mini paired with Hauwei's new 4.5K 3:2 monitor = iMac killer?

[the future]

Apple's take on this would have a 5064×3376 resolution - voila, 216 ppi.

I‘ll take two of those, thanks.

According to Steve Jobs, above 57 pixels per degree is Retina. At a viewing distance of 20 inches this is 60 ppd. So Steve would approve.

Also personally, I find that my 120 dpi monitor at work is nearly crisp enough for me, and my 185 dpi monitor at home is extremely sharp. So I'm sure anything above 140 dpi will look nice for my uses. Sometimes I feel that Apple goes a bit overkill on the specs which prevents them releasing useful mid-market products.

What qualifies as „retina“ (according to Apple) depends on the type of device (because of „typical“ viewing distances). For a desktop display, this is around 215-220 dpi. 120 dpi may be „nearly crisp“ enough for you personally, but is not nearly as sharp as a retina display (and hence incomparable). Which display do you have at home? I don‘t think I know of a third party display on the market with 185 dpi?

FWIW right now I use the LG 5K2K 34“ ultrawide which coincidentally has dpi very close to the new Huawei MateView (163/165). This is quite usable and certainly sharper than „ordinary“ 110/120 dpi displays, but still very noticeably less sharp than the 5K iMac I had before. But as I really wanted an ultrawide display, I had no other choice as this was the only one on the market with high-ish dpi.

 

[Amethyst1]

I don‘t think I know of a third party display on the market with 185 dpi?

@tornado99 has a 23.8" 3840x2160 display (as do I).

As for perceived sharpness, I notice very little difference between 185, 204 and 217 ppi for desktop use (from my viewing distance).

 

[the future]

@tornado99 has a 23.8" 3840x2160 display (as do I).

As for perceived sharpness, I notice very little difference between 185, 204 and 217 ppi for desktop use (from my viewing distance).

Gotcha, I forgot the later LG 24“ 4K UltraFine which was also @185 dpi. Never saw that one in person.

 

[tornado99]

Gotcha, I forgot the later LG 24“ 4K UltraFine which was also @185 dpi. Never saw that one in person.

What qualifies depends entirely on how good your eyesight is, and your viewing distance. 160 dpi at 20" has more dense pixels than somebody with 20/20 vision can actually resolve. But some people (mostly young adults and teens) have 20/15 vision so would need 212 dpi.

What is certain though is that 100-160 dpi is far greater a difference in quality than 160-220 dpi.

Also, please make sure you adjust your font smoothing - Apple tends to go for the "fat font" look as default:

Font Smoothing Adjuster | macOS App

Download the free and open source Font Smoothing Adjuster app to disable or customise font smoothing on macOS Big Sur.

www.fontsmoothingadjuster.com

 

[the future]

What qualifies depends entirely on how good your eyesight is, and your viewing distance.

Agreed. I probably sit closer to the screen than most.

What is certain though is that 100-160 dpi is far greater a difference in quality than 160-220 dpi.

Agreed. But to me the 160-220 difference isn‘t negligible. I wish it was.

Also, the 220 dpi has the advantage (on macOS) that it enables a simple 2x retina scaling which stresses the GPU less than the uneven scaling that you have to use for dpi between 110 and 220.

 

[InuNacho]

Pretty neat, I'd love to have one as a second monitor for photo editing.

 

[sublunar]

According to Steve Jobs, above 57 pixels per degree is Retina. At a viewing distance of 20 inches this is 60 ppd. So Steve would approve.

Also personally, I find that my 120 dpi monitor at work is nearly crisp enough for me, and my 185 dpi monitor at home is extremely sharp. So I'm sure anything above 140 dpi will look nice for my uses. Sometimes I feel that Apple goes a bit overkill on the specs which prevents them releasing useful mid-market products.

Apple used to prefer the 16:10 resolution for the older iMacs before the commodity pricing of 16:9 panels made the shift to 16:9 for the iMac inevitable.

They can still call the shots for their laptop panels because they still sell in such high numbers (bear in mind that the 11" MacBook Air was 16:9 due to panel availability on a relatively low demand product).

On the iPad side of things we have the 4:3 iPad Pro 12.9" which dwarfs the 11" which uses a 3:2 aspect ratio screen.

But the Pro Display XDR is 16:9 as is the iMac 24". Would a larger screened iMac (Pro?) sell in enough numbers to make sense for Apple to demand a custom size?

Let's look at the 5k2k ultrawide monitors which are available to a limited degree - the LG 34WK95U-w has an aspect ratio of 21:9 and has a resolution of 5120x2160 (up against the classic 16:9 iMac 27" at 5120x2880).

If they wanted to go a different way what if Apple just re-used the existing 27" retina panels but gave more vertical height for a 3:2 screen in a 'Pro' iMac? Resolution might be 5120x3413 for extra height (remember 5k 27" at 16:9 is 5120x2880), at a retina resolution the diagonal would make it 28 inch display.

Weird thing for marketing reasons is it would still surely be a 5k display... (or weirdly, a 5k3k display?)

Having said that it would be far too easy to Apple to go with a default choice 5.5K 16:9 30" for a bigger iMac without stepping on the toes of the 6K XDR.

But let's not forget that if Final Cut Pro gets dropped for iOS in Monday it'll have a UI redesign for a 4:3 panel - surely - so other aspect ratios must be catered for.

As for Apple going overkill on certain specs - that's their USP, how many of us would have been happy with more SSD storage if Apple could have done away with using the high performance PCIe stuff a few years ago?

Apple don't want to get involved in mid market race to the bottom stuff, and while you can question some of their supply chain choices you can't question the desire to stand out.

 

[Amethyst1]

f they wanted to go a different way what if Apple just re-used the existing 27" retina panels but gave more vertical height for a 3:2 screen in a 'Pro' iMac? Resolution might be 5120x3413 for extra height (remember 5k 27" at 16:9 is 5120x2880), at a retina resolution the diagonal would make it 28 inch display.

More likely something like 5136×3424 so the HiDPI mode would be an even 2568×1712.

After all, the Huawei is basically a 27" 3840×2160 panel (the PPI matches) with some very welcome extra height increasing diagonal to 28.2".

Weird thing for marketing reasons is it would still surely be a 5k display... (or weirdly, a 5k3k display?)

"5K" has become an ambiguous term anyway. These days it can mean either 5120×1440, 5120×2160 or 5120×2880. The silly (imo) "5K3K" moniker has already been used by Dell for their UP2715K (27" 5120×2880) monitor back in 2014.

 

[Moonjumper]

Apple used to prefer the 16:10 resolution for the older iMacs before the commodity pricing of 16:9 panels made the shift to 16:9 for the iMac inevitable.

They can still call the shots for their laptop panels because they still sell in such high numbers (bear in mind that the 11" MacBook Air was 16:9 due to panel availability on a relatively low demand product).

On the iPad side of things we have the 4:3 iPad Pro 12.9" which dwarfs the 11" which uses a 3:2 aspect ratio screen.

But the Pro Display XDR is 16:9 as is the iMac 24". Would a larger screened iMac (Pro?) sell in enough numbers to make sense for Apple to demand a custom size?

Let's look at the 5k2k ultrawide monitors which are available to a limited degree - the LG 34WK95U-w has an aspect ratio of 21:9 and has a resolution of 5120x2160 (up against the classic 16:9 iMac 27" at 5120x2880).

If they wanted to go a different way what if Apple just re-used the existing 27" retina panels but gave more vertical height for a 3:2 screen in a 'Pro' iMac? Resolution might be 5120x3413 for extra height (remember 5k 27" at 16:9 is 5120x2880), at a retina resolution the diagonal would make it 28 inch display.

Weird thing for marketing reasons is it would still surely be a 5k display... (or weirdly, a 5k3k display?)

Having said that it would be far too easy to Apple to go with a default choice 5.5K 16:9 30" for a bigger iMac without stepping on the toes of the 6K XDR.

But let's not forget that if Final Cut Pro gets dropped for iOS in Monday it'll have a UI redesign for a 4:3 panel - surely - so other aspect ratios must be catered for.

As for Apple going overkill on certain specs - that's their USP, how many of us would have been happy with more SSD storage if Apple could have done away with using the high performance PCIe stuff a few years ago?

Apple don't want to get involved in mid market race to the bottom stuff, and while you can question some of their supply chain choices you can't question the desire to stand out.

You make some good points there, but Apple have often used screens not available elsewhere as they have the buying power to get what they want. Most iPad screens have not been unavailable before Apple asked for them (they have always been 4:3 in various resolutions, although the 11" is not quite, but not the 3:2 you mention either). The XDR screen is not available elsewhere. The 5K screen appeared on a monitor shortly before the iMac, but was probably driven by Apple asking for it.

Microsoft had a unique resolution for the very low volume Surface Studio of 28" 4500x3000 (a link earlier in the thread then leads to a website of panels available, including that size from Sharp https://www.panelook.com/LQ282D1JC01_Sharp_28.2_CELL_overview_44461.html), so the higher Apple numbers should be OK. Follow the Panelook link and you can find also sorts of resolutions and ratios available that we don't see, but it doesn't include the XDR or new iMac screens.

If it fits wafers, Apple could almost certainly get them cut how they wanted. Large iMac sizes have often followed Apple Cinema Display sizes (current is a Retina version of the 27" ACD). Finishing that sequence would be the 30" 16:10 2560x1600, a Retina version would be 5120x3200, which I would like.

You mention 16:10 Apple laptops, which make a big difference to 16:10, but there are an increasing number of 3:2 screens available also. Another reason to consider 16:10 is it closely matches the Golden Ratio of 1.618:1, which has mathematical meaning, appears regularly in nature, and research shows is aesthetically pleasing.

I remember Apple mentioning the 4:3 ratio at the original launch of the original iPad, and how it suited so many of the expected uses, which are often replicated on computers. I'd love to see that ratio return (I have a 15" iMac G4 that I consider the best of Apple design, and it had a 4:3 screen).

Another thing to consider is the Microsoft Surface Studio (same screen size as this Huawei monitor), despite having a much larger screen than even the 27' iMac (1" larger diagonal, but squarer 3:2 means area is even larger), but has a smaller width, so fits better on a desk, especially as a second monitor.

This Huawei screen is not perfect (pixel density would be better if 4500x3000, and I'm not sure about the potential visual disturbance created by the area of holes for the speakers), but it does look a fantastic option. I can imagine better for the iMac, or another monitor, but I doubt we will see them, so this is looking increasingly like a monitor I will buy to pair with a Mac Mini as a replacement for my current 27" iMac.

 

[tornado99]

@Moonjumper , many interesting points there although shouldn't an important part of considering the best ratio be: what shape fits best into the human field of view at a typical desktop distance. A common complaint of 16:9 27 inch monitors is that the corners are too far in the periphery of vision so can requiring frequent eye movements.

Of course, this monitor may suffer that to some extent, but it has the advantage of filling the vertical space of your central field of vision far better than a 16:9 can. But probably a 25 inch 3:2 monitor would be even better.

Also, found some very useful technical information from this guy who has just reviewed the monitor:

Unfortunately my chinese isn't great but i managed the following google translate on my phone's camera:

min 3:14 onwards:

540 nits, 1300:1 contrast ratio, delta E 0.6847 (wow!)

60 hz 8 bit, 30hz 10 bit - usb c / mini displayport 1.2*
50hz 8 bit - hdmi

*does not support dp 1.4 which would allow 60hz 10 bit - not entirely clear whether it will never support dp 1.4, or doesn't at the moment.

there's also a lot more detail about gamma, viewing angles etc.

 

[sublunar]

More likely something like 5136×3424 so the HiDPI mode would be an even 2568×1712.

After all, the Huawei is basically a 27" 3840×2160 panel (the PPI matches) with some very welcome extra height increasing diagonal to 28.2".


"5K" has become an ambiguous term anyway. These days it can mean either 5120×1440, 5120×2160 or 5120×2880. The silly (imo) "5K3K" moniker has already been used by Dell for their UP2715K (27" 5120×2880) monitor back in 2014.

Changing the aspect ratio would be unusual at this stage though, especially for Apple's flagship iMac. It would make more marketing sense for the iMac Pro to come with a 5.5k 30" screen. Not especially innovative, but I can imagine the marketing department having to think carefully if presented with a 3:2 monitor to sell.

 

[sublunar]

You make some good points there, but Apple have often used screens not available elsewhere as they have the buying power to get what they want. Most iPad screens have not been unavailable before Apple asked for them (they have always been 4:3 in various resolutions, although the 11" is not quite, but not the 3:2 you mention either). The XDR screen is not available elsewhere. The 5K screen appeared on a monitor shortly before the iMac, but was probably driven by Apple asking for it.

Microsoft had a unique resolution for the very low volume Surface Studio of 28" 4500x3000 (a link earlier in the thread then leads to a website of panels available, including that size from Sharp https://www.panelook.com/LQ282D1JC01_Sharp_28.2_CELL_overview_44461.html), so the higher Apple numbers should be OK. Follow the Panelook link and you can find also sorts of resolutions and ratios available that we don't see, but it doesn't include the XDR or new iMac screens.

If it fits wafers, Apple could almost certainly get them cut how they wanted. Large iMac sizes have often followed Apple Cinema Display sizes (current is a Retina version of the 27" ACD). Finishing that sequence would be the 30" 16:10 2560x1600, a Retina version would be 5120x3200, which I would like.

You mention 16:10 Apple laptops, which make a big difference to 16:10, but there are an increasing number of 3:2 screens available also. Another reason to consider 16:10 is it closely matches the Golden Ratio of 1.618:1, which has mathematical meaning, appears regularly in nature, and research shows is aesthetically pleasing.

I remember Apple mentioning the 4:3 ratio at the original launch of the original iPad, and how it suited so many of the expected uses, which are often replicated on computers. I'd love to see that ratio return (I have a 15" iMac G4 that I consider the best of Apple design, and it had a 4:3 screen).

Another thing to consider is the Microsoft Surface Studio (same screen size as this Huawei monitor), despite having a much larger screen than even the 27' iMac (1" larger diagonal, but squarer 3:2 means area is even larger), but has a smaller width, so fits better on a desk, especially as a second monitor.

This Huawei screen is not perfect (pixel density would be better if 4500x3000, and I'm not sure about the potential visual disturbance created by the area of holes for the speakers), but it does look a fantastic option. I can imagine better for the iMac, or another monitor, but I doubt we will see them, so this is looking increasingly like a monitor I will buy to pair with a Mac Mini as a replacement for my current 27" iMac.

Isn't the Surface Studio ruinously expensive for what you get though?

Yes the Surface Studio may be bespoke, but it had a i5 mobile CPU in it as base spec which was was poor spec choice (and reviews mention it was still overheating - possibly due to the NVIDIA GPU inside).

I have no doubt that Apple could custom select the monitor size they wish, something made easier by predicting they will stick with retina resolution panels and therefore a theory could be put out that Apple could just go for 3:2 28" 5k panel.

One clue that will arise could ironically be if Apple release Final Cut Pro and Logic for iOS. If the UI is optimised for the differing screen sizes that's a massive step towards a giant screen 3:2 iMac later.

Compromising at 16:10 30" would be a good place to call it a day, but why not go to 3:2? It would certainly make for a talking point.

 

[Moonjumper]

@Moonjumper , many interesting points there although shouldn't an important part of considering the best ratio be: what shape fits best into the human field of view at a typical desktop distance. A common complaint of 16:9 27 inch monitors is that the corners are too far in the periphery of vision so can requiring frequent eye movements.

Of course, this monitor may suffer that to some extent, but it has the advantage of filling the vertical space of your central field of vision far better than a 16:9 can. But probably a 25 inch 3:2 monitor would be even better.

Also, found some very useful technical information from this guy who has just reviewed the monitor:

Unfortunately my chinese isn't great but i managed the following google translate on my phone's camera:

min 3:14 onwards:

540 nits, 1300:1 contrast ratio, delta E 0.6847 (wow!)

60 hz 8 bit, 30hz 10 bit - usb c / mini displayport 1.2*
50hz 8 bit - hdmi

*does not support dp 1.4 which would allow 60hz 10 bit - not entirely clear whether it will never support dp 1.4, or doesn't at the moment.

there's also a lot more detail about gamma, viewing angles etc.

Yes, human field of view is important. It is an extension of my point about the 28” Surface Studio being narrower than the 27” iMac.

Some more specs below on the official Huawei page, including HDR400 and 98% DCI-P3. It says 10-bit within the Features tab, claiming at the bottom: “The HUAWEI MateView uses the built-in display algorithm to provide a 10-bit display quality of up to 3840 x 2560@60 Hz when using the USB-C and MiniDP ports. Due to the theoretical bandwidth limitation of HDMI 2.0, the maximum resolution and refresh rate supported by HDMI 2.0 port is 3840 x 2560@50 Hz.”, which differs from the review.

https://consumer.huawei.com/en/monitors/mateview/specs/

Isn't the Surface Studio ruinously expensive for what you get though?

Yes the Surface Studio may be bespoke, but it had a i5 mobile CPU in it as base spec which was was poor spec choice (and reviews mention it was still overheating - possibly due to the NVIDIA GPU inside).

I have no doubt that Apple could custom select the monitor size they wish, something made easier by predicting they will stick with retina resolution panels and therefore a theory could be put out that Apple could just go for 3:2 28" 5k panel.

One clue that will arise could ironically be if Apple release Final Cut Pro and Logic for iOS. If the UI is optimised for the differing screen sizes that's a massive step towards a giant screen 3:2 iMac later.

Compromising at 16:10 30" would be a good place to call it a day, but why not go to 3:2? It would certainly make for a talking point.

The Surface Studio is very expensive, but so was most of the Studio range at the time of release.

I would love 3:2 or 16:10 as both are better than the current 16:9. I expect the next one will still be 16:9, but 16:10 is the more likely taller ratio as it is already elsewhere in the Mac range. If Apple release an iMac that looks like this monitor, but with 5K 3:2 resolution, computer in the stand where the electronics are on the Huawei, and HomePod-style mesh instead of the array of holes (the 24” iMac would probably look a lot better with mesh on the chin), it would be amazing, even better than the dream iMac that was in my head before the announcement.

 

[Amethyst1]

The HUAWEI MateView uses the built-in display algorithm to provide a 10-bit display quality of up to 3840 x 2560@60 Hz when using the USB-C and MiniDP ports.

So it's not actually receiving 10 bpc at that rez/refresh then? (Not entirely surprising given DP1.2.)

 

[tornado99]

DP 1.2 bandwidth 17.28 Gbps

HDMI 2.0 = 14.4 Gbps

Video Timings Calculator

According to this website, the only way to squeeze 3840x2560@60Hz,8bit/10 bit into DP 1.2 is with 4:2:2 chroma subsampling. This would be quite bad for computer usage!

Chroma Subsampling: 4:4:4 vs 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0

What is Chroma Subsampling and where is this visible? Chroma subsampling is a type of compression that reduces the color information in a signal in favor of luminance data.

www.rtings.com

But perhaps there is some other technique Hauwei are using that I am unaware of. As somebody said earlier, with custom timings and high quality controllers they might be able to achieve those resolutions with 4:4:4. In fact CVT-RB would get you 8 bit 60Hz.

It does show that it's not trivial making a >4K monitor that is broadly compatible with existing products via a single cable. This is also one reason that recent iMacs dropped the target display mode, as Apple started using custom controllers.

 

[sublunar]

Yes, human field of view is important. It is an extension of my point about the 28” Surface Studio being narrower than the 27” iMac.

Some more specs below on the official Huawei page, including HDR400 and 98% DCI-P3. It says 10-bit within the Features tab, claiming at the bottom: “The HUAWEI MateView uses the built-in display algorithm to provide a 10-bit display quality of up to 3840 x 2560@60 Hz when using the USB-C and MiniDP ports. Due to the theoretical bandwidth limitation of HDMI 2.0, the maximum resolution and refresh rate supported by HDMI 2.0 port is 3840 x 2560@50 Hz.”, which differs from the review.

https://consumer.huawei.com/en/monitors/mateview/specs/

I guess Apple have shown no interest in Ultrawide - you can get screens up to 21:9 but nothing with the extreme retina resolutions that Apple would want. I guess going with a 50Hz refresh rate was Huawei's compromise to get the screen to work with a single cable. Apple would use their own custom timing controller in an iMac to hide away the need to use 2 cables.

The Surface Studio is very expensive, but so was most of the Studio range at the time of release.

I would love 3:2 or 16:10 as both are better than the current 16:9. I expect the next one will still be 16:9, but 16:10 is the more likely taller ratio as it is already elsewhere in the Mac range. If Apple release an iMac that looks like this monitor, but with 5K 3:2 resolution, computer in the stand where the electronics are on the Huawei, and HomePod-style mesh instead of the array of holes (the 24” iMac would probably look a lot better with mesh on the chin), it would be amazing, even better than the dream iMac that was in my head before the announcement.

Problem for Apple is that the Pro Display XDR exists, it would be incongruous from a marketing standpoint to create a 3:2 5K 28" display between the 16:9 4.5K 24" iMac and the 16:9 6K 32" display. Although Apple could order sufficient quantities of the display panel to make a custom order - do they really want to?

According to this website, the only way to squeeze 3840x2560@60Hz,8bit/10 bit into DP 1.2 is with 4:2:2 chroma subsampling. This would be quite bad for computer usage!

Inevitable that there would be compromises, Apple's never touching the with a barge pole!

 

[Amethyst1]

In fact CVT-RB would get you 8 bit 60Hz.

CVT-RBv2 will reduce bandwidth even more. The 21.5" LG UltraFine uses timings that are very similar (but not identical) to CVT-RBv2, for instance.

It does show that it's not trivial making a >4K monitor that is broadly compatible with existing products via a single cable.

Just make it use DisplayPort 1.4. More than enough bandwidth for the Huawei at 3840×2560 60Hz 10bpc. Enough for 5120×2880 60Hz 8bpc in fact. I don't know why they're sticking with DP 1.2 for the beast.

This is also one reason that recent iMacs dropped the target display mode, as Apple started using custom controllers.

It would theoretically have been possible to use the 4K iMac in Target Display Mode via a single DP 1.2 cable, as the 21.5" UltraFine proves.

I guess going with a 50Hz refresh rate was Huawei's compromise to get the screen to work with a single cable.

Only via HDMI 2.0 though. DP is supposed to do 60 Hz. I'll be very curious to see the actual timing it uses.

 

[tornado99]

@sublunar , I don't think they are using 4:2:2, and DP 1.2 doesn't support other types of compression. As Amethyst1 mentions it is possible to achieve those resolutions using custom timings, which wouldn't affect quality.

The reason for DP 1.2 is that it needs to be usable by the widest number of people. DP 1.4 was only launched in Spring 2016. In fact, the earlier Hauwei laptops might have had only DP 1.2 output. That's the reason the 5K standalone monitors are such a niche item. It's very hard to drive them without investing in a new GPU or very modern laptop.

Also - the Mac Mini 2018 (and any Thunderbolt 3 laptop?) only supports DP 1.2.

 

[sublunar]

@sublunar , I don't think they are using 4:2:2, and DP 1.2 doesn't support other types of compression. As Amethyst1 mentions it is possible to achieve those resolutions using custom timings, which wouldn't affect quality.

The reason for DP 1.2 is that it needs to be usable by the widest number of people. DP 1.4 was only launched in Spring 2016. In fact, the earlier Hauwei laptops might have had only DP 1.2 output. That's the reason the 5K standalone monitors are such a niche item. It's very hard to drive them without investing in a new GPU or very modern laptop.

Apple probably don't have those kind of issues for their own kit because they don't have to cater for older connectors. But it would take a lot for them to use a supplier without - say - LG, BOE, or Samsung's track record.

And yes, they can use a TCON for a big panel in an iMac, but we've not seen much about just what the colour, brightness and contrast specs will be for their big screen.

 

[Amethyst1]

The reason for DP 1.2 is that it needs to be usable by the widest number of people.

They could have made it DP 1.4 for systems that have it and included a DP 1.2 fallback mode for older machines. Anyway, let's wait for the eagle to land and see how they're actually doing it.

And yes, they can use a TCON for a big panel in an iMac,

Chances are high the 27" iMac's panel is still driven as two 2560×2880 tiles internally (like the LG UltraFine 5K) because even DP 1.4 doesn't have the bandwidth to run 5120×2880 60Hz 10bpc over a single cable (without DSC that is).

 

[tornado99]

A bit more detective work:

Look at 5:46 from this video. We know the Mateview is capable of 8bit 60Hz at 3840 x 2560 pixels, but it seems if you want 10bit 60Hz you can get it at the slightly unusual resolution of 3600 x 2400 pixels. This is 97% of DP 1.2 bandwidth using CVT-RB and 95% using CVT-RB2.

Shows how tightly they are pushing against the limit of the Displayport 1.2 interface.

They also compare it connected to a macbook, to the iMac 27 inch.

The 10 bit res limit is confirmed in this link, where they also speculate that Hauwei couldn't use DP 1.4 because of the US ban!

华为 MateView 显示器体验：28 英寸的大「Mate」，会是最好的办公伙伴吗？_屏幕

侧一个角度你会发现，MateView 的屏幕不仅大，而且出乎意料地薄，侧边框从上往下会有一个变粗的趋势，但最厚处只有 12.2mm，比一根手指头厚不了多少，而最薄处为 9.2mm，与大屏幕不相称的轻…

www.sohu.com

Personally I'm not that bothered about using 10 bit. There's a lot of 8 bit monitors around (including the iMac 21.5 inch) and they also look great to my eyes.

 

[uller6]

I like the 3:2 aspect ratio, and the monitor looks very sleek, but the DPI in a strange spot at 160 PPI, in the "dead zone" between being ideal for retina (220 ppi) and ideal for non-retina (110 ppi), the two PPI that almost all recent macs use. Either you have comically large features, features too small to see, or you'd have to run the monitor in a scaled resolution to make windows the same physical size as on your iMac. The last option not only looks kinda crummy but also taxes your GPU with the interpolation.

 

[PeterJP]

I like the 3:2 aspect ratio, and the monitor looks very sleek, but the DPI in a strange spot at 160 PPI, in the "dead zone" between being ideal for retina (220 ppi) and ideal for non-retina (110 ppi), the two PPI that almost all recent macs use. Either you have comically large features, features too small to see, or you'd have to run the monitor in a scaled resolution to make windows the same physical size as on your iMac. The last option not only looks kinda crummy but also taxes your GPU with the interpolation.

In practice, I find that the distance between me and my 27" monitor is also 150% of the distance between me and my 16" MBP. Typing this on a 27" 4K screen scaled to look like 2560x1440 and it's much sharper than my native 2560x1440 at home. Not a pixel to be seen.

 

[Aggedor]

What qualifies depends entirely on how good your eyesight is, and your viewing distance. 160 dpi at 20" has more dense pixels than somebody with 20/20 vision can actually resolve. But some people (mostly young adults and teens) have 20/15 vision so would need 212 dpi.

What is certain though is that 100-160 dpi is far greater a difference in quality than 160-220 dpi.

Also, please make sure you adjust your font smoothing - Apple tends to go for the "fat font" look as default:

Font Smoothing Adjuster | macOS App

Download the free and open source Font Smoothing Adjuster app to disable or customise font smoothing on macOS Big Sur.

www.fontsmoothingadjuster.com

Unfortunately font smoothing can't be adjusted any more.

 

[Amethyst1]

We know the Mateview is capable of 8bit 60Hz at 3840 x 2560 pixels, but it seems if you want 10bit 60Hz you can get it at the slightly unusual resolution of 3600 x 2400 pixels. This is 97% of DP 1.2 bandwidth using CVT-RB and 95% using CVT-RB2.

Thanks for getting to the bottom of this. Another way to get 3840×2560 at 10bpc via DP1.2 is to reduce the refresh rate to 55 Hz. My 21.5" LG UltraFine is doing 4096×2304 at 55 Hz due to pixel clock constraints of my GPU and I don't notice a difference to my other monitors that are doing 60 Hz.