[SOLVED] Not happy with a Quad HD display: how to get a crystal clear image?

[vivemotion]

Hi all,

I just decided myself a couple days ago and went on for a Quad HD display, putting in no less than $400.
Reason is I spend really a lot of time in front of my screen for work (no gaming), and so I find important to have both image quality (comfort and eye care) and size (I find very handy to be able to work on 4 windows at the same time).
My new display arrived today, a 31.5 INCH (2K or 2560 X 1440 or Quad HD). I'm happy with the size, the look, what it allows me to do, that does meet my expectations.

However, I'm quite disappointed with the image quality. Indeed, I expected to have a crystal clear image, like those in which you can't see the pixels. Well it happens here I do see them, and it quite buggs me.
On my affordable mid-level laptop (Acer Swift 3), the display is a 14 INCH full HD, but the image is so beautiful, and I can't see the pixels even from up close.
I've got no knowledge in all this, but I thought that by going for a Quad HD, it would ensure this image quality I was so much hoping to have.

So if you could help me find my happiness, and explain me why my full HD $700 laptop screen renders a image so much more beautiful and clear than my just bought $400 display?

Thanks a lot!

 

[kanewolf]

A 31inch diagonal 16x9 monitor with the resolution you list (2560x1440) has a 93 pixel/inch density. BUT your 14 inch laptop with 1920x1080 has a 157 pixel per inch density. That is why you can't see the pixels on the laptop. You bought a big screen with low (relative) resolution. At desktop distance, it won't look as sharp as the laptop, because it isn't.

 

[vivemotion]

Thanks, so this is all about pixel density... Which means a pixel doesn't have a standard size?

And what's the solution to my problem? Would going for 4K with same screen size (31.5 INCH) solve my issue (by being twice more dense)?

I suppose finding a 4K curved 31.5 INCH display will cost me much more than $400?
And other question: will my mid-level laptop be ok with a 4K display? Does it matter at all?

And yet another: does it mean that a 40 INCH display with 4K won't be sharper than a 30 INCH display with Quad HD?

 

[kanewolf]

A higher resolution screen, or more distance from the monitor.

No pixels aren't a fixed size. They are relative to the size of the screen. Cell phone displays look AMAZING because they are 6 inches but have HD or resolution. Check out this article on pixel density -- https://www.digitalcitizen.life/simple-questions-what-ppi-and-does-it-matter

If it is specifically a text issue you might be able to change "font smoothing" -- https://www.isunshare.com/windows-10/choose-whether-to-smooth-edges-of-screen-fonts-in-windows-10.html

 

[vivemotion]

Thanks for the link. The pixel density (PPI) is an important factor.
So, the higher amount of pixels in an inch, the smaller the pixel, and the sharper the image.

 

[kanewolf]

Thanks for the link. The pixel density (PPI) is an important factor.

Now, it doesn't mention pixel size, which also matters a lot, isn't it?

Pixel size is just the reciprocal of the density. It the density is 100 PPI then the size is 1/100 of an inch.

 

[vivemotion]

Gotcha I realized my stupid question

I think I will just have to go for a higher density display...

Anything to recommend, in 32 inch, ideally curved? It seems hard to find over 120 PPI on curved 32 inch displays... does it even exist?

 

[vivemotion]

Also, I'm still a bit confused with these two:
- this full HD 32 inch has 82 PPI: https://www.coolblue.be/en/product/816376/philips-328e9qjab.html
- and this 2K 32 inch also has 82 PPI: https://www.coolblue.be/en/product/816377/philips-328e9fjab.html

How is that possible? Same size, one has way more pixels than the other, yet they have the same density?

 

[kanewolf]

I would say one of them is listed incorrectly. Get out your Excel sheet and do your own math. That is what I did on my first answer.

 

[Solandri]

While I encourage exercising your math skills and making your own spreadsheets, PPI calculations are rudimentary enough that I'd say just use an online calculator. Don't rely on specs on the web. Those are cut and paste between different models, and sometimes the person doing it forgets to change the specs for a different model.

https://www.sven.de/dpi/

In the print photography days, the rule of thumb was that a photo meant to be viewed held in your hand needed to be at least 300 DPI before you couldn't see the dots. 150 DPI was passable, but would noticeably inferior if placed side-by-side. Exceeding 300 DPI didn't gain you anything (unless the viewer puts the photo right up to their face). If I remember (don't feel like doing the math right now), this is based on the resolving power of 20/20 vision and holding the image about 20 inches from your eyes. The closest analogy to this today is a phone display, which is why they're all generally 300+ PPI.

For a photo meant to be viewed hung on the wall (like at a gallery), 150 DPI was considered sufficient. 75 DPI passable. Desktop monitors are close to this scenario. So a PPI between 75-150 for monitors is usable, though you should prefer towards the higher end since you can see the pixels below 150 PPI. Exceeding 150 PPI is useful if you will sometimes tilt your heads towards the screen to see more detail, but won't provide any extra benefit at normal viewing distance.

Laptops fall kinda in between these two, since their screens are usually placed closer to your eyes than a desktop monitor, but further than a phone.