4K yay or 4K nay?

[21Kid]

While HDR demos used to make TV shows and movies look slightly weird, the latest batch I've seen show that there's plenty of promise behind the technology. HDR is a far more striking visual change than 4K alone, and now we're finally seeing more media take advantage of it.

The new P-Series finally brings HDR and Dolby Vision support, as well as ultra-wide color spectrum, down to Vizio's more affordable sets. There's also full array backlighting, with 128 active LED zones...
I checked out one P-Series set in a pitch-black hotel room, and I was mostly impressed by its ability to reach inky-deep black levels. It was hard to tell the black imagery on screen from the opening of Man of Steel from the surrounding darkness. Honestly, it's enough to convince me to leave my plasma TV sometime soon.

With that many full array zones and HDR, I'm not sure that I'll need to wait for OLED any more. They are catching up to OLED really fast.

[SportWagon]

Oh. Sorry. This thread isn't really about desktop monitors.

Spoiler:

My boss appears to have my workstation set to be evergreeened with a single 4K monitor. Boo. I knew my colleague had recently upgraded from two 24inch monitors. Turned out he talked them into two times 4K (28"). I find it difficult to believe 1x4K (28") will beat 2x22" (1680x1050).

Unless perhaps I can manage to get all three to work together...

My eyesight is not good enough to just start using smaller windows with denser fonts. (Because, true, theoretically 3840x is better than 2x 1680x; but twice THAT must be even betterer). I really don't need media, just text. Lots of text.

Part of the problem seems to be that 28" size is inherently just marginal for use of the higher resolution.

And of course, there's "See if I can swing a second 4K...".

[Yw-slayer]

Dual monitors, as long as each of them is at least 1680x1050 (arguably now 1920x1080), are The Bomb. Three is a it too much, though.

If you're having problems with eyesight, like me, just make some adjustments via scaling in Windows, and (if you use Outlook) in Outlook.

[thesameguy]

I have indeed noticed that three is too much. I have been agonizing over going from 2x23 to 2x27, possibly UHD curved because a pair of curved monitors would look completely scifi.

[Kchrpm]

I have two monitors now, and sometimes wish for three: two for workspace, one for email. I presume that if I had 3, I would wish for 4.

Someone who has used a virtual desktop environment for video editing, where he put on a VR headset and then spun around to look at however many virtual monitors he wanted/his monster editing desktop could support, gushed over the experience on a podcast and said it's the only way he wants to work now. But video editing seems like a unique beast of a task.

[SportWagon]

Windows? I scale right now mostly using -xrm parameters to adjust X resources.

The retired VM/Virtualbox guy used four monitors. Two horizontal in the center, with two vertical on the outside.

Hmm. A big problem with too many monitors might be that it will increase the probability that the GTXF window remains visible even though you've been working diligently on something else.

Outlook? heirloom-mailx (aka s-nail)

[21Kid]

I have indeed noticed that three is too much. I have been agonizing over going from 2x23 to 2x27, possibly UHD curved because a pair of curved monitors would look completely scifi.

What about standing 3 on end? I thought about doing that for a while... I work with mortgage documents that are frequently on legal (8.5x14) paper.

I have two monitors now, and sometimes wish for three: two for workspace, one for email. I presume that if I had 3, I would wish for 4.

I've thought about using two regular monitors for work and leaving my laptop screen just for email. I use my laptop as one of my 2 screens right now.

[SportWagon]

I usually use my two monitors to view approximately 4 things simultanteously. Text windows are nearly always half-screen wide. Most work browsers are about that size, though non-work Firefox profiles seem to tend to be wider.

And I use three workspaces (each of which can view 4 "things").

[thesameguy]

What about standing 3 on end? I thought about doing that for a while... I work with mortgage documents that are frequently on legal (8.5x14) paper.

I've done that with two - we're all letter and legal here, so portrait can be helpful although it does tend to lead to the eye getting a little lost. Sometimes. I don't think three would be an improvement or a detriment.

I've thought about using two regular monitors for work and leaving my laptop screen just for email. I use my laptop as one of my 2 screens right now.

Done that here too, specifically in that application. For most people I have dealt with, the issue with three monitors is how much head movement you need to do from 1->3. It's a lot. I have a system with 2x24" monitors at the office I use for... monitoring... and even that's a little much. 2x22 or 2x23 seems about perfect in terms of maximizing desktop space and not introducing extraneous head movement.

I've wondered about the stacked configuration, but based on limited testing I think the up-down head movement is even more fatiguing than left-right movement.

Edit: I guess if you work on a single thing for a long time and then move on to something else big width or height is less of a liability, but I tend to think the advantage of multiple monitors is being to work on many things more or less all at once. If you work on something for a while then move on, I don't see the issue with just closing the first before moving to the second anyway.

[Alan P]

Getting back to 4k TV stuff, Sky just announced that they'll be showing the F1 in 4k from next season. So pleased I bought a 4k TV and now have a 4k capable box!