Asus Announces ProArt PQ22UC 21.6in Ultra HD HDR OLED monitor
Click here to post a comment for Asus Announces ProArt PQ22UC 21.6in Ultra HD HDR OLED monitor on our message forum
Enterprise24
$5000 ?
Jumbotron
4K and 21.6 inches? 😕
Paulo Narciso
ladcrooks
get it right if your gonna make a remark -- They come with a microscope 😛
EspHack
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?
AKDragonPC
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
BD2015
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.
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)
tsunami231
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.
alanm
alanm
mgilbert
alanm
asprine
https://www.monitornerds.com/asus-pa32uc-preview/
The 32" version is also underway.
vazup
CRTFTW
I'm wondering about the chances this will support Freesync. Have any of Asus' previous ProArt monitors supported it?
AKDragonPC
yasamoka
AKDragonPC
alanm
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
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.