ecka84

ecka84

Lives in Lithuania Lithuania
Joined on Sep 18, 2009

Comments

Total: 5545, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ecka84: 32GB of RAM seems so 2012.
96GB is more like it. Unless you are not doing much with your Mac.

OMG .. here it goes .. The Almighty Apple Silicon! )))
This "omnipotence per watt" of yours doesn't impress, because its wattage is very low.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2023 at 17:38 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: 32GB of RAM seems so 2012.
96GB is more like it. Unless you are not doing much with your Mac.

Yeah, like I said .. it's OK for not doing much ..
It's plenty for almost everyone, because most people are hardly doing anything with their computers. But not everyone needs an overpriced laptop with barely enough RAM for doing stuff, no upgradeability and GPU deficiency. Even $500 machines can have 32GB memory these days (not $3500). I mean, the extra 16GB on M2Pro cost $800, while the 128GB DDR5 kit costs less than $800.

On the other hand, if it had enough RAM for actually doing heavy stuff, would it be able to do that without overheating and throttling? Probably not.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2023 at 15:25 UTC

32GB of RAM seems so 2012.
96GB is more like it. Unless you are not doing much with your Mac.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2023 at 22:08 UTC as 9th comment | 6 replies

Oh, no! Not the APS-C! No God, Please No!.. No!.. No!.. Noooooooo!

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2023 at 17:16 UTC as 5th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

ecka84: Same old same old .. 27" is way too small for 5K and the 32" is not big enough.

Don't you know what a "working distance" is? It's not a TV, it's a monitor.

"sitting far away from a big, but low ppi screen is essentially the same thing as holding a small, but high ppi screen right infront of your face"
- Yeah, exactly right, you can't see the whole picture in both cases. Which is the point.

"Apply this to 4K on 32" vs 27" .."
- Sure. The 32" 4K monitor can show you the whole picture within its working distance. Not the most comfortable distance, but it's there. While the 27" 4K can't do that. It's like saying - "you need to get closer to see bacteria" - it doesn't work in practice.

Ultra-high-def images do not require 600dpi or even 300dpi to look good. Lower quality images do, to compensate for the lack of fine detail at close distance. Basically, image size reduction makes its data to noise ratio go up, while reducing the overall amount of data. And that's not the trade we want from expensive quality screens. You want a 600dpi snapshot? Fine. It's your choice.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2023 at 13:16 UTC
In reply to:

rockjano: 6K is absolutely not needed at 32". Even 4K is a bit too much for 32". I had to scale it down a bit. 34-35" would be great for 4K. 6K is 55" territory but that just does not makes sense...

Well, 220PPI is worse, exactly because I can see more detail on larger 100/110/120 PPI panels than on a 32" 6K. And 293PPI laptop is even worse than that. What's your excuse? You don't want to see more detail? What's the point then? Just keep your laptop then. Or "upgrade" to 4K phone.

"images look significantly, noticeably more detailed on my 4K laptop screen (293 PPI) than they do on an identically-sized FHD screen (147 PPI)"
- OMG! How did you survive with this terribly "pixelated" 147PPI FHD laptop?! :)) That must have been an extremely uncomfortable experience. Oh, wait, did you use scaling on that "pixelated" FHD laptop? What for? :))

"then the extra detail my 293 PPI screen is showing would be completely invisible"
- And how do you measure how much PPI your eyes are actually seeing there? Are you sure you see all 293PPI? Not just a bit more than 147PPI?

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2023 at 21:26 UTC
In reply to:

rockjano: 6K is absolutely not needed at 32". Even 4K is a bit too much for 32". I had to scale it down a bit. 34-35" would be great for 4K. 6K is 55" territory but that just does not makes sense...

"I created a 4K all-white image and made a few random pixels black"
- BS charts don't prove anything, just like this kind of experiments don't either. I can see stars in the night sky. So what? I can't tell which ones are non-binary systems. Seeing something, doesn't mean seeing everything. Why are you even arguing, if barely seeing something is good enough for you? Don't you realize how silly that sounds? Try comparing things side by side. There's no way you can see all the same detail on both 43" and 27" or 32". Maybe 140(ish)PPI 43" 5K would be better than my 100(ish)PPI 43" 4K. But the 220PPI 32" 6K definitely would not. It would need to be 50"-55" 6K (125-140PPI). And for that size I think that I would rather prefer an ultrawide monitor. A 50" 5K2K 110PPI would be nice. No need for 6K :). But an ultrawide 55" 6K2.5K 120PPI could work for me, I guess. Too bad they don't exist yet.

"Treat yourself to a better monitor!" - I will. Thanks.

Size matters. Wishful thinking doesn't ..

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2023 at 17:34 UTC
In reply to:

rockjano: 6K is absolutely not needed at 32". Even 4K is a bit too much for 32". I had to scale it down a bit. 34-35" would be great for 4K. 6K is 55" territory but that just does not makes sense...

@aramando People lie.
"I can certainly see the fine detail at 220 PPI"
- No, you cannot. Try reading the smallest readable (100PPI) text on your 32" 6K panel (4pt or something) and then we'll talk about pixels. You can't read it. That's all. You see some pixel formations there, but they don't make sense to you. Just like you can't see molecules or bacteria.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2023 at 14:38 UTC
In reply to:

rockjano: 6K is absolutely not needed at 32". Even 4K is a bit too much for 32". I had to scale it down a bit. 34-35" would be great for 4K. 6K is 55" territory but that just does not makes sense...

It doesn't matter if the scaling is ON or OFF on your overkill PPI displays. You can't see your images in full glory, because the pixels are too small. You physically can't see 6K on a small 6K panel. Otherwise you wouldn't use scaling. Why is it so hard to understand .. You use scaling, because you can't see stuff. You put a 24mp picture on your little 6K panel and you only see like a quarter of its native resolution regardless if it's scaled or not. You need a bigger screen to see the whole picture. Retinas are meant for you to buy fancy resolution numbers, that you can't actually utilize.

220PPI is nonsense, because you use 200% scaling for it. So it's basically 110PPI and way smaller than 43".

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2023 at 22:51 UTC
In reply to:

rockjano: 6K is absolutely not needed at 32". Even 4K is a bit too much for 32". I had to scale it down a bit. 34-35" would be great for 4K. 6K is 55" territory but that just does not makes sense...

@aramando Because you are using 200% scaling, to fit 3K resolution on your 6K monitor. It doesn't matter what's the original image resolution, when you are viewing it in 3K on a 6K panel. And you can't see the whole 24mp image on your high PPI 6K monitor, because it is too small. You can only see the downscaled version, either becasue you use scaling, or because the pixels are too small to see it natively.

32" 4K is like the smallest 4K panel that makes any sense. So, yes, some people might find 140PPI uncomfortable. But you don't need scaling for 40" 4K. Mine is 43" and zero scaling = zero problems. Scaling itself is a problem, when there's not enough pixels to make scaling bearable.

You don't see any pixelation problems, unless you are looking for them specifically. 90 and lower PPI screens have pixelation problems. Retinas have overkill density problems. 120(ish)PPI - no problems at all.

If there's pixelation, there's definitely no need for scaling. You are making stuff up. Bye.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2023 at 17:30 UTC
In reply to:

rockjano: 6K is absolutely not needed at 32". Even 4K is a bit too much for 32". I had to scale it down a bit. 34-35" would be great for 4K. 6K is 55" territory but that just does not makes sense...

@aramando If you put a 3K image on a 6K monitor it doesn't become 6K ... You are simply wasting 75% of your screen resolution, because 6K is 4 times more than 3K. Proper UHD panels do not require scaling at all. There are no text problems, no real estate problems, no scaling problems and no "seeing the pixels" problems.

"Not being able to see individual pixels is exactly the point"
- No, that's a "solution" looking for a problem. I've seen Apple Retinas. Nothing spectacular there.

"you want the pixels small enough that you can't make them out"
- No, you don't need that for proper PPI UHD panels. You never see them if don't look too close.

"images look their best like this"
- No, they don't. They look softer and you have to oversharpen them to look fine on your Retina.

"when editing you just zoom in further than you normally would"
- And all you see this way is a made-up upscale representation of the real thing, which you can't see natively on your overkill PPI screen.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2023 at 19:19 UTC
In reply to:

rockjano: 6K is absolutely not needed at 32". Even 4K is a bit too much for 32". I had to scale it down a bit. 34-35" would be great for 4K. 6K is 55" territory but that just does not makes sense...

"nobody runs them with display scaling set to 100%"
- It doesn't change anything. The pixels are being wasted either way .. when your camera produces 24mp (6000x4000) images and your screen shows you only 6mp (3000x2000) upscaled or because you just physically can't see 6K at such PPI density. The goal is to view and see the whole picture. Not just pretend and praise Apple.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2023 at 19:34 UTC
In reply to:

rockjano: 6K is absolutely not needed at 32". Even 4K is a bit too much for 32". I had to scale it down a bit. 34-35" would be great for 4K. 6K is 55" territory but that just does not makes sense...

"No one runs those displays at native resolution"
- Which makes them pointless.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2023 at 17:17 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Same old same old .. 27" is way too small for 5K and the 32" is not big enough.

It has been tested over and over again ... and the results were the same. Basically, 90-140PPI is what we need. Less than 90PPI is bad. More than 140PPI is overkill and a waste. 120PPI is around perfect for comfortable use. And you can run whatever Super Resolution mode to get what you want. The smallest size that makes any sense for 4K resolution is 32". But you still need scaling for it.

300DPI print is overkill for quality images. It is meant for printing mediocre quality snapshots made with consumer cameras and phones. There's nothing magical about 300DPI, other than hiding the ugly mess at pixel level. You can take whatever low quality image and "purify" it by making it smaller. Which is exactly what high PPI monitors do. I would rather have an ultra-high-def 100DPI A0 print, than a tiny 300DPI A4.

All you are saying is that you see just as much detail on both 27" 4K and 32" 4K (and even 40" 4K monitors). And that's just not true. Try comparing them side by side. Size matters.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2023 at 17:14 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: It should have been 50" 6K or 55".

Don't tell me that you don't use scaling on your Apple XDR Display ))

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2023 at 14:47 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Same old same old .. 27" is way too small for 5K and the 32" is not big enough.

Yeah, you would pick the 4K (2160p) on 27" (163PPI), because you can see like 3K (1600p)(122PPI) on it, which is a bit more than 2.5K (1440p)(109PPI) and 1080p (2K) is clearly too low-res for 27" (81PPI). You need at least 90PPI for quality picture and the sweet spot is around 120PPI (give or take). It is measurable, it's not an opinion. While the 27" 5K gives you 217PPI, which is a huge waste.

Screenshot resolution depends on the original content resolution that you are watching, not the monitor. If you blow up a 640x480 clip at full screen, the screenshot will not be 4K quality. Plus, you can run higher resolution content than your screen resolution. It's called DSR (Dynamic Super Resolution) (or RSR for Radeon Super Resolution) and you can turn it ON in your computer graphics settings. Basically, you can make 4K screenshots while using a 1080p monitor.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2023 at 14:28 UTC

It should have been 50" 6K or 55".

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2023 at 00:05 UTC as 25th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

ecka84: Same old same old .. 27" is way too small for 5K and the 32" is not big enough.

I enjoy looking at photos on high resolution displays too. I'm just saying that a 27" monitor can't possibly show you all the detail of a high resolution image. You just can't see those tiny "Retina" pixels and the data they represent. To see everything, there must be a certain comfortable distance, the line between seeing the pixels and not seeing the pixels. You don't have it with 27" 5K or 4K. It doesn't exist.

There's no connection between screen quality and screenshot quality. It's a matter of magnification, which is basically the same on 27" 4K/5K and 40" 4K/5K. However, with 27" UHD you are forced to use scaling to see stuff comfortably. You just can't see the whole picture. That's why so many photography videos show you 200% crops or 300% crops and higher magnifications, because otherwise it would be impossible to see stuff on "Retina" displays, and it's always ugly when it's over 100%. Native resolution wins every time, except when you can't see it on your "Retina".

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2023 at 23:58 UTC
In reply to:

JKP: But why so tiny...

Except that you can't see 5K on 27".

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2023 at 14:03 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Same old same old .. 27" is way too small for 5K and the 32" is not big enough.

Are you sure that you can actually see the whole 4K resolution on a 27" monitor? Perhaps it is closer to 2.5K? Isn't the whole point of such tiny "Retina" pixels to not see them as well as the whole amount of information they carry? Sounds like a self-defeating gimmick. I mean, a huge chunk of information is being wasted. Can you tell the difference between 27" 5K and 27"4K in a blind test? What about 27" 3K? I think that 40"(ish) 4K looks amazing. No scaling required and I don't need to get close to see everything. It hangs nicely on the wall above my desk, so it doesn't even take extra space on the surface.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2023 at 14:00 UTC
Total: 5545, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »