
Follow-up on 4K displays for programmers - jfrankamp
http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-is-for-programmers-redux
======
spiralpolitik
Bizarrely I've actually found that having a large single display makes me less
productive as a programmer as too much head movement is required to see
everything and I prefer to focus on a single file at time to keep everything
mindful.

In the cases that I do need to compare two files side by side at the same time
or have documentation open I have a secondary monitor for the additional
window.

I've also learned that having a monitor that has the correct dpi ratio verses
screen resolution verses screen size is more important than cramming the most
number of pixels into a specific screen size. Especially if you want to avoid
eye strain.

~~~
userbinator
> I've also learned that having a monitor that has the correct dpi ratio
> verses screen resolution verses screen size is more important than cramming
> the most number of pixels into a specific screen size. Especially if you
> want to avoid eye strain.

Definitely. The "retina" fad of higher and higher resolutions, combined with
bigger screen sizes, means that you can get _plenty_ of tiny text on a screen,
but that doesn't mean you can comfortably read it at a good viewing distance.
So you turn the font size up... and wonder why you need such a high DPI since
you'd just be seeing the same amount of text as before.

I prefer multiple monitors over one huge one, since I can position them so
they're all easy to see and a relatively constant distance from my eyes (i.e.
in an arc). One huge flat surface means that looking at the corners requires
large head movements since that distance increases much more.

~~~
saurik
The point of "retina" displays is not to fit more content onto the screen, but
to remove the pixelation of the screen in order to make it more like paper:
the "retina" devices from Apple render content at exactly the same "font size"
as the "non-retina" devices, the fonts are simply crisper.

------
jrockway
4K is great, but two problems: it's not "Retina" resolution at 32" (and
definitely not at 39", though that's too big for a monitor), and the display
ports that exist today do not support it well at all.

DisplayPort 1.2 can do it, if the monitor pretends it's two half-size monitors
next to each other. This causes major problems for OSes, though I did
eventually manage to work around it on Linux. (On an nVidia card, enable
Xinerama. Due to a bug, this turns Xinerama and RandR _off_ , making the
window manager think you only have one monitor. Perfection.)

HDMI 1.4 can do it, but only at 30Hz, which is ugly. It's actually not
unusable, but you'll be aware of what's going on.

As for the resolution issue: you're still not getting very good density. Your
phone can do 440ppi. The Chromebook Pixel is 240ppi. 32" at 4k is 140ppi. Mind
you, it looks great at 200%, but things are a little big. (I ended up liking
this and my normal monitors now run at 125%.)

You really want 8K for a big monitor.

You also want 120Hz refresh, if only so that movies play each frame at a
constant speed. 24 doesn't divide 60 (or 30!), but it does divide 120.

So until there is some transport layer that can do 8K at 120Hz, we're taking a
step backwards. (4K at 120Hz is fine for TVs, though. Perhaps even HD is
enough there.)

~~~
bhauer
> _So until there is some transport layer that can do 8K at 120Hz, we 're
> taking a step backwards_

Author here. I certainly do want 8K (or even more) on the desktop, but I
disagree that the current crop of 4K displays are a step backwards versus
recent history. Until these displays became available, we had a 7+ year
stagnation where 2560x1600 was the pinnacle of semi-affordable desktop
computing displays. Finally, after this years-long agony of lethargy, we have
vendors selling televisions that in many ways exceed the capabilities of our
desktop monitors.

I write this comment from my home workstation, which is equipped with three
Dell U3011 30" monitors. I love these monitors. But each of them cost me
$1,100 and that's the same price I paid for my first 30" monitor several years
prior, a Dell 3007WFP. The pricing is asinine. But because I am satisfied with
this configuration, I'll be waiting for a 60Hz 4K for my home workstation. If
I were using a lesser configuration, I'd seriously consider dropping $500 (or
at times, <$400) at Amazon to get a Seiki to tide me over until the second or
third-generation 4K displays, or better, arrive.

I think you and I agree on just about everything except that point. I rejoice
that there is something stirring in the display industry, even if it's coming
from the television side of the aisle. I hope the display manufacturers feel
encouraged to move as rapidly as possible on the desktop computing side. I'm
trying to get the message out to them in my own way. :)

~~~
jrockway
I have an Asus PQ321, and I will agree with you: the LCD panel is a huge step
forward. But we shouldn't look at that and say the problem is solved, we need
to be developing the next generation.

What I see limiting progress is the link layer between the GPU and the LCD
panel. 4K@60Hz requires about 15Gbps of bandwidth. 8K will require 60Gbps.
8K@120, which is what I want, will require 120Gbps. We need a standard for
that, so when panels become affordable, you can just buy one and hook it up.
In the mean time, you have to suffer with text that's not quite as clear as
what you get on your laptop or phone, and with video that "judders".

~~~
henk53
>In the mean time, you have to suffer with text that's not quite as clear as
what you get on your laptop or phone

This is really noticeable when you have been working on your desktop screen
for some time, then pick up your phone or tablet to read something. You get
this instant: "Wow! This is SO much sharper" feeling. Then after reading on
that device for 5 minutes you get used to it and don't explicitly experience
it as sharp anymore.

But then you go back to working on your desktop screen and you get the
opposite experience: "Wow! This IS fuzzy! WTF!?"

------
kogir
I have an Asus PQ321Q (4k @ 32") and it's what I've always wanted in a
monitor. It fills my field of view and text is both legible and crisp at its
native resolution. I can drive it with my retina MacBook Pro at 60Hz in
Windows, and going back to my old Dell 30" monitors is painful. My only wish
is that OS X would get its act together and support DisplayPort MST (and
60Hz). Windows on the same hardware in BootCamp does.

8k for the same price would be fine, but it's not needed at all.

~~~
dan1234
>My only wish is that OS X would get its act together and support DisplayPort
MST (and 60Hz).

Judging by the latest beta, 10.9.3 will enable 60Hz on 2013 Retina MBPs.

------
ernestipark
I wonder if the 39" makes you crane your neck too much. It's a lot of pixels,
but a lot of physical space and movement required as well.

The Dell 28" 4k monitor
([http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&c...](http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&sku=210-ACHO))
seems like a better option to me. Has anyone tried one out?

~~~
darrenkopp
I haven't tried the 28" monitor because it suffers from the 30hz problem as
well, so instead I got the 24" Ultrasharp (~$200 more on amazon) and it's
amazing. It supports DisplayPort 1.2 so it can do 60hz. It supports HDMI as
well, but not the newer version so you are limited to 30hz if you want to use
HDMI.

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HALPPM0/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HALPPM0/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00HALPPM0&linkCode=as2&tag=diaryofamadma-20)

~~~
selmnoo
Question for folks who have 4k resolution on a smaller screen (like 28").
Isn't most text (like text on websites) IMPOSSIBLY SMALL to read? My laptop
has 1080p res and is 15 inches, and my goodness I can't read anything without
Ctrl +'ing in Chrome until things are at least scaled at 125% (I generally use
the web at 150% though). 15 * 4 = 60... (as 1080p * 4 ~= 4k), that means I'd
need easily 80+ inch screen to be using 4k screens. How in the heck would you
deal with things with 4k on a 28" screen?

~~~
darrenkopp
I actually run mine at 1920 x 1080 @ 2x so that everything is super crisp. I
have a retina macbook and it was just painful looking at my other monitors.

~~~
userbinator
Wouldn't a 1920 x 1080 display of the same size be more suitable then?

~~~
jrockway
He can still individually address all the pixels, but targets each "pixel" to
be 4 physical pixels. If the software can deal with that, like web browsers
can, then you get twice as much clarity. (Try turning Chrome up to 200%
default zoom. You'll notice that most websites ship assets that individually
address every pixel in this new configuration. Things are the same physical
size as they would be on a panel with half the resolution, but with twice the
clarity. It's quite nice, even for programming.)

------
rcfox
There was a comment in the article about tiling window managers and Windows. I
used to have to use Windows for work, and I missed my tiling window manager.
As it turns out, bug.n[0] is a pretty decent TWM for Windows. I was using
Windows XP, so I'm not sure of how well it works on newer versions.

[0] [https://code.google.com/p/bugn/](https://code.google.com/p/bugn/)

~~~
guiambros
Fences [1]. And while we're at it, also recommend DisplayFusion [2]. It allows
you to replicate toolbars across multiple monitors, plus a bunch of other
customizations.

[1]
[http://www.stardock.com/products/fences/](http://www.stardock.com/products/fences/)
[2] [https://www.displayfusion.com/](https://www.displayfusion.com/)

------
musesum
Some notes on driving the Seiki 4K with a 1st generation MacBook Pro Retina.

50” is too big for desktop, better with multiple monitors that surround you.
39” is ok, but scaling has been an issue: text is sharp at 4K and 1080p. But,
non power of two scaling looks really blurry. At 4K, text is too small, and at
1080p, text is a bit large. When compared to retina, fonts look uneven, so I
wind up coding on the MBP and use the 4K for Skype, email, etc.

Getting full 4K native between OSX and Seiki required some fiddling with
SwitchResX. This was back in January and perhaps the drivers have been
improved? Was underwhelmed until I got full 4K going. And then: Wow!
Breathtaking! Too bad my first generation Mac Book Pro retina can only drive
the 4K at 15hz, newer model MBP should work at 30hz.

With SwitchResX, I can drive the Seiki at 1080p60 and 1080p50, which is useful
for previewing visual music pieces at different refresh rates. So, am
generally pleased with the Seiki for working with media, though I haven’t done
much work with gradients and skin tones. MMV.

------
contingencies
I just moved continents again (about a month ago) and naturally brought my
desktop... sans screen. I spent a day in a large Chinese computer market and
finally settled on the 27" _Philips 274E_ (~US$290) for its thin black low-
gloss bevel and perceived clarity. I do a lot of work with photos, and it
doesn't disappoint at 1920x1080. Even 27" is too big for me... Amazon says the
Seikis are 39"... not something I'd enjoy.

Having tried both, I also see multi-screen setups at superfluous, though
useful in horrible office environments for removing distractions (people
moving in the background, random cheap ceiling light glare, etc... anyone else
think the window glare in the article image must be horrible?) Instead of
multiple screens, I use _compiz-fusion_ (though this seemed to be dying at
last check) to spin my screen between eight separate desktop spaces
ctrl+alt+left/right. I also concur with other posters that full screen
terminals for meditative focus are ideal. Thankfully I just hit a single extra
function button I mapped on the keyboard to spin one up, alt+enter for full
screen, ctrl+plus/minus to scale text as my eyesight/subject demand at the
time. Not having to use the mouse is nice. I use a wacom tablet which travels
everywhere with me for 90% of my mousing tasks as I've found it to reduce
finger and wrist strain from clicking.

------
rrroos
I think the writer maybe mistaking frame rate(screen refresh rate in hz) for
latency (time between graphics card outputting and screen displaying in ms)
these are very different. Computer monitors have a low latency and tv's
usually have a high latency (some have a game mode which turns off some image
processing to get back some precious reaction time) our eyes and brains are
fooled for motion at as low as 24 hz (film motion pictures)

~~~
jrockway
If there is motion blur, yes, your brain sees motion with 24 fields per
second. Without motion blur, not so much. Try gaming at 24fps and then at
60fps. You will notice the difference.

I've never seen 120fps, so I can't tell you if that helps. But if you're
playing back 24fps source material (movies) and 30/60fps source material (TV),
then you need 120Hz refresh at a minimum, just to be able to display each
frame for the correct amount of time.

~~~
rrroos
Motion blur is an artifact caused by fast motion recoreded with a slow shutter
speed on camera equipment or a full screen shader effect found in modern
games. A monitor or tv will not be the cause of motion blur. Whilst your
correct that there is a perceiveable difference between 30 and 60 hz whilst
gaming it would be negligible and the most likely cause of the "this isn't
right" feeling due to latency.

~~~
grogenaut
TVs can cause motion blur when they are doing cross frame interpolation to
"smooth" the image which many high refresh rate TVs do now a days.

(edit) averaging -> interpolation

------
tempestn
Personally I find too much vertical screen size to be taxing. This actually
surprised me at first. I was using 2x24" for some time, and bemoaned the shift
from 16x10 to 16x9, since I found the vertical size extremely useful for
common tasks like reading documents. I briefly upgrading to three 30" (U3014),
but found they were just too tall. To be comfortable I had to have them far
enough away that they weren't particularly comfortable even at 1.25x scaling,
so I was essentially wasting the extra space. I "downgraded" to 3x27" (BenQ
BL2710 - fantastic monitor) and love them. The horizontal real estate is
great, since I can angle the side monitors to still be relatively close, and
can keep the primary workspace on the main screen. I certainly wouldn't be
against 4k for added clarity/sharpness, but I can't see preferring a single 4k
display, of any size or quality, to three 27".

~~~
jrockway
The solution is to move the monitor farther away and adjust the scaling
accordingly.

~~~
tempestn
Yes, but then what's the point of having the larger monitor?

------
tiquorsj
4k at 27" seems to be the sweet spot for people who aren't blind. In addition,
instead of window managers get 2 or 3 smaller high resolution screens. Multi
monitor is the easiest producitivity boost for programmers.

At my company everyone gets 2 monitors. We started with 19" in 2006. Moved to
24" after a fire and insurance replacement and then have upgraded to 27"
primaries as sales and new machines were ordered.

After 7 years of multi monitor usage with a team of 12 people I can safely say
that bigger is not always better. More desktops to work with are a boost.
Pixel density is nice, but the OS by default handles multi monitor much better
than any window manager and you can do things like one horizontal and one
vertical.

~~~
spupy
> In addition, instead of window managers get 2 or 3 smaller high resolution
> screens.

Disclaimer: I haven't used a 4k display.) It seems to me that unless you have
a decent window manager, working on a 4k display will bring it's own set of
(small) productivity hurdles. For example, Windows 7's DWM without any
additional software works Well Enough on two/three smaller monitors, but how
usable is it at 4k resolutions? Do you have to spend tons of time dragging
windows around?

------
acconrad
We had one of these in the office, and I hate to say this, but it was TOO big.
Everyone who used it developed eye pain after a few hours - it's taxing to
have that many bright pixels glaring at you all day. We ended up sticking with
thunderbolt displays for everyone.

------
kayoone
What would be a good upgrade path for my 2x 24 ? Id like to get more
realestate instead of just more crispness though, so i am thinking about 2x 32
inch to run at native res. Or maybe just go with 2x 27" 2560x in the meantime
until prices and technology catch up.

------
hackerboos
There are 28" 4K Samsung displays on eBay if you are willing to wait for
delivery from South Korea.

Works out around 600 GBP with VAT. So around $750 for US customers.

------
nroose
Just spent way too long a time drooling over that Dell 31.5 inch 4K monitor!

~~~
jrockway
Get the Asus one. The Dell supposedly has many very major problems.

