Sapphire Radeon RX 7600 PULSE review
Gainward GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GHOST review
Radeon RX 7600 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti TUF Gaming review
MSI GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X TRIO review
GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8GB (FE) review
Corsair 2000D RGB Airflow Mini-ITX - PC chassis review
ASUS PG27AQDM Review - 240Hz 1440p OLED monitor
MSI MAG X670E Tomahawk WiFi review
Mountain Makalu Max mouse review
Asus Announces ProArt PQ22UC 21.6in Ultra HD HDR OLED monitor
Asus just announced their ProArt PQ22UC, a 21.6" OLED monitor with a massive 3840x2160 pixels resolution, it's HDR compatible as well. The screen is intended as a portable monitor and weighs about one kilogram.
The ASUS ProArt PQ22UC takes no-compromise content editing and creating on the road with a professional-grade 4K OLED boasting HDR support. And you can leave outlets behind with the battery-powered ZenScreen Go MB16AP, which stashes in a laptop bag and hooks up to computers or phones to provide maximum versatility for anyone who travels.
Measuring an expansive 21.6”, the PQ22UC bucks the trend for portable monitors by providing a canvas that almost matches the size of a desktop monitor but is still light enough to carry between client meetings all day. Thanks to its thin-and-light OLED panel, the display weighs in at just 2.2 lbs; that’s less than our premium ZenBook 3 Deluxe ultrabook, making the PQ22UC a great alternative to a hefty portfolio filled with hard copies of your best work.
While most mobile screens focus on adding a second display for multitasking and general productivity, the ProArt ups the ante with a professional-grade package designed for photo and video editing. This display is an absolute dream for content creators. Its Ultra HD 3840×2160 resolution allows you to preview 4K video on the road without losing detail, and its 0.1-ms pixel response time maintains a sharp picture with fast-moving scenes that blur on lesser screens. The 21.6″ panel packs 204 pixels per inch, which offers plenty of detail for editing large photos that usually have to wait until you get back to the office. With true 10-bit color and 99% coverage of the DCI-P3 color space, you see a wider range of colors as you edit, with smoother gradients between hues for natural-looking images. And you can be assured the colors are accurate, because each ProArt PQ22UC is pre-calibrated to achieve ∆E < 2 for a true-to-life viewing experience.
The vast palette of vivid colors is complemented by phenomenal contrast that stretches from perfect blacks to brilliant whites. OLEDs are known for their range, and this one boasts a contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1. The dynamic range is wide enough to support the HDR10 standard, allowing you to produce and enjoy HDR content in all its glory.
The PQ22UC accepts video input over USB Type-C or micro HDMI to minimize the number of dongles you need to pack based on the device you’re bringing. The angled stand provides desktop ergonomics wherever you set up shop, but it detaches and twists flat to easily slip into the included carrying case along with the display and power adapter.
The ZenScreen Go MB16AP is untethered and Android-ready
The smaller 15.6” ZenScreen Go is a Full HD display that runs on battery power, so you don’t spend your time on the road looking for outlets. It’s capable of connecting to either your laptop or your phone, which means it can do double duty for work and play while you’re traveling. Getting up and running is easy regardless of what device you’re hooking up: just connect via the USB Type-C port on the side, and you’re all set.
At just 1.9 lbs, this slim slate is supremely portable, slipping into your bag next to your laptop without adding much in the way of bulk or weight. Narrow bezels not only reduce overall footprint, but also give the illusion of a larger screen. The wide viewing angles of the IPS-type panel ensure colors stay vivid and bright whether you’re watching a videos side-by-side with a friend or presenting slides to a larger group. Audiences can comfortably watch the screen for hours thanks to ASUS Eye Care Technology, which uses a flicker-free backlight and adjustable blue light filter to make long days and late nights easier on your eyes.
With a 7,800mAh battery onboard, the ZenScreen Go lasts up to four hours on a single charge. There’s enough juice to get through a series of meetings without plugging in. Support for reverse charging means it can also top up your phone and other mobile devices in a pinch. If you don’t want to run down the battery, the screen can be powered by the same Type-C connection supplying the video feed, keeping your desk free of unnecessary clutter. It also works with Type-A USB 3.0 ports, extending compatibility to most modern laptops.
The integrated battery is the primary difference between the new MB16AP and our existing ZenScreen MB16AC, which relies exclusively on USB power. Both come with the same smart cover that doubles as a stand; it folds back to prop up the display in either landscape or portrait modes. If you prefer to go case-free, a neat little cutout in the frame allows you to use a pen or pencil to prop up the screen.
ASUS Announces XG Station Pro External GPU enclosure - 01/04/2018 04:00 PM
ASUS just announced their XG Station Pro, an external GPU enclosure based on Thunderbolt 3 port with 40Gbps bandwidth. The unit is based on a a stylish aluminum jacket and is feeding your external gr...
ASUS Announces AiMesh Whole-Home Wi-Fi for ASUS Routers - 01/04/2018 11:14 AM
ASUS today announced AiMesh, an innovative feature upgrade for ASUS routers that allows users to easily create a flexible and powerful whole-home Wi-Fi system using any compatible ASUS models....
ASUS Announces WS X299 Series workstation-class motherboards - 11/14/2017 09:26 AM
ASUS today announced WS X299 SAGE, WS X299 PRO and WS X299 PRO/SE, a trio of workstation-class motherboards based on the Intel® X299 platform and designed to blend powerful performance and tuning opt...
ASUS Announces GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Series Gaming Graphics Cards - 10/26/2017 03:24 PM
ASUS today announced the GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Series, an all-new lineup of gaming graphics cards powered by the latest NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti GPU....
ASUS Announces ROG Prime and TUF Z370 Series Motherboards - 09/29/2017 10:46 AM
New CPUs require new motherboards, ASUS has developed a deep lineup to meet different needs. The diverse cast of 15 models covers a range of priorities, budgets, and form factors spanning Republic of...
yasamoka
Member
Posts: 4872
Joined: 2009-08-29
Member
Posts: 4872
Joined: 2009-08-29
#5507800 Posted on: 01/06/2018 05:29 AM
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
AKDragonPC
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 2016-10-03
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 2016-10-03
#5507953 Posted on: 01/06/2018 07:00 PM
"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.
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...
"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".
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.
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.
Next year, that number will likely become zero.
If you say so, but again not an issue for me I have no need to use DPI scaling.
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 11667
Joined: 2004-05-10
Senior Member
Posts: 11667
Joined: 2004-05-10
#5508130 Posted on: 01/07/2018 11:52 AM
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
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
GamerNerves
Senior Member
Posts: 354
Joined: 2016-10-22
Senior Member
Posts: 354
Joined: 2016-10-22
#5508326 Posted on: 01/08/2018 05:41 AM
Interesting concept. If I could get one free I would probably carry it around to showcase some simple stuff. Hard to grasp what kind of professional would need this device, but I like the idea nonetheless.
Interesting concept. If I could get one free I would probably carry it around to showcase some simple stuff. Hard to grasp what kind of professional would need this device, but I like the idea nonetheless.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 2016-10-03
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.
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.
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.
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.