top of page


Public·20 members

2880x1800 High Contrast 4k Wallpaper Perfect Fo...

In the smartphone revolution of the last five or so years, manufacturers have been desperate to put higher resolution screens into phones even where they are not needed. It's often argued that resolutions above that of Full HD are wasted on such comparatively small panels as even people with perfect vision find it hard to spot any difference. Nevertheless, phone makers have done it anyway, probably for marketing purposes. As a result, Quad High Definition (QHD) screens have become a popular choice in modern handsets.

2880x1800 High Contrast 4k Wallpaper Perfect Fo...


Other titles we tested in the OS X arena were not so impressive however. Aspyr has patched many of its titles to support the 2880x1800 resolution, but games like Duke Nukem Forever and Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare required substantial cutbacks on visual quality settings to get decent performance. Games like this also present further issues in that they were never designed to run at such a high resolution in the first place - the net result is that the sheer precision of the Retina display brutally highlights low polygon counts and poor quality textures, even with all the settings at their maximum level. Actually having to pare these back in order to make the games reasonably playable doesn't do the games any favours making them interesting, but disappointing demos for the machine.

One interesting element to note is that these low-poly titles still reveal noticeable jaggies in high contrast areas, so some form of anti-aliasing is still required, even on a display designed so that individual pixels cannot be discerned by the human eye. However, further testing on new titles threw up an interesting observation: cheaper post-process AA in combination with the extreme pixel count appears to be up to the task of eliminating aliasing in a very pleasing manner, with the sub-pixel artifacting associated with the technique very difficult to pick up on.

Most laptops available these days offer IPS LED panels with full-array lighting, but without dimming capabilities. Some of the premium options are available with mini LED panels, which offer higher brightness, better contrast, and better overall image quality than the regular LEDs, through zone dimming control. This dedicated article explains the mini LED technology implemented on some laptops these days.

For ease of comparison, UHD will be defined as 4K resolutions or higher with a 16:9 or wider aspect ratio as the Consumer Electronics Association defined in 2012. Using this definition, we can see that OLED and UHD have a lot of similarities such as 4K resolutions and widescreen aspect ratios. However, OLED screens with 4K resolution will have a higher color contrast and wider viewing angles than UHDs in the same category.

UHD can refer to multiple types of panels used in TVs, laptops, smartphones, and tablets. OLED refers to a specific technology. While most consumers can find a great price on a UHD TV, OLED screens offer better color contrast, true blacks, faster response time, better refresh rates, and even higher resolutions. In most cases, OLED is currently the best overall panel technology to use on a screen.

As the best overall panel technology used in screens to date, OLED comes at a much higher price than UHD screens. Devices with OLED screens are marketed with the knowledge that it provides the best overall entertainment experience. For that reason, TVs, smartphones, tablets, laptops, and monitors with an OLED panel will be significantly more expensive than UHD screens. The differences in color contrast between UHD LCD or LED screens and OLED is immediately noticeable.

Overhead midday sun - although providing plentiful light - is very harsh and creates high contrast with deep shadows and hotspots, so avoid shooting action (or just avoid shooting in general) in the middle hours of the day when the sun is high.

Telephoto fixed focal length "prime" lenses (such as a 135mm lens) can also be used for action, however unless they are super high-end, aren't usually as reliable at keeping a moving subject in focus and may struggle in difficult light, or with a dark, low contrast subject.

Shooting at the highest possible frames per second your camera is capable of helps increase your success rate and gives you more shots to choose from. This increases your chances of obtaining that one "perfect" shot in the dog's stride, or at the very top of their leap.

An integer scaling factor of 2 is much easier to handle: an icon can be exactly pixel-doubled and still look clean. It won't be high res, of course, but at least a one-pixel line in the original will always be exactly two pixels wide in the scaled version. (By contrast, if you scale by 1.5 using a not-very-intelligent algorithm, a one-pixel line could end up either one or two pixels wide depending on its position in the image.)Then once the application has rendered at 2x scaling, which most are able to manage at least passably, the GPU scales everything by 0.75 using a reasonably good scaling method which anti-aliases and doesn't suffer artefacts from rounding to exact pixel boundaries.At least, the above is my conjecture based on the fact that Apple chose to do it this way (at least when a 'virtual res' of 1920x1200 is selected). It matches my experience using high-dpi displays in Windows, where a font scaling of 150% looks nasty in many apps but 200% works well enough. Oversampling, or scaling down Posted Nov 14, 2014 6:44 UTC (Fri) by ploxiln (subscriber, #58395) [Link]

Let's say you have a 2560x1440 display at some ludicrously high DPI. Yes, we lie to apps and tell them that it's 1280x720. But we _also_ tell them that it's DPI-doubled, so _if they want_, they can render at the full resolution (2560x1440), and have that displayed, pixel-for-pixel, on screen. It's only the naïve apps that get scaled, so they don't have to explicitly have code to double every single part of their UI.So it's not the perfect literally-resolution-independent utopia, but given that's never existed in practical form, I think I'll settle for the current model of allowing smart clients to not waste a single pixel, but not breaking others in the process. High-DPI displays and Linux Posted Nov 12, 2014 16:56 UTC (Wed) by xbobx (subscriber, #51363) [Link]

So far I got best results with Plasma 5, still, it needs quite a lot of tweaking and not everything there is dpi-independent. GNOME approach with scaling by factor of 2 is no-go. It would work for high resolution displays, X1's resolution is not that high and gives you very small screen with everything being so huge. Single head for a lot of apps is solvable. Somehow. Not perfect but it works.The bigger issue is connecting second LCD, non HiDPI. In the end, I was able to find compromise font DPI settings that makes it somehow usable on both displays simultaneously but... On Carbon, it's a bit too small, on external LCD it's a bit too big. I can live with it, now. Xrandr scaling is unusable - too blurry. Firefox can be solved by -US/firefox/addon/autohidpi/ High-DPI displays and Linux Posted Nov 21, 2014 17:57 UTC (Fri) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link] 041b061a72

  • About

    Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

    bottom of page