This looks like an amazing deal, should I snatch? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 04:21:53 am
content: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236690RMy concern is the open box part. The monitor specs out brilliantly, but what kind of experiences with open box have you guys had?My hope is that is includes at least a displayport cable (I don't got none), as I don't know if any of my HDMI cables will work right with HDMI 2 on 60hz 4K.And no, I don't have a card that supports freesync, but I don't need it anyways.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 04:27:31 am
content: You're thinking about buying a $200 monitor, why are you even remotely concerned if it has a cable or not? Just buy one.

author: Carl_Smith
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 04:31:36 am
content: Newegg is a reputable company as far as I know, and it says you have 30 day return, so you should be able to send it back if there are any issues. I've been thinking of getting a 4k monitor as well. Looks tempting.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 04:32:39 am
content: You are playing a risk/reward game. I have usually had good luck with open box stuff. But not always. Just as Newegg says in their open box policy, they don't take care to make sure everything is there. So you are depending on whoever returned the item.Think of it this way. If you buy this, and it is missing a part and you have to pay for the replacement part, will it still be a good deal? If so, why aren't you buying it right now?

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 04:34:48 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 26, 2017, 04:32:39 amGood point.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 04:58:41 am
content: Stupid deal, why would sane person need 4k at such size. 2560x1440 is max which would make sense. Get larger screen size to make use out of 4k.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 05:02:38 am
content: Quote from: wraper on January 26, 2017, 04:58:41 amSerious question, have you ever used a 4k display at that size?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 05:03:44 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on January 26, 2017, 04:21:53 amAny <2m HDMI cable which is made to the spec should work.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 05:07:51 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on January 26, 2017, 05:02:38 amI have 2x OF 30" 2560X1600 displays (still cost EUR 1100 each) on my desk and don't see why would you need resolution of 4k at piss poor 23.6" size.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 05:23:25 am
content: Quote from: wraper on January 26, 2017, 05:07:51 amThat doesn't answer my question. If you haven't you are not qualified to make that assertion.Also my vision is very good, a difference in optical acuity could be at fault too.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 05:34:56 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on January 26, 2017, 05:23:25 amWish you a good luck fighting with scaling in different apps.

author: edpalmer42
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 05:48:50 am
content: I see that it's gone so this might not matter.If my calculations are correct, each pixel is 0.0054" (0.14 mm) square. I don't know how to relate that to visual acuity, but wouldn't it be uncomfortable to look at a computer screen that could have elements that small? Even if you could read it, would you want to? Even 1920 x 1080 makes the fonts too small for me!

author: CM800
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 09:50:02 am
content: Quote from: wraper on January 26, 2017, 05:03:44 amThat's not what I've heard.In fact generally people have been saying stay away from HDMI for 4K, go to display port. (That's what I have done)Honestly I love my 4K screen. It's great.Only annoything thing is a few peices of software don't work so good for such high resolutions (but it can be 'fixed' with a quick regedit)Eagle and Processing are key ones. (Arduino IDE is fine however. The issues with Eagle has actually pushed me towards KiCad so it's a force for good.)

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 10:22:31 am
content: Quote from: edpalmer42 on January 26, 2017, 05:48:50 amWhen the screen resolution exceeds the visual acuity threshold, the "elements" are not visible, period.This resolution depends on viewing distance, because each photoreceptor in the eye subtends a specific solid angle (~ 18 nanosteradian). 3840x2160 at 23.6" is only 187 DPI, so it is near the threshold for 20/20 vision from two feet away.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 12:38:48 pm
content: Quote from: CM800 on January 26, 2017, 09:50:02 amI have been running a 4.6m Amazon Basics HDMI cable at 3840x2160 60Hz for about six months. No problems so far, it works faultlessly. I, too, was amazed. Source is FirePro W4100 with a mini DP to HDMI 2.0a adapter, monitor is Philips BDM3275UP. I am using the monitor's DP input for another source. Bizarrely, trying to achieve the same using DP cables hasn't been quite so successful.Cable:https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00870ZLJ0/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1MDP-HDMI 2.0a:https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B01B702YTG/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1Telly:https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00WR5H0BS/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 12:49:26 pm
content: Regarding screen size, I worked with 28" 4k for a year or so but found I had to use 125% scaling on Windows. Scaling at anything other than 100% sucks on Windows, some things work, others don't. It's an unholy compromise. Instead, I found a better solution was to set up a non-standard resolution for my graphics card 3200 x 1800 and run at 100% Windows scaling. True, you get the smudging from the screen's interpolation, but it's far better than relying on Windows' scaling.More recently I switched to a 32" 4k monitor with 100% scaling and native resolution, and it's perfect.I also strongly recommend favouring proper tactile push buttons rather than touch buttons on monitors.One other comment on scaling in Windows: on multi-monitor with different resolutions and different scaling on each monitor sucks even more.

author: SingedFingers
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 01:39:00 pm
content: And here I sit plugging away at code on a 1280x800 Lenovo X201 12" screen...

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 02:46:43 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on January 26, 2017, 05:02:38 amNot 4K specifically but there is still a lot of software out there which draws a line as a single row of pixels and that will be useless on a small size 4k monitor. A long time ago I used a Dell laptop which had a high resolution screen. It sucked for CAD because the lines where too thin. Later on Dell introduced an additional model with a lower resolution. People probably returned too many of these machines.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 03:21:17 pm
content: Can I borrow a gun for my head?I slept on it and LITERALLY the next day it's gone.

author: timothyaag
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 03:37:26 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on January 26, 2017, 03:21:17 pmYou could consider a reputable Ebay refurb seller. There are plenty of name-brand(or unknown Korean brands which do hold up well) 4K monitors under $300. I got a 28" 4K for $250 a couple of months ago and a quick glance shows the market is similar. I'm not as well-researched as I was when I was buying but it looks like 28" ones are trending a bit cheaper than 24".

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2017, 05:36:10 pm
content: Quote from: helius on January 26, 2017, 10:22:31 amThe hidden issue that you are not taking into account is the effects of the computer. When I'm looking at a full PCB of say 200 mm size, and i'm looking for the 0.15mm tracks on my full HD screen, they are not visible. On a 4K screen it is. And sometimes I go closer to the screen, because it is important to see the details, yet have the full image there. So a 4K 24 inch is better than a full HD fow work. In fact, sometimes I could use even more pixels, because the 0.1mm grid makes fancy stuff when zooming.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2017, 12:23:54 am
content: Quote from: helius on January 26, 2017, 10:22:31 amTrue, but many people have better than 20/20 vision. I did when I was younger. Lots better. And some studies indicate the "anti-aliasing" features in the human system may not be optimal, indicating that there is a benefit to oversampling. That won't make it possible to read characters drawn with single pixel line widths and two or three pixel widths, but can help on many kinds of features.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2017, 03:55:38 pm
content: Is this not more a problem with some apps that are not pixel-size aware? Some facets such as text size and window controls don't work at all well on high DPI displays. For example the other day I was running Blender (for example) on a 4k 28" monitor and the text is too tiny for normal day to day use. Eagle (RIP) has similar usability problems in such conditions, or at least it does in the version I use. I would dread to think how such apps, of which there are many, work on a 24".Before running on 28" (and then 32") monitors at 4k, my PCB layout daily driver used two 27" 2560x1440, and that was pretty much perfection, A3 sized schematic on one monitor and the board on the other. Text and window control sizes at 100% scaling was spot on. When I moved to 28" 3840x2160, I tried to like it but I had to accept that it wasn't going to work. As mentioned, I used a custom resolution of 3200x1600 instead which improved practical usability dramatically. I gave up with Windows scaling, it just got in the way. 32" is definitely a sweet spot for a 4k desk monitor.I often wonder why 32" UHD monitors are so expensive, when 28" is pretty reasonable, as is a UHD 40" telly.While my eyesight isn't bad for a bloke in his 50s, and the test of time is rarely kind, to give you an idea technically I am legal to pilot a plane without specs, although I prefer to wear them. I also have a pair of bifocal bins for combined computer/soldering/probing which I occasionally wear particularly first thing in the morning when the intraocular pressure is higher and my short sight isn't quite as good as other times of the day.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2017, 09:16:37 pm
content: 32in UHD monitors probably because they are new, and thus a price premium. I just use a 32in TV set, works for me with the 1360x768 resolution it has. Would prefer higher, but this was cheap, less than half the price of the 28in monitor as well. Common TV set size as well.

author: Carl_Smith
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2017, 01:39:23 am
content: Quote from: wraper on January 26, 2017, 04:58:41 amI have 4K resolution on my 5 inch smartphone screen. It's awesome. I thought the idea of quad HD on a 5 inch screen was ridiculous overkill -- I bought the phone for other features it had. But after using it for a while I realize I would love to have this high dpi (something like 556 dpi) on all my monitors. You can not see pixels at all. Tiny text and features that would be lost on a normal dpi screen are easily legible on this screen.Now, I get that the point that Wraper was getting at is scaling. Android scales perfectly. Windows does not. But it's much better in Windows 10 than in previous versions. I've been running my 15.6" laptop at 1080 with 125% because 100% makes things a bit small. Most everything works right.I'm wondering if when monitors get to even higher resolution, to the point where 200% scaling makes things about the right size, that scaling problems will go away since 200% is an even multiple. Or maybe that won't matter to apps that don't understand scaling...

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 31, 2017, 10:48:16 am
content: Quote from: Carl_Smith on January 31, 2017, 01:39:23 amOn a 1920 x 1080 5" screen pixels are not visible either, even from 10 cm distance, unless you use magnification. So 4k on such screens useful only for marketing.

author: Carl_Smith
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2017, 06:26:14 am
content: Quote from: wraper on January 31, 2017, 10:48:16 amJust thought of something else. I remember way back when laser printers were mostly 300dpi output and they started going to 600 or even 1200 dpi. I could swear that I could see an improvement in print quality. Makes me wonder, if I can see a difference there I should be able to see a difference between monitors with similar DPI differences.Or maybe my seeing a difference was all just wishful thinking, I don't know.Whatever the actual threshold his, I want a desktop monitor with a pixel density smaller than I can see, and an operating system that can scale properly to make use of it.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2017, 06:34:48 am
content: While I would probably go for something a bit larger for a desktop 4k monitor, I have a 12.5" 1920x1080 screen on my laptop and it's wonderful. I tend to like high information density though, I've always had the highest resolution monitors I could afford, I often have several programs open and laid out so I can see two or more simultaneously. 4K on a 23" monitor doesn't sound unreasonable, the 24" on my desktop is only 1920x1200 and I've often wished it were higher, at the time I got it the higher res displays were still very expensive though.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2017, 12:31:04 pm
content: I am the same, I've always preferred high information density too.Having said that, running a phone, laptop and desktop are different operating paradigms. A phone screen is typically 10-12" from your face, a laptop's about 18" and your average desktop monitor is at arm's length, about 2'.What's important is the area/pixel that the eye sees, which is dependent not only on pixel size, but also on distance.Here's a table of examples in order of relative pixel density. Those in red and green are those I've had direct experience with for some time, the others are there as we've discussed them here. Personally speaking, I'd consider anything more dense than 58-60 PPD as being uncomfortable to use at 100% scaling, and they're in red. Those in green are what I've used and consider to be comfortable, usable and of value.The table assumes, for laptops and desktops, Windows at 100% scaling. You can run at different scaling, but as I mentioned before, scaling at anything other than 100% on Windows will be a compromise.Although I have a 4k phone (Xperia Z5 Premium), practically speaking I consider the UHD display feature to be little more than a marketing gimmick. The UHD resolution seems only to work natively for images anyway, the OS itself is still running at 1080.