Asus Announces ProArt PQ22UC 21.6in Ultra HD HDR OLED monitor

$5000 ?

 

4K and 21.6 inches?

 

They come with a pair of glasses

 

get it right if your gonna make a remark -- They come with a microscope

 

not what I hoped, but at least it is a start, OLED is the only thing that will make me upgrade my monitor, maybe 24" 27" models next?

 

So glad I went with the Acer 4K 32" Gsync IPS last year. I'd rather wait a few years for OLED prices to drop and HDR to mature rather than settling for the current VA/IPS HDR monitors or sitting in front of a VA based 43"/49" HDR TV that would burn my retinas. That aside is there really any point in having a 4K resolution on anything smaller than 32"? Your eyeballs would have to be millimeters away from the screen to perceive the detail.
20" - 23" = 1080p
24" - 27" = 1440p
32" upwards = 2160p

 

Since the PPI density of the screen per resolution table you came up with is all over the place (from 96 to 138+), I'm assuming those are just some nice numbers you felt like throwing around, rather than having them backed by anything. Quite frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of debunking this BS about "ideal" pixel density, but here we go.

The problem with defining the ideal pixel density (ratio between display size and display resolution - PPI) is that people forget about the viewing distance. The general rule of thumb is to keep the distance to your monitor within your arms length. That means below 1m for most people. With that said if you want ergonomic environment - you can only go so big with your screen. Otherwise you end up moving and straining your eyes and head too much.

You can make the monitor-viewer distance bigger, but then your eyes are loosing the ability to perceive the detail. But then what are those missed details you are talking about here? Discerning individual pixels? Is that something somebody is looking for? Never heard about anyone actually needing that.
When dealing with pixel art or anything else on pixel level you always zoom in to make the pixels bigger than your monitor resolution anyway, so there is no problem in that.
When playing games - you get the same amount of details on your screen as someone playing with the lower resolution, but you don't need AA, because the pixels are too small and the overall picture clarity is way better.
When working with graphics (and btw - these monitors always aim at the gfx audience) - you get the best possible color representation.

If you can't understand it, than maybe simple glance at this can help with that: (If not, I don't have much else to say)
https://imgur.com/a/gXNY6

So at the end of the day you can either:
1) have low PPI monitor in moderate size and sit close to it and see individual pixels and have overall poor picture quality
2) have high PPI monitor in moderate size and sit close to it and have a good picture quality
3) have low PPI monitor in big size and sit close to it and see individual pixels and have same picture quality as in 1) and actually actively hampering your health
4) have low PPI monitor in big size and sit further away and perceive the same amount (or even less) of details compared to 2)

I have years of experience working with high PPI monitors. Don't try to fool me or others with some BS tables about "ideal" resolutions and display sizes if you don't want to take the viewers distance into account.

 

4k on 40" will look much nicer then on 50" 60" and 70"

They have smart phone with 4k displays now and there 6" at best? Higher PPI is always perferable and the bigger the screen get the higher PPI need to be

I have seen 65" 4k Sony XBR TV and 40" samsung 4K TV and i perfer the 40" over 65" simpley cause higher PPI

Just like i perfer 1080p on my 24" monitor vs my 32" HDTV and perfer 1080p on my 32" tv vs 60" tv.

 

Agreed.

 

Generally agree, but depends on viewing distance as well. I have 40" 4k and sit about 24" away and have grown fully acclimatized to that size, res, distance. For watching movies, would definitely prefer larger screen, ie, 65", but dont care much for 4k since cant tell much of a difference at 4 meters away than 1080p.

 

I'm running a 27" 2160p IPS monitor in Windows 10 at 150% scaling. Text is much sharper and clearer than it would be on a 27" 1440p monitor. I know. I've seen text on an equivalent 1440p monitor, and there is no comparison. 2160p at 150% yields text exactly the same size as 1440p with no scaling, but text is much sharper on the 2160p monitor.

 

It may be sharper, but res is not exclusively the only factor in that. Screen coatings, contrast can also influence that. Have owned several 27" 1440p monitors and one stood out over all others in terms of sharpness/clarity, and that was one with a plasma deposition coating. I would even say its sharper than my current 4k screen.

 

The 32" version is also underway.
https://www.monitornerds.com/asus-pa32uc-preview/

 

That 32'' is not OLED though

 

I'm wondering about the chances this will support Freesync. Have any of Asus' previous ProArt monitors supported it?

 

Lol, Regardless of your PPI / Viewing distance paragraph I didn't just come up with those numbers, those are the most common resolutions with the screen sizes of monitors I've listed that are available today but don't take my word for it go on any web store and filter monitors by screen sizes I've listed and see the resolutions available for them; you will find they match. I am aware of PPI / viewing distances and how they affect the overall perceived detail, but maybe someone else who is not aware will find your post informative. I did mention that I went for the 32" 4K monitor over a 43" HDR TV. I did this because of the distance I would be sitting from the screen; as I was upgrading from a 1440p 27" screen but not changing my viewing distance 32" was far more suitable for me rather than going for a 43" which would have been too big, bright and come with smart features, built in speakers which I would never use; not to mention higher cost, lack of Gsync and a VA panel.

Yeah, I agree I'm sure the text would look clearer at 150% scaling on a 4k monitor, if I set my 32" 4K monitor to 150% then it would have the same effect. However, your trading the additional screen space that 2160p gives you over 1440p for that. The bonus of a 32" 4K monitor is the fact you can run it at 100% scaling and everything is clear, pin sharp, readable. Also, I don't have to deal with any DPI scaling issues with various apps with Windows 10 and have the ability to have more windows open at the same time. If I require text to be larger say in Chrome, for example, I will just make the change in the application rather than setting it in Windows. Tbh its one of the reasons why I went for a 32" 4K monitor over a 27", I was not willing to increase DPI to 150% and loose screen space or move my monitor closer to my face to be able to read start menu items or desktop folder names at 100% DPI.
I still stand by my original post in that 4K on anything smaller than 32" imo is a bit of a waste/compromise.

 

I have a 4K 15.6" laptop and I can clearly still see some pixellation millimeters away. Granted, the amount of detail is immense and the display looks glorious, but it's 282PPI - a long way off from being unable to discern any sort of detail when you come closer. At normal viewing distance, I doubt going for higher resolutions would have tangible benefits, but what you're essentially suggesting is that 32" 4K - with half the PPI, at around 141PPI, is enough - and I shudder to even entertain that conclusion. When you try higher resolutions, the goalpost will move. These sorts of claims are always thrown out through the decades - this is enough, that is enough, this is a waste, etc...

Same effect as what? 150% on your 32" monitor vs. 150% on his 27" monitor, both at the same resolution, would use the same number of pixels to draw any single element, but his monitor's pixels are smaller and thus his display is denser. Not the same effect - his display looks crisper.

How many apps do you have that actually still suffer from DPI scaling issues? I can name two that I use (Inkscape, Vivado), and my laptop has always been chock-full of productivity apps that I use in my research / education / programming, with programs going in and out.

Next year, that number will likely become zero.

 

"At normal viewing distance" which would no doubt with a laptop be much closer to your eyes than a monitor on a desk, so yeah for my viewing distance and usage 4K on 32" is enough (taking into account I *upgraded from a 108PPI 1440p 27" at the same viewing distance which I also considered to produce a sharp and clear image). I agree that "goalpost" will always move with time but I'm talking about what you can buy today. I assume you own a 8K HDR TV? because the PPI on *all* 4K tv's would be too low for you right?
Also seems our use cases are different, I mainly use my monitor for gaming, tv shows, and movies. The majority if not all of the current 4K laptops can't run any demanding games at anywhere near 4K resolution without making compromises to attain a playable framerate (which imo defeats the purpose of gaming at 4K), fans speeds, noise, and heat will increase while battery life drops sharply. Also would prefer to watch my tv shows/movies on a 32" screen over a 15.6".

Yeah I stand corrected here, the image would be crisper on his display but again comes down to viewing distance and increasing DPI to 150% will cause loss of screen real estate to attain it due to the size of the panel itself, 100% DPI in Windows on anything smaller than 32" is unusable right now unless the monitor is few mm from your eyes.

If you say so, but again not an issue for me I have no need to use DPI scaling.

 

Major factor critical to discussion is visual acuity. There are people with 20/10 vision (rare) who may indeed be able to see 4k pixels on 15" laptops. But for majority of people, even with 20/20 vision, it is not possible. So before anyone shouts they can or cannot see differences in res/screen size, they need to realize their statements only apply to them (or others with equivalent visual acuity). Havent measure my sight in a few years, but reckon it is below 20/20. I can see pixels on my 40" 4k screen but need to purposely look for them at less than 12" distance. Another factor, is that even if one does make out high res pixels on small screens, at what point does it become bothersome? What applies to me does not necessarily apply to anyone else, but have a general idea that it applies to a far greater size of the population than those with 20/10 vision.

p.s. only basing my opinion on charts as per below article. Conclusion though states that people with better than 20/20 vision can indeed tell differences even in small screens and are perhaps greater in number than I may have assumed. I still have no idea what % of populace has better than 20/20 vision.

Good article that touches on 4k and visual acuity