![]() ![]() ![]() B & H has those first two for $697 and $882, and an LG 24UD58 for $297. Newegg for instance only has 3: LG 24MD4KL for $690, LG 24MD4KLB for $900, and a refurbished LG for $649. The main issue I have with 24" 4K is that there doesn't seem to be many models and they cost a lot. I'm pretty sure that would still be fine, because if I get close enough to my iMac for it to be 42 PPD (just a little under 10 inches) it is still fine for me. Somewhere around 15" it would drop below the 49 PPD I know for sure is good enough for me. I don't see any difference, and so conclude that I'm fine with anything about 49 PPD.Īt 19" distance a 24" 4K would give me 60 PPD. At 218 DPI, viewing from those distances gives 72 PPD (pixels per degree) and 49 PPD. I base this on the fact that I normally view the iMac from about 19" away, occasionally leaning in to as close as 13". I'm pretty sure that 24" 4K would be high enough that I would not be able to notice the lower DPI compared to my current 27" 5K iMac. > A 24" 4K screen has the same DPI as a 27" 5K screen If an application asks for 1pt wide lines, and you're at 1.5x scale, what do you do? Do you draw it at 1px wide, and end up with a line that's too light? Do you draw it at 2px line, and end up with one that's too heavy? Or do you make one line of pixels that's solid and one line of pixels that's at 50% opacity, which gives the right visual weight but makes it look blurry and messes up the positioning slightly? This probably isn't a huge problem, but it's the kind of problem that it makes sense if Apple wants to avoid. With fractional scaling, there isn't really a good solution you could automatically downscale a higher resolution image, but then you get the blurriness problem. With integer scaling, you just have different image assets for the different scales. Using all vector graphics for the GUI so that you can freely change the scale is all well and good, but lots of GUI applications need raster graphics too. Fractional scaling on compositors which support it (e.g Sway) renders everything at the nearest integer scale and then downscales when compositing, so everything becomes a bit blurry - just like how macOS does it. Wayland (as in the protocol) doesn't support it either, FWIW. Unlike regular chair wheels these do not seem to end up clogged with hair wrapped around the axles). I ended up getting larger wheels for my chair to effectively lower the iMac and putting a pillow on my chair to get a little more height for myself to make the iMac relatively lower. The iMac top of screen is 49.5 cm about the desk. I just measured my 27" iMac, which has the same size screen and a non-adjustable stand. That would put the top of the screen at 46.5 cm. They don't give the bezel size but I've seen reviews say it is about 1/2", and that looks reasonable from the photos, so call it 1.3 cm. (At least when the stand base is a simple rectangle-it might be harder on monitors that have narrow crescent bases).īricks are cheap and would be great for raising such a monitor.Īccording to the specs at Apple the top of the monitor when on the non-adjustable stand is 47.8 cm above your desk. For a non-adjustable stand it needs to be at or near the lowest that people would want, because it is way easier to raise a fixed stand that is too low by putting something under it than it is to lower a fixed stand that is too high. It should be at least 5-8 centimeters higher. Apple, if you ship a monitor with a non-adjustable stand in 2022, please make sure that the default height is at an ergonomic level. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |