004.
|
| I'd do anything for 5K, 120Hz, Mini-LED or Micro-LED displays
| with 10-bit color and HDR. I don't want 4K: 5K has over 77%
| more logical area.
|
| They don't have to be cheap. I'll pay well. I just want them to
| _exist_. I 've been waiting over a decade at this point!
| adtac wrote:
| my favourite thing about 5K is that you can do 2x scaling and
| still have plenty of space on your screen to display multiple
| windows (effectively 2560x1440)
|
| but with a 4K screen, you have three options: 1. no scaling
| and tiny fonts (ugh), 2. fractional scaling (ugh), or 3. 2x
| scaling and settle for 1080p real estate (ugh)
|
| IMO 5K > 1440p > 4K > 1080p
| Teever wrote:
| > I don't want 4K: 5K has over 77% more logical area.
|
| Can you elaborate?
|
| 5/4 = 1.25
| nicoburns wrote:
| 5:4 is only one dimension, but 5k screens have greater
| resolution in both dimensions. I make it roughly 66% more
| area:
|
| (5120 x 2880) / (4096 x 2160) = 1.6666
| Inityx wrote:
| It comes out to 77% if you use the SMPTE UHDTV standard
| of 4k, which is (2 * 1920) x (2 * 1080) = 3840 x 2160
| nicoburns wrote:
| Ah. I just checked, and that is indeed the resolution of
| the 4k monitor I'm currently using. So I would guess that
| standard is pretty common!
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| That's also why 5K monitors are more than 2X the price of
| 4K ones at similar sizes. I have a 4K with those
| dimensions that I bought for $400, an LG 5K would cost at
| least $1200.
| [deleted]
| LASR wrote:
| (5120 * 2880) / (3840 * 2160) = 1.77
|
| Since they are both the same aspect ratio (16:9) you can
| also take the ratio of one linear dimension and square it
| to get the area ratio.
|
| So:
|
| (5120/3840)^2 = (2880/2160)^2 = 1.777
| [deleted]
| MegaButts wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5K_resolution
|
| 4k is 4096 x 2160, 5k is 5120 x 2880
|
| There's also a really helpful diagram on that page
| another_kel wrote:
| It's cinematic 4k. 4k monitor is 3840 x 2160.
| badsectoracula wrote:
| For me even that is too much :-P. I have a 27" 2560x1440
| monitor and i consider it too large.
|
| At least when i upscale older (or very demanding) games from
| 640x480 or 1280x720 they look crisp enough instead of the
| blurry mess that was before a few years when this became
| possible outside of emulation.
|
| But i bought it because of the VA panel, 165Hz refresh rate and
| flat surface since i couldn't find any smaller monitor with
| those characteristics. So if that next-best-thing-to-OLED tech
| is actually good, i'll most likely get one since i doubt i'll
| see a real OLED PC monitor in not-gargantuan sizes.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| 2.7k for gaming is not particularly hamstrung.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-21 23:00 UTC)