By the time I find a muppet and train up, I'd of done it.
Not paying someone something I can do myself.
4k monitors and scaling
- Thread starter vic38
- Start date
By the time I find a muppet and train up, I'd of done it.
Not paying someone something I can do myself.
He is the outsource, you think the French guy wants to do it?
I have six 32" monitors, portrait format.
I have two types of resolutions; 2560x1440 (the older one) and 3840x2160.
The 2560x1440 resolution works fine for me.
My chair has been modified so that my eye level can be raised higher.
There are PIP / PBP functions but I don't use it.
Not sure why you have to change your scaling. My scaling is all 100%.
viewing distance is about 24".
I am an old man with not great eye sight. But I can still see the screens
well perhaps because my screen background is light color.
I am sure young people can see much better than me.
I have two types of resolutions; 2560x1440 (the older one) and 3840x2160.
The 2560x1440 resolution works fine for me.
My chair has been modified so that my eye level can be raised higher.
There are PIP / PBP functions but I don't use it.
Not sure why you have to change your scaling. My scaling is all 100%.
viewing distance is about 24".
I am an old man with not great eye sight. But I can still see the screens
well perhaps because my screen background is light color.
I am sure young people can see much better than me.
Probably because you're using a 32" 4k monitor at 24" viewing distance, vs my using a 27" 4k monitor (same # of pixels, but each is smaller) at 28" viewing distance.
That said, I'm not sure I'd be able to see easily using your setup. I just don't know what 27" 4k at 150% scaling translates to in terms of larger 4k screens at 100% scaling, hence this thread.
Found this site: https://www.pxcalc.com/
It calculates DPI for a given screen size and resolution.
For a 24" 1920x1200 screen, DPI is 94.34. A 27" screen at 4k res is 163.18 DPI. So everything is 58%, or nearly half, the size I'm used to. No wonder I needed 150% scaling to make it useable.
32" doesn't even come close, so to get decent viewability at 100% scaling at 4k, I'd need to go to 43" - DPI is 102.46, which works to 92% of what I'm used to.
To get as close to the same viewability as I'm currently without going over, I'd have to get a 46" 4k screen, which at 95.78 DPI would render everything at 99% of what I'm used to.
It calculates DPI for a given screen size and resolution.
For a 24" 1920x1200 screen, DPI is 94.34. A 27" screen at 4k res is 163.18 DPI. So everything is 58%, or nearly half, the size I'm used to. No wonder I needed 150% scaling to make it useable.
32" doesn't even come close, so to get decent viewability at 100% scaling at 4k, I'd need to go to 43" - DPI is 102.46, which works to 92% of what I'm used to.
To get as close to the same viewability as I'm currently without going over, I'd have to get a 46" 4k screen, which at 95.78 DPI would render everything at 99% of what I'm used to.
You guys on ET are hapless, long winded, low iq noobs
Get yourself a CHEAP 4k TV 43"
All there is to it .
Thank me later
Get yourself a CHEAP 4k TV 43"
All there is to it .
Thank me later
I second this, especially if you don't have any gaming requirements. Another friend of mine has a 60" samsung HD TV as a monitor.
Cheap 4k tv from Walmart. You need to change a bunch of settings (though they probably all have a monitor setting now). I have a 39", 42", 49" and 55". The first three on three different desktops, The 55" I'm using as a TV until I add another desktop. I only use one desktop/monitor at a time for trading, no surfing the internet. At the same time, I use another desktop for development and trading backup.
When I first bought my 39" monitor, I thought it was huge. Now, sitting in front of my 42" monitor, it feels small.
Start with a 43" (it takes a little while to get used to the size). After a while
Walmart has them for under $200. On second thought, I just checked and Walmart has 50" for $200 and 55" for $240 (both made by Sceptre, these make good monitors). If you want Roku they have a 50" TCL for $250 (I love my TCL 55"). These are all no brainers and you can easily return them to Walmart if you don't like them.
Don't think that you get a better screen from the big name brands, you don't.
If you are using it for a TV also, Roku is more than worth it.
Don't expect high-performance gaming.
When I first bought my 39" monitor, I thought it was huge. Now, sitting in front of my 42" monitor, it feels small.
Start with a 43" (it takes a little while to get used to the size). After a while
Walmart has them for under $200. On second thought, I just checked and Walmart has 50" for $200 and 55" for $240 (both made by Sceptre, these make good monitors). If you want Roku they have a 50" TCL for $250 (I love my TCL 55"). These are all no brainers and you can easily return them to Walmart if you don't like them.
Don't think that you get a better screen from the big name brands, you don't.
If you are using it for a TV also, Roku is more than worth it.
Don't expect high-performance gaming.
using an older 4k samsung , and im not a big gamer geek , but running games in HD , full screen is not a problem.
No one sane needs 150 fps in a game.