Resolved Can someone help me pick a 4K monitor (size)?

[boss.king]

I'm moving soon and looking to set up a home office for my wife and I to use when needed. I want to get a biggish display to plug our M2 Airs into but I can't justify the price of the Studio Display or an Ultrafine for how much I expect we'll use it. I'm looking at used 4K monitors right now but I'm having a hard time figuring out what size I should go for to get native resolution with text, icons, etc somewhat close to that of the default scaling on the Air.

Is there are specific PPI/DPI I can look for (I can do the calculating myself, but I just don't know what number to shoot for)?
Is there anything else to consider that I might be overlooking?


EDIT: I searched for a couple of hours before making this thread, but wouldn't ya know it, 20 mins after posting I found the answer I was looking for. If anyone else finds this in the future, this link has a great chart: https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/

Looks like a 1440 monitor would be a better fit, so I'll probably try find an ultrawide.

 

[velocityg4]

If you want the same DPI. I believe you need a 21” 4K. Same as the old 4K iMac. I know LG made one. But I think it was discontinued.

I will say that a 27” 4K at 1440 scaling looks pretty good.

 

[boss.king]

If you want the same DPI. I believe you need a 21” 4K. Same as the old 4K iMac. I know LG made one. But I think it was discontinued.

I will say that a 27” 4K at 1440 scaling looks pretty good.

Sorry, I think I need to clarify. I'm not looking to do any scaling (as far as I've seen, 1440 scaling on a 4k monitor isn't ideal, although I may be wrong), I was planning to just use it at native res/full 4K.

Is that a bad decision?

 

[CubeApril]

If you choose 27” @ 4K, you’ll just probably need some display scaling tweaks and some things won’t look their sharpest.

As long as the right EDID information is sent it won’t look that bad, it just won’t look as good as the ASD. If you do decide to go that route over 1440p, I’d just head over to RTings and look at their many reviews for 27" 4K screens. If it’s for productivity I can say I’ve had good luck with my Dell U2720Qs.

 

[velocityg4]

Sorry, I think I need to clarify. I'm not looking to do any scaling (as far as I've seen, 1440 scaling on a 4k monitor isn't ideal, although I may be wrong), I was planning to just use it at native res/full 4K.

Is that a bad decision?

The standard setting for the MacBook Air or any Retina display is 2:1 (more accurately 4:1). Native resolution is super tiny looking. So, by default 4K is scaled to 1920x1080.

The 27” 5K imac is scaled to 2560x1440. Where a 27” 4K can also look pretty good at 2560x1440.

I think a 13” MacBook Air is something like 1280x800.

Basically, everything is scaled by default to whatever their non retina ancestors would be at native.

 

[CubeApril]

Having seen monitors of every possible configuration at 27", I would say that this is the order of how nice things look:

5120 x 2880 (5K) @ 27", cleanly scaled to 1440p
3840 x 2180 (4K) @ 27", non-cleanly scaled to 1440p
2560 x 1440 (1440p) @ 27", not scaled

I don't think you should shy away from 4K simply because it's not cleanly scaled. It's still an improvement over 1440p, it's just not nearly as much of an improvement as it is on an operating system like Windows that has a different scaling model and subpixel rendering for fonts.

 

[chrfr]

The standard setting for the MacBook Air or any Retina display is 2:1 (more accurately 4:1).

Until the recent 14" and 16" Pros, Apple portables have not shipped at a default 2:1 setting in a long time. For instance the default setting on the M1 Air is "looks like 1440x900" although the display is 2560x1600. Even the M2 Air is doing a not-quite 2:1 setting by default.

 

[chikorita157]

I would not recommend anything above 24" for 4k as 2K at 4K will never look as good as 5K and introduces too many graphical issues with scaling since it's has double of DPI from a 27" 1080p screen, which looks even worse. If you don't mind the ridiculously big UI with 1080p at 2x, it's an ok, but not great option since there is a big loss of screen real estate.

LG 24UD58-B and LG Ultrafine 4K 24" are viable options, although below 218 DPI, at 183, it's doube of 92 DPI found on typical 24" 1080p screens and will look sharper than a 27" screen at the same scaling at 1080p.

If you want to use 4K native res, you need a 34 inch screen.

 

[boss.king]

Having seen monitors of every possible configuration at 27", I would say that this is the order of how nice things look:

5120 x 2880 (5K) @ 27", cleanly scaled to 1440p
3840 x 2180 (4K) @ 27", non-cleanly scaled to 1440p
2560 x 1440 (1440p) @ 27", not scaled

I don't think you should shy away from 4K simply because it's not cleanly scaled. It's still an improvement over 1440p, it's just not nearly as much of an improvement as it is on an operating system like Windows that has a different scaling model and subpixel rendering for fonts.

Interesting. That's definitely contrary to the things I've read, but who's to say they knew what they were talking about. I think ultimately I'm going to just walk into a store with my laptop and start plugging in to the floor models, but it's nice to know that 4K scaled to 1440p is still on the table. Thanks.

 

[boss.king]

I would not recommend anything above 24" for 4k as 2K at 4K will never look as good as 5K and introduces too many graphical issues with scaling since it's has double of DPI from a 27" 1080p screen, which looks even worse. If you don't mind the ridiculously big UI with 1080p at 2x, it's an ok, but not great option since there is a big loss of screen real estate.

LG 24UD58-B and LG Ultrafine 4K 24" are viable options, although below 218 DPI, at 183, it's doube of 92 DPI found on typical 24" 1080p screens and will look sharper than a 27" screen at the same scaling at 1080p.

If you want to use 4K native res, you need a 34 inch screen.

Definitely looking to go bigger than 24" (we previously had 1080p 24" monitors that were fine, but could do with an upgrade). I'll look into the models you mentioned but NZ has a somewhat limited range of options as well as some stupid pricing on new monitors (these would be unlikely to find used). Neither of us are graphic designers, so this doesn't have to be pixel perfect, we just want something with enough room for a few windows that's legible from a reasonable distance.

I appreciate the input.

 

[CubeApril]

Yes, you can definitely scale to 1440p on 4K, your options are: 1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3008x1692, 3360x1890, and 3840x2160, although I would recommend 1440p -- certainly not 1080p which as @chikorita157 said causes all sorts of graphical issues.

I think taking your laptop to Best Buy or whatever and trying out 4K and 1440p monitors is a fine strategy.

I will add that I own the LG 24UD58-B myself -- I use it vertically for full-screen Slack -- and I find it to be even more awkward than a 4K @ 27" screen. Every scaled size seems just a little bit off, and so I am constantly scaling inside apps, with it currently set to a scaled resolution of 1440x2560 and Slack zoomed to 110%. That's my personal experience though, YMMV, but I assume this awkwardness is why Apple themselves has the 24" iMac with a 4.5K resolution.

I wish they had kept the 4K @ 22" screen around, as that one was really nice (if tiny).

 

[xraydoc]

Definitely looking to go bigger than 24" (we previously had 1080p 24" monitors that were fine, but could do with an upgrade). I'll look into the models you mentioned but NZ has a somewhat limited range of options as well as some stupid pricing on new monitors (these would be unlikely to find used). Neither of us are graphic designers, so this doesn't have to be pixel perfect, we just want something with enough room for a few windows that's legible from a reasonable distance.

I appreciate the input.

I definitely think a 27” 4K scaled to 1440p on macOS looks way better than a 27” native 1440p display. No contest.