SemiAccurate Forums  

 
Go Back   SemiAccurate Forums > Main Category > Tech support

Tech support Questions about things going wrong


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old Yesterday, 03:37 PM
rarson rarson is offline
640k who needs more?
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 730
rarson is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerdmaster View Post
A 17" screen has higher density @ Full HD than a 27" screen on 2560x1440.
Yeah, and it's an IPS panel, not a crappy TN, and it does 110Hz, both of which are features I value much more than "tinier pixels."

Quote:
You need to realise that the faster we move to 4K/5K/8K, the better for our health and overall conditions.
The inability of my laptop's backlight to darken any more than its lowest setting is, BY FAR, more of a concern to me than its crappy 1366x768 resolution.

Last edited by rarson; Yesterday at 03:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old Yesterday, 04:01 PM
testbug00 testbug00 is offline
>intel 4004
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Benicia
Posts: 7,336
testbug00 will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiD View Post
Yes. It's the best thing that everyone can do. Except these who can live with a 17.3" one. It will be even better.
And somehow you suggest scaling to somewhere between 720/900p is good.
And that there are no scaling issues.

I'm calling BS.

Quote:
Full HD displays on 15.6 and 17.3" (and anything larger) should be banned with a worldwide law
Why? 1080 isn't *yet* a low enough resolution for iGPUs to run the few extremely popular modern games at 60fps minimum frame rate.

App it does is raise the BoM and end cost and for *most* (more than half) of people it is not a meaningful improvement while driving up the cost.

Either the BoM needs to cost the same, or it needs to provide. Meaningful improvement to more people to kill 1080p as the baseline.


I also find brightness to be a tad to high on minimum. Although I've found few screens which fit my acceptable minimum brightness.
__________________
-Q
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old Yesterday, 05:31 PM
GeorgiD GeorgiD is offline
2^11
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,269
GeorgiD will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by testbug00 View Post
And somehow you suggest scaling to somewhere between 720/900p is good.
Would you please be so kind to explain what you mean?
Because I don't suggest anything, if you mean the post where I said that Windows 10 recommends 250% scaling when 4K with 15" notebook, then you are wrong. That's not a suggestion but a reality, and it has nothing to do with 720/900p

And it not only recommends it, when applied through the Display settings, you get the perfect user experience

Quote:
Originally Posted by testbug00 View Post
Meaningful improvement to more people to kill 1080p as the baseline.
Funny though how you even mention this... Because most people are so lazy that they have no idea what we are talking about here.
Exactly why I'm trying to explain and then provide circumstances for the needed change.

Last edited by GeorgiD; Yesterday at 05:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old Yesterday, 05:57 PM
rarson rarson is offline
640k who needs more?
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 730
rarson is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiD View Post
Because I don't suggest anything, if you mean the post where I said that Windows 10 recommends 250% scaling when 4K with 15" notebook, then you are wrong. That's not a suggestion but a reality, and it has nothing to do with 720/900p
4K resolution at 250% scaling is an effective resolution of less than 900p.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old Yesterday, 06:26 PM
testbug00 testbug00 is offline
>intel 4004
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Benicia
Posts: 7,336
testbug00 will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rarson View Post
4K resolution at 250% scaling is an effective resolution of less than 900p.
Thanks for clarifying what I meant.
Time to add someone to the ignore list... and I just emptied it (as Juan is come for good. Saw no reason to keep him ignored)
__________________
-Q
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old Today, 12:03 AM
GeorgiD GeorgiD is offline
2^11
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,269
GeorgiD will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rarson View Post
4K resolution at 250% scaling is an effective resolution of less than 900p.
Even if true, what you get is a much more crisp and natural picture. I really don't know what you're complaining about because obviously one and the same resolution at different panels sizes needs different zoom in, in order to be readable.
But that doesn't mean that the physical 4K panel won't do its purpose.

Just buy 4K everything, as early adopters, so the prices will finally decrease and make it even more popular.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old Today, 11:53 AM
rarson rarson is offline
640k who needs more?
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 730
rarson is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiD View Post
Even if true, what you get is a much more crisp and natural picture.
Yes, the picture will be crisper, but you're paying a premium for extra pixels just to scale them back down to a reasonable image. And Windows doesn't even do a decent job at doing that (not to mention, some programs outright don't scale at all).

Quote:
I really don't know what you're complaining about because obviously one and the same resolution at different panels sizes needs different zoom in, in order to be readable.
We're complaining about scaling. Windows doesn't do it well.

Quote:
Just buy 4K everything, as early adopters, so the prices will finally decrease and make it even more popular.
Okay, you first. I'll save my money and wait.

Last edited by rarson; Today at 11:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old Today, 01:21 PM
Nerdmaster's Avatar
Nerdmaster Nerdmaster is offline
2^11
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CERN - France - Switzerland
Posts: 2,898
Nerdmaster will become famous soon enoughNerdmaster will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rarson View Post
Yes, the picture will be crisper, but you're paying a premium for extra pixels just to scale them back down to a reasonable image. And Windows doesn't even do a decent job at doing that (not to mention, some programs outright don't scale at all).



We're complaining about scaling. Windows doesn't do it well.



Okay, you first. I'll save my money and wait.
Just my personal experience on windows scaling when i developed a .NET application using microsoft UI: It took some effort to make it work properly and the result was not perfect...

I expect scaling on non microsoft graphical UI to be much worse due to the lack of support.
__________________
Current rig: i5 3570 @3.8GHz, Asus 7750, Dell 24'' 2560X1440, Corsair Vengence 16GB Ram DDR3 @1600MHz, Chieftec 550W PSU, 480GB OCZ SSD + 500GB Seagate + 1TB WD hd, Windows 10 64-bit
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old Today, 01:25 PM
testbug00 testbug00 is offline
>intel 4004
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Benicia
Posts: 7,336
testbug00 will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerdmaster View Post
Just my personal experience on windows scaling when i developed a .NET application using microsoft UI: It took some effort to make it work properly and the result was not perfect...

I expect scaling on non microsoft graphical UI to be much worse due to the lack of support.
yeah. It's bad.
__________________
-Q
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
3840 x 2160, 4k2k, display, opinions, ultra hd


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SemiAccurate is a division of Stone Arch Networking Services, Inc. Copyright 2009 Stone Arch Networking Services, Inc, all rights reserved.