Jump to content
Marc Harris

New 34" monitor, age old question/problem

Recommended Posts

So I have a new ultra wide 34" monitor which I run at it's native resolution of 3444 X 1440. The age old problem is still there...everything looks too tiny! lol.  I have tried cranking up the scaling to 125% in windows 10 but then some text loses sharpness and/or is blurrier.  Seems this is an age old Windows problem that will always be a compromise of some sort. I thought with a bigger monitor I could see much more of a tunes timeline, which I can, but the trade-off is everything is so tiny , I have to sit way  up close to see it lol. I am tinkering with something I found on the internet which allows per application scaling override etc in Windows but it seems that if you want a larger Bandlab main view, then you give up the extra viewable space that you gained when things are at their native resolution and hence, smaller. I'm going to try a custom scaling of about 110-115 , just for Bandlab and see if if I can live with that. I don't think Macs have ever had this problem lol, or at least my sense is they never had a problem with blurry text/scaling issues. Makes me want to jump ship, plus all the things you hear about how they just work right out of the box with little to know tweaking and are stable. *sigh* :)

Edited by guitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not entirely a Windows problem. 

Unlike the old CRT monitors, the various pixel-based monitors (LCD etc.) have a fixed array upon which the display can be projected. They are designed to display optimally only at their "native resolution" i. e. one pixel in the original map matches one pixel on the display. Enlarging an image in software means that the image mapping has to be recomputed so that it takes more pixels per image. If the original image occupies the full screen (fills all the pixels available) then mathmatically there is no way to represent it using more pixels without exceeding the size of your screen in pixels. That will put some of the recalculated pixels location in the real world to be off your screen, meaning you will need to scroll the screen to see them if you can see them at all. Making a single image on the screen larger requires that the area of the map that represents it must be located, the imgage defined and recalculation applied to make it occupy (you guessed it) more pixels. But the original map only contains the original data, so the new image clarity is limited by the interpolation used to guess where it would fall on the new mapping. It is the same problem you get when you try to enlarge a digital photograph. Within limits the image still appears sharp, but as you continue to enlarge it eventually turns into an unrecognizable collection of squares. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, not a Windows issue. Modern monitors just don't scale like CRTs used to. Consequently, the biggest display isn't necessarily the best choice. And sorry, there isn't going to be a software solution.

One potential solution is to add a second monitor that's a lower resolution, for ease of reading. I have three monitors: 34" for the track view, and two 22" displays for plugins, Melodyne and the PRV. If something's hard to read in one window, I just drag it into another. I can live with the small text in the track view, since I know where everything is. It's mostly synths and fx plugins that make me squint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run a 40 inch at 1920x1080 and everything looks well proportioned and sharp to the eye. Matter of fact I run 2 monitors, one is a 20 inch and my main the 40 inch Flat screen monitor. The smaller runs something like 900x1600 because it is smaller/and sideways.

I know ultra wide's are a different animal though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sjoens said:

Try running it @2560 X 1080 (or biggest 1080 setting) with 100% scaling.

 

 

It looks soooo good at 3444 X 1444 though ! lol I am going to try that and other resolutions....I AM starting to get more and more used to it though. I have it mounted on this absolutely killer (and not cheap) Ergotron arm and it kind of 'floats' on my desk , so I can maneuver it closer or farther away if need be and have my little MIDI input music keyboard tucked under it.

 

Edited by Marc Harris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool!

@chuckebaby, ultrawides basically add extra width to the height of a 'standard' monitor. To maintain proper height to width ratio, the standard 1980x1080 becomes 2560x1080.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sjoens said:

Try running it @2560 X 1080 (or biggest 1080 setting) with 100% scaling.

I have had an ultrawide for a couple years now, and this is how I run it. I sit 3 feet away from the monitor, so it is not worth taxing my eyes to use it. I actually searched for one that didn't have higher resolutions, since they are far cheaper and 4K would be wasted for my use (I just wanted more track view length and easier ability to edit documents side-by-side on the same screen). Most editing applications that allow for menus to be right/left docked benefit greatly without upping the resolution (the screen is slightly shorter, but 8" wider than my old 27").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I think I am content now to go full bore 3444 X 1444...it just looks so good and I have the monitor at a comfortable distance to still see everything and I get my super long timeline!1462380988_Screenshot(1).thumb.png.6d9cf63182b1ac5a51db9cd2d64b5c46.png....

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a related question. Can I replace my 27" 1K (1920 x 1080) display with a larger single display (probably 34" max) 4K (3840 x 2160) and have room to display track view (not maximized) and plugin pop-ups around it?

I'm thinking that I don't need the full 27"  for track view because I also have CbB on my Surface Pro 3 which has a 12" diagonal display which is cramped for sure. But somewhere between 12" and 27" would probably work if I could read the text in track view and on the plugin pop-ups.

Is there any way to visualize what that would look like without actually buying the 4K display and trying it? Also, maybe something in between would be better; say 2560 x 1080.

Any suggestions appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Marc Harris said:

So I think I am content now to go full bore 3444 X 1444...it just looks so good and I have the monitor at a comfortable distance to still see everything and I get my super long timeline!

🤣 ... and just look at the teeny, tiny menu at the top left of the screen!  🔭

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High resolution is an interesting and fustrating way to find all of the objects in a GUI that are only 2 pixels wide... only to find out that your mouse has 5 pixel precision to it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2019 at 5:41 AM, Marc Harris said:

...native resolution of 3444 X 1440...everything looks too tiny! lol...

It could be worse still if you were using Digital Performer. In some sections of its GUI the text and objects are very tiny indeed. Some DP users complain about this a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 2:13 PM, bitflipper said:

Yup, not a Windows issue.

 

 

well, not necessarily...if you wanted to scale like I mentioned (aside from the window being a bit oversized @ 125% scaling), the issue is still how poor Windows 10 handles it for things like fonts....watch this video...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 27" monitor "Fried and Died" a while back. I picked up a cheap small wide screen at a garage sale. Screen is beautiful but everything too small. After playing with it I got it looking perfect , but lost mouse control on everything close to the edges , including transport. Is this what @mettelus was referring to?     mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2019 at 1:18 PM, Bill Phillips said:

Is there any way to visualize what that would look like without actually buying the 4K display and trying it? Also, maybe something in between would be better; say 2560 x 1080.

Any suggestions appreciated.

You should play around with an online calculator called IsThisRetina. [ https://www.designcompaniesranked.com/resources/is-this-retina/ ]

The major parameters of how you see your screen are your working distance, the pixels-per-inch density, and the screen size.  The "Retina" distance is an ergonomic figure of how the limits of normal human visual acuity will have the image look no better with additional resolution or pixels-per-inch.  

A backstory may be useful:

I migrated from 28" 1920x1200 used at a distance of 42-inches.  That's an ~81PPI screen that has a Retina Distance (RD) of 43 inches. That's why my aging eyes were happy with it. I was using it just inside the RD value. 

-When I replaced it with a 30" Apple Cinema 2560x1600 at ~100PPI, I struggled to use this screen at 100-percent because the fonts were too small, and I wound up using it at 125-percent, with the concomitant loss of information (quantity of tracks, busses, etc) on the screen.  The RD of that Cinema was 34 inches, and I was far outside of that number with my 42-inch working distance. 

I then got a 40" Samsung and ran it at UHD 3840x2160, and things got worse, because the RD was now 31-inches.  I finally got a 55-inch UHD screen and am happy again at 100-percent.  Guess what?  A 55-inch UHD 3840x2160 is ~80PPI, and an RD value of 42-inches,  just like when I started with the original 28" 1920x1200. 

The calculator says that the 34" 4K display has an RD of 27-inches.  If you work that close, you have a shot. 

Edited by MediaGary
typos and added 34" RD calc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MediaGary said:

You should play around with an online calculator called IsThisRetina. [ https://www.designcompaniesranked.com/resources/is-this-retina/ ]

The major parameters of how you see your screen are your working distance, the pixels-per-inch density, and the screen size.  The "Retina" distance is an ergonomic figure of how the limits of normal human visual acuity will have the image look no better with additional resolution or pixels-per-inch.  

A backstory may be useful:

I migrated from 28" 1920x1200 used at a distance of 42-inches.  That's an ~81PPI screen that has a Retina Distance (RD) of 43 inches. That's why my aging eyes were happy with it. I was using it just inside the RD value. 

-When I replaced it with a 30" Apple Cinema 2560x1600 at ~100PPI, I struggled to use this screen at 100-percent because the fonts were too small, and I wound up using it at 125-percent, with the concomitant loss of information (quantity of tracks, busses, etc) on the screen.  The RD of that Cinema was 34 inches, and I was far outside of that number with my 42-inch working distance. 

I then got a 40" Samsung and ran it at UHD 3840x2160, and things got worse, because the RD was now 31-inches.  I finally got a 55-inch UHD screen and am happy again at 100-percent.  Guess what?  A 55-inch UHD 3840x2160 is ~80PPI, and an RD value of 42-inches,  just like when I started with the original 28" 1920x1200. 

The calculator says that the 34" 4K display has an RD of 27-inches.  If you work that close, you have a shot. 

Very helpful. Thanks. I never considered the retina distance. My viewing distance is ideally 30"-32" but I don't have room for a 40" display. Also, I've noticed that there don't seem to be any 4K displays in the range of 32"-40." I have about 34" between my monitor speakers. I do have an Ergotron articulated display mount that supports 20 lbs and could support the 32" monitor at 25" viewing distance, though a slightly larger 34" display would be better if there was one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mark skinner said:

My 27" monitor "Fried and Died" a while back. I picked up a cheap small wide screen at a garage sale. Screen is beautiful but everything too small. After playing with it I got it looking perfect , but lost mouse control on everything close to the edges , including transport. Is this what @mettelus was referring to?     mark

Can you clarify what "close to the edges" means? Do you mean the outside edge of the monitor, or the edge of controls (like windows, objects, etc.)?

Regarding window borders: one thing that stands out dramatically with Win10 right from the get-go is the "borderless" windows... they actually have a very narrow border, but depending on the resolution of your mouse, it is easier to cross back and forth over it (and see the icon change), but never actually hit it. One plugin that I forget offhand had a 1 pixel border that left me absolutely livid, until I finally realized that the entire lower right corner (easy target), was the "resize hot spot" for the UI.

The mouse itself becomes a Catch22 at that point, some will easily hit fine resolution, but then it takes forever to cross a screen (especially an ultrawide or multiple monitor setup). There are not a lot that have toggle switches between normal/precision mode; but even with those, if I find myself leaning into my monitor to hit small targets, I know I have already crossed the bounds of ergonomics.

Ergonomics is not often hit upon, but hours straight in front of a computer is not healthy. The human eye has a very defined focal point to it, so being able to sit in a proper posture and moving your eyes to view your workspace rather than your head is ideal. Additionally, breaks are important to prevent fatigue and strain, so enforcing a habit of 5-10 minutes each hour to view things at a distance, walk, etc. is a good habit to form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graphics cards can be a factor too. I have a 24-inch 1920x1200 screen that I have used with 2 different computers and ended up using different display settings for each. With one of them (with an Nvidia gaming card) I found it necessary to set the resolution to 1280x800, as text was often difficult to read at the native resolution. But on the other one (Matrox card) I found the native resolution acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, for anyone who hasn't poked around Windows settings that much, I now have an incredibly cool combo of the highest native resolution that I wanted, 3440 X 1440 ...AND have increased the font size and desktop items..you can literally select BOTH seperately and increase the size of both while keeping your higher overall resolution...Windows 10 kind of makes it squirrely to get to the settings, but it's doable....here's where you can tweak to your hearts content...here's with the fonts and app tweaked a bit larger without losing the sharpness of the fonts/text and the after results showing Bandlab with larger Menu bar fonts....happy happy joy joy!

 

image.thumb.png.5576d0a4d70daf5904c59baf73885500.png

Bandlab after tweak.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...