His monitor is less than 32 inches

>his monitor isn't cut

enjoy your pixel cheese

Attached: thin_bezel_monitor.jpg (1500x1039, 219K)

Attached: nice.jpg (640x480, 208K)

Fucking,this.Anything over 27" is ridiculous and gives me a headache if I have to use it for very long.

>not owning a p75

i just went from 3 monitors to something like in op's pic

it's just way more versatile and flexible, it's like a big canvas and you can split it up any way you like

whatever weird statements you need to cope, good for you

I went from 4 monitors to 1 (sometimes on the 2nd when TV is in use for other things). Way better than having a number of monitors sprawled across your desk at various angles.
Anyone who says otherwise is lying, I've tried it all.

Attached: 2 nov 2018.jpg (6000x4000, 956K)

is that a p4317q?

Been Thinking of making the jump from my 3 u2412m

This is like the monitor equivalent of an open plan house.

What, the TV? It's a Sony X930E.

What the fuck does that mean

jfc what a fucking numale... just look at him

Are you like a Journey fanboy or something

>color bad

Attached: b09.png (644x812, 74K)

Basically it's like the 'beat it' of the home power tool industry.

It's where you have your living room, kitchen, toilet, bedroom, etc all in one giant room instead of having separate rooms for each. I mean, I can understand the need for this if you're living some tiny Japanese apartment, but not if have an actual normal sized house.

Who the fuck can afford a house anywhere decent these days? It's called studio apartment life. Most people living in major cities will either rent a studio, a 1 bedroom, or rent a room in a house along with several others.

Well if you are forced to live somewhere tiny then I can understand, but if you purposefully buy a huge house with no interior walls then you're dumb.

Why. It looks big and spacious

Who /eternal distrust in scaling and picks monitor sizes by native resolution and pixel density/ here?

anything bigger then 24 inch is cancer.

Tell me why I shouldn't buy a 43 inch 4K IPS panel

Because your eyes aren't going to get better, and 49-ish inches is far less taxing on them unless you sell your soul to the devil for scaling.

27" is perfect unless you're a desklet

I do.

27" 1440p and 43" 2160p

109 and 103 PPI

As long as it's within ~5-10 PPI, i'm fine with it. More than that gets to be annoying however.

Is that a 75" tv or is he just a manlet?

Its about 2 feet away, completely fine for around 43".

I'm a poorfag who's going for a monitor that does a little bit of everything, so does anyone have this monitor:
iiyama.com/gb_en/products/prolite-xb2783hsu-b3/

I have a 34" ultrawide 3440x1440 lg monitor. I like it, but yeah, wish I had done smaller 3 monitors instead.

Throw it in the trash where it belongs and go back to the nice as fuck xl2411p

You lose pixel density tho. 3-4 monitors with 24" 4k is the sweat spot.

27 inch is about as big as you'd want. Anything bigger then that is retarded

34" 3440x1440 /w 27" 2560x1440 is best tier since they line up perfectly in height.

I thought you said deskjeet for a second

Attached: 3EpUUKVL_400x400.jpg (223x223, 13K)

I am seriously considering replacing my triple 1080p setup with a single 43" 4k monitor.

The only 3x" monitor worth using is Dell's 8k display.
27" 5k is the next best option.

Attached: 1520318853556.jpg (5120x2880, 3.74M)

I enjoy that after 2-3 years of your shilling for the 5k imac, still almost no one on here besides you has one.

>tfw 27" inchlet

Because they're underpowered and the only other way to get 5k is finicky without a Mac.
Also dreadful image retention when you're looking at anything grey.

Attached: 1541533012337.jpg (960x1280, 244K)

Give me one reason not to.

Attached: Screenshot_20181127-164403_Browser.png (1080x1920, 570K)

at least you can admit it's generally garbage unless you fit the right criteria as a user.

shit QC and random screen blanking every so often.

They're not garbage though. Even with the image retention the 5k screen is pretty much better than any other monitor you can buy.
Since monitors are still shit however, it's looking like the best screens you'll be able to get will be 8k TVs. TVs are FAR superior to anything monitors have to offer.

Attached: 1519725333399.png (464x452, 187K)

27-31.5" 1440p is objectively the best, most usable screen size and resolution for a desktop monitor. Don't @ me, this isn't a debate.

>They're not garbage though.
>they're underpowered and the only other way to get 5k is finicky without a Mac

IE, it's only going to be useful for people who use iOS, and who don't need much hardware power.

That's not exactly a glowing recommendation for 90% of consumers.

Actually that sounds like a good reason not to

The screen blanking isn't a deal breaker for everyone, but it can get annoying.

Generally it doesn't happen at all, but you should expect 1 or 2 instances of 2-3 seconds of blanking every ~8-10 hours.

Occasionally you'll get 3-4 instances of blinking in a 15 minute period, then it'll be fine for several hours at a time.

As long as you're not bugged by the occasional 2-3 seconds of a black screen, it's okay. But if that's gonna bother you, avoid this panel.

Same with the LG 43" using the same panel, though it's less severe from what i've heard.

4k tvs over 40" are unironically great when hooked up to your PC

The vast majority of people using computers, even on Jow Forums, do not do anything more resource intensive than decoding high quality video.
In fact most "real work" done on computers could be done (and sometimes still is) done on hardware from 10+ years ago.
I also said 5k is finicky to get working on computers that aren't a Mac. You need to be able to output video through thunderbolt 3 however, which most motherboards and GPUs will not support.

I love my 43"er. By far the best type of screen for everyone except "pro gaymurs".

>he can't use 4k without scaling

Attached: IMG_20181128_005402.jpg (3648x2736, 1.44M)

Has anyone got some 6k+ wallpaper recommendations? They're so rare.

Why would you want to?

Boy I'm still running a 720p laptop with a 1080p cintiq. Your 4k horseshit can eat load.

Because it's comfy af desu.

Attached: 2018-11-27 19.01.32.jpg (3895x2267, 1.74M)

Attached: 20181128_010324.jpg (4032x2419, 3.31M)

Shitty text and image rendering. Better off waiting for 8k TVs to hit the market, especially when QD-LED TVs happen.

>i draw dog cocks for change, the post

no, that's a shitty camera.

Nothing wrong with the text and image rendering of 4k at 100% GUI scale.

Now if you're talking a 27" or a 32" 4k, sure, that's stupid.

I use a 40" HDTV, and it's a lot better for my eyes not having to stare up close on something to read. That shit is what causes near sightedness.

Attached: 1539391592247.jpg (1071x879, 248K)

>i view dog cocks on my 4k monitor recreationally: the post

>text
It's not "retina perfect", just like 22" 1080p monitor. But you get used to the HDPI effect after a day anyways and then you have to deal with all the issues of scaling. High DPI just isnt worth it.

>image
Literally no difference. Even then, there's not even a lot of good quality 4k images out there.

It's not the camera, I don't even need to look at the text and images to know they're rendered poorly. You ideally want ~200ppi on a display these days. You'll never go back once you have crisp fonts, crisp images (especially thumbnails), actual 1080p youtube without taking up a quarter of your screen, etc.
Pic related.

Photos won't look much different between low PPI and high PPI, but for things like anime pictures or manga the extra pixels make a huge quality improvement.
Thumbnails and video are also noticeably higher quality. In fact I hardly ever open images in their own tabs on Jow Forums anymore, because I can clearly read everything just by expanding it in the thread.

Attached: 1525216691519.jpg (2952x2728, 2.17M)

so you're not refuting

>In fact I hardly ever open images in their own tabs on Jow Forums anymore, because I can clearly read everything just by expanding it in the thread.
Pic related as an example. High PPI is worth it.
If you really want a 4k workspace then go ahead, but I'm personally waiting for 8K TV. That way you get high PPI and a 4k workspace on a giant screen.

Attached: 1514792527590.jpg (2952x2728, 1.13M)

a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, dummy

through calculations, it is confirmed that 24 inches is the exact sweetspot for 1080p.
i want that sweetspot for a perfect display nigga

The vast majority of people would benefit from more workspace, NOT higher pixel density.

Maybe for your autism the hDPI is better, but for MOST other people, that's just not going to be the case.

Enjoy your memes, but don't pretend your view is somehow what EVERYONE should think.
>You ideally want ~200ppi on a display these days
No, no I dont.

You and I can't speak for the vast majority of people. I don't need a large workspace. Normies use phones which can't even display more than one thing at a time without issues.
Maybe you like your giant workspace, but I wouldn't want that blur.

Attached: 1540280129301.png (611x611, 350K)

>that blur
lmao nigger kill yourself, it's the same "blur" you get from a 22" 1080p monitor.

You realize MOST people are using 24" 1080p...right?

Most people do not know what they are missing.

Yeah cause no one has ever used a 1080p 15" laptop.

Come on, people know what higher pixel density looks like. It just is irrelevant unless you're a pixel peeping autist like yourself.

Of course, if technology would allow for a cheap high DPI AND allow for plenty of workspace resolution, sure that'd be great. But it doesn't exist, and it certainly wont exist anytime soon for a reasonable consumer price-tag.

You can get a 40-43" 4k panel for under $500 without difficulty. And it would by far be more useful to most people compared to a 24" 4k, or a 27" 5k. Or one of the meme 8ks from dell.

Well that's your choice. I want sharp everything, especially videos, images, anime, and 2D art.
Save up for an 8K display. You won't regret it.

Again, i fully believe you believe that, just understand most people give no fucks.

>You'll never go back once you have crisp fonts, crisp images (especially thumbnails), actual 1080p youtube without taking up a quarter of your screen
Well it's kinda funny that I usually have my phone running at 720p instead of 1440p to save power. I turn power saving mode every now and then, and yes 1440p looks nice but I only notice for a little while. After a day I have forgotten which mode I'm in.

Now someone will say that a 6" phone is already 250+ PPI, but here is the thing. I have the phone about 8-9" from my face and my PC monitor is 22"-30" away.

>Thumbnails
I really, really don't care about this. I care about seeing way more thumbnails at once, though.
>video
Again, there's not a lot of video above 4k, and the things I want to watch are rarely even 4k.

>In fact I hardly ever open images in their own tabs on Jow Forums anymore
Yeah I pretty much never do this since upgrading to my 4k screen. Why would I?

>I don't need a large workspace.
Have you tried it?

Attached: chrome_2018-11-28_01-18-33[1].jpg (1885x2067, 474K)

>Now someone will say that a 6" phone is already 250+ PPI, but here is the thing. I have the phone about 8-9" from my face and my PC monitor is 22"-30" away.
250+ PPI looks fine that close to your face. Even 200 PPI does. 96ppi does not look good at 20"-30" away. It may be usable, but you are inevitably going to see aliasing issues, especially on things like text. Even if you can't resolve the individual pixels, there are still not enough to accurately represent many signals without blurring/aliasing.

>I really, really don't care about this. I care about seeing way more thumbnails at once, though.
High PPI lets you see more thumbnails at once, because you have more pixels to work with.

>Again, there's not a lot of video above 4k, and the things I want to watch are rarely even 4k.
Look at the picture. I was talking about having high resolution video without having to use fullscreen. The video I'm watching is probably somewhere in the ballpark of 1440p in the screenshot. You cannot do that with low PPI, even 4k. You'd take up a majority of the screen.

>Yeah I pretty much never do this since upgrading to my 4k screen. Why would I?
Show the image I showed. You will not be able to read the text on without opening the image in full. In fact pic related.

>Have you tried it?
Yes. I can barely find a use for 3200x1800, let alone 3840x2160.

Attached: 1523815985501.png (1476x1364, 931K)

>without opening the image in full. In fact pic related.
>he doesn't use image hover to full size any image on Jow Forums his mouse cursor goes over.

lol okay?

Attached: 2018-11-27 19.48.49.jpg (4032x2268, 2.08M)

>Says he uses 4k for more space
>Just maximizes windows
So which is it?
I'm listing off objective issues with low PPI. If you want a 4k workspace, fine, but don't pretend low PPI is anything but hot garbage.

dope keyboard

I'm watching a movie on my 4k right now moron, i'm just showing you an example since you're apparently retarded.

My 4k monitor is primarily for things like CIV, total war, movies, youtube, and when I need multiple browsers open at once and in view at the same time.

>Yes. I can barely find a use for 3200x1800, let alone 3840x2160.
Clearly you have never played ASCII games. I want to see Cataclysm DDA in UHD, or Dwarf Fortress

You're avoiding the point. If you aren't using your browser maximized you are not going to be able to read things like text in an expanded image. It it simply something your hardware cannot do without compromises. There isn't anything to argue about in this regard.

True, maybe it's unplayable at 200ppi without scaling. Thankfully 8K TVs will be on the way, so you will eventually have the best of both worlds.

using a samsung 43" ku6300 as a monitor has been very good for me.

Compensating for his noodle dick kek

>Thankfully 8K TVs will be on the way
Not any time soon and not in any way affordable
Let's get 4k at 120hz and HDMI 2.1 the standard first (4k@120hz is already standard in high end TVs but only internally)

5 years is "soon" by my standards.

Attached: 1541822926408.png (624x951, 891K)

Soon to most people would be 12-24 months at most.

true that. res caps out at 4K-5K, at bigger sizes you're really not getting more of that pixel, actual space value
I'm honestly surprised square monitors haven't caught on yet. We're moving closer to it with 3:2 monitors, it should be really fucking obvious what's the it. A square 5K monitor would be sick'ning, my creator dick gets hard just from thinking of it. All that vertical space, don't need to turn it.
Or vertical, why isn't vertical trending? We don't have low height resolution problems as much, 1080 was terrible but now we have 2160p and taller screen ratios.

literal brainlet

I think it will be longer than 5 years before we get 8k where 4k is now in terms of just the availability of TV models. Availability of 8k content is going to be even longer, hell 4k content is still pretty scare. OTA is non existent, 4k broadcast is basically non-existent except maybe some sports on direct tv and streaming 4k content is very bit starved. We do have 4k blu-ray at the very least