elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 4,998
yeah I realize what you were getting at 
..but I hate to see the ppi figure get parroted as being low when the screen size demands a farther view distance for both the viewing angle and the ppd. Some people might see that PPI number in the comment and only go by that ignoring the fact that the PPD is the same or even higher (than a near desktop 4k) at proper viewing distances.
like the original recent reply and a few others have commented before:
93ppi 48" 4k at 33.5" = 163 ppi 27" 4k at 18.85"
Same sharpness and density, Pixels Per Degree on your eyeballs. Sitting farther it will be even higher density per degree.
So he and some other people who complain about the ppi (and I suspect even text subsampling to a large degree) - are almost certainly sitting too close, perhaps much too close for this screen.
..but I hate to see the ppi figure get parroted as being low when the screen size demands a farther view distance for both the viewing angle and the ppd. Some people might see that PPI number in the comment and only go by that ignoring the fact that the PPD is the same or even higher (than a near desktop 4k) at proper viewing distances.
like the original recent reply and a few others have commented before:
Man after using the Aorus FI27Q-X for some time with its 109ppi it's really hard to play games on the 48CX with its mere 93ppi. The extra pixel density is so sharp and nice to look at.
93ppi 48" 4k at 33.5" = 163 ppi 27" 4k at 18.85"
Same sharpness and density, Pixels Per Degree on your eyeballs. Sitting farther it will be even higher density per degree.
So he and some other people who complain about the ppi (and I suspect even text subsampling to a large degree) - are almost certainly sitting too close, perhaps much too close for this screen.