I want ideally a 22" or max 24" UHD monitor. These used to exist, but not anymore.The narrative being pushed:>Get a bigger desk moron>4K is wasted on sub 27"I dont want a big bloated 27-32" object cluttering my desk even though my desk is largeAnd I tried a 24" qhd, its resolution was too low
>>107070261Anything above 1080p is wasteful.
>>107070261For the context, about 10 years ago, the LG 22MD4K was released.Few years ago, there were quite affordable 4k 24inch monitors. Like the LG 24UD58.Now it is reserved for niche like Asus' proArt range costing over $1000.Not popular enough for mass manufacturing, and high power consumption per inch has prevented to be sold in some markets like EU.
>>107070297To someone who has impaired vision
>>107070316>high power consumption per inch has prevented to be sold in some markets like EU.Fucking hell this insane.You seem pretty well informed so what do you think, is it worth waiting?Ideally I want 22" but 24" I could live with in 4K or 5K. Is it coming or will the regression continue?
>>107070332This is also the reason why most 8k tvs have disappeared from European stores.https://www.tvfindr.com/magazine/eu-ecodesign-directive/As a trend, sadly there is no coming back to 22inch, which is traditionally associated to the lower end offers. The manufacturers certainly felt stupid to sell a 22-24in 4k monitor for 250 euro/dollars when it is a niche for sharpest picture enjoyers like you and could have been sold for much more. Maybe check the refurbished offers.(Sadly) 27inch is becoming more and more mainstream, which 24inch used to be the most used 10 years ago. Basically the 27inch QHD/4k is the new the 24in FHD.
Also at this point, manufacturers will just repackage it as "monitor for developers" and charge a premium.Like the BenQ rd240q which is only QHD, costs around 400 euro. But it might come with some plus like usb PD for charging laptops.
Why would you ever want a 24" 4k? That's like saying you want a 12" 1080p screen.The purpose of 4k is extended screen real estate. You can fit 4 1080p monitors worth of content onto 4k, why would you instead use all that resolution for macfag text scaling so you can browse in 1080p equivalent like a retard?27" and 32" are both far too small for 4k. 40" is the minimum.
>>107070261And I want a 40" 4k monitor but they all stop at 32"
>>107070261>4K is wasted on sub 27"Only trolls who never seen anything better than their 1366x768 thinkpad say this.
>>107070930It is wasted on sub 40", though.Is a high DPI screen nice? Sure. Is it even slightly worth it at the moment? No, not at all. And the reason is simple, monitors are still way too fucking small. When we've got 65" 6k monitors, you can argue for high DPI, I wouldn't mind a boost to 12k for the sake of sharper text. But while monitors are still as small as they are? Why wouldn't you increase FOV coverage before you increase density?Only on phones, tablets and laptops, where coverage is impossible to increase because folding is a meme, do high DPIs make sense. For monitors, they're completely retarded.
>>107070297But only if you are turdworldism enjoyer.
>>107070332Wtf even is 5k? I hate these marketing terms. 1440p as 2k is also utterly retarded
>>107070261I'm keeping my 21.5 super glossy 1080p monitor forever with me.Nothing on the market right now is better than it.OLED monitors are flickering eye cancer, both for gaming and text reading. VA, TN is cavemen tier. 4K is a meme.
>>107070261uperfect chinks got you covered.
>>107070984If you want huge 4k monitor buy 4k tv, simple as that.
>>107071045But 1080p is caveman tier too.
>>107071139Human eye can't see above 100 PPI for monitors/TVs.
>>107071030>1440p as 2k is also utterly retardedOnly literal retards call it this, it's always been 2.5k. 1080p is 2k.It's basically a scam to make you think "oh, 1440p is half of 4k". It's not, it's 44%.
>>107070261same OP. I also want to buy max 24" and seems like normies destroyed the demand for it. The monitor community is pure cancer and giving the most reddit-tier opinions. I also want to enjoy UHD but I always found monitors 27"+ too big to watch from my [big] desk. There IS a huge benefit in terms of DPI as more pixels are forced into a smaller screen, thus making it extremely eye candy. Funnily enough, when it comes to DPI on 4k and eye comfort, they ignore it and behave like cultists, but get extremely autistic about things like >muh 27" screen is too small>help I only have 120Hz but want 144Hz>QLED vs OLED heeeeelp>muh desk is too small for 4k 32"
>>107070316>high power consumption per inch has prevented to be sold in some markets like EUshould've thought about that before you encroached on russian territory with your "north atlantic" "alliance"
>>107071163Cope.
>>107071224My man, let me tell you how to fix your problem in 2 seconds.Assuming you're using your 1080p 24" monitor at the correct distance of 3 feet, you need to move a 27" 4k screen to 3.4 feet away, or 5 inches further back if that's easier for you to work out.If your desk is so small that you can't move the screen back 5 inches, you should buy a monitor arm or something, or just push your chair back 5 inches.Congratulations, you now have an identical FOV and PPD to a 24" 4k monitor, and all it took you was 5 seconds of effort.
>>107070261>I want ideally a 22" or max 24" UHD monitoryou can get these for $20 on facebook marketplace
I found one: https://www.amazon.com/AG-Neovo-Adjustable-Delivery-DisplayPort/dp/B0DVSRJYYT/
>>107070661I cannot express how maddening I find your reasoning.Why stop there and not use a monitor at all and not a 100" tv further from your desk then?
>>107070661I dont think you understand how scaling works
>>107070661why the fuck would you want a monitor so big it makes you move your eyes around?the point of higher resolutions is pixel density
>>107071649You're retarded and don't even understand what I'm saying. Current resolutions are not acceptable for a screen of that size at a correct PPD.>>107071659You absolutely don't. If you run a 4k panel at 200% scaling (because it's so small relative to you that you can't read the text), that panel can fit as much actual information on it as a 1080p screen.>>107071673Why do you have a monitor bigger than 5 inches, then? Think of all the eye movement savings you could have! The point of higher resolutions is more real estate, once you have enough real estate (full FOV coverage at 60 PPD), then you can start arguing for pixel density.
>>107071673Right but I do find my UHD 4K 17" laptop screen to be to small for working optimally. 22-22" would be ideal for some reason I cant quite explain
>>107071736because the point of higher resolutions is to make the image more detailed so it looks betterif you want real estate just plug in a bunch of cheapshit 1080p screens because that's essentially what you want to turn them into
>>107071779Although a 400 PPI 17" monitor would work too
>>107071249lol, name a single instance of this happening sergej
>>107071791Yeah, you're retarded. If you use multiple screens, you have borders. If I want to consume large format content optimally, it needs to be on one screen.
>>107071811then just use a fucking tv dumbassthey make oled 4k 42inch ones
>>107071853I have been, for the past 3 years.
