Question about 4K: I have a monster 77" TV with a Mac mini (among other things) plugged in, and even at that size, the full 3840 x 2160 is unusable unless you’re sitting close enough to get face-burn, and neck damage from head-swiveling.
-
Question about 4K: I have a monster 77" TV with a Mac mini (among other things) plugged in, and even at that size, the full 3840 x 2160 is unusable unless you’re sitting close enough to get face-burn, and neck damage from head-swiveling.
So in basically every situation, full 4K resolution is not usable. So why aren’t we all buying 1920x1080 screens like we did ten years ago? Is the fact that 4K looks crisper to my eyes just a placebo effect?
I suspect I’m missing something obvious…
-
Just to reassure people saying a 77" monitor is crazy: They’re right, it’s just a TV, used mostly for TV purposes. But it's got a Mac plugged in too because there are lots of nice TV-like things besides accessed through a real first-class browser. My actual monitor is a bog-standard 27" (also not running anywhere near native).
-
@timbray we should be using resolutions that are a multiple of 72dpi, but we have fallen from grace.
-
@timbray I generally use the default macOS scaling which gives me more details sharpness, not more real estate. It’s a very noticeable difference that I can easily see when I go into the office and use the old HD monitor at the hotel desk there.
-
@timbray What do you mean by unusable? TV shows are slow? Video stutters? Text is unclear? Colors are off?
-
@elharo Text is too small.
