Hi All,
Are any of you running 4k displays yet?
We've been thinking about how to handle larger displays and were considering jumping straight from the existing 1280px wide to 3840px rather than building a 'widescreen' mode on 1920px.
I think it would be most noticeable in the amount and resolution of the graphs we could display. We could effectively fit twice the amount of data into each graph. It would probably require quite a lot of work, so it's important we get the resolution correct!
(no, i don't care about your macbook pro's silly resolution)
adam.
That is stupid, if you running 4K display doesn't mean its BIGGER, i don't want use glasses to lookup pixels in these graphs.
And its not about macbook pro resolution, there even table (windows) with 4K resolution now exits.
On 27.05.2014 9:46, Adam Armstrong wrote:
Hi All,
Are any of you running 4k displays yet?
We've been thinking about how to handle larger displays and were considering jumping straight from the existing 1280px wide to 3840px rather than building a 'widescreen' mode on 1920px.
I think it would be most noticeable in the amount and resolution of the graphs we could display. We could effectively fit twice the amount of data into each graph. It would probably require quite a lot of work, so it's important we get the resolution correct!
(no, i don't care about your macbook pro's silly resolution)
adam. _______________________________________________ observium mailing list observium@observium.org http://postman.memetic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/observium
On 2014-05-27 00:49, Nikolay Shopik wrote:
That is stupid, if you running 4K display doesn't mean its BIGGER, i
We still run out of pixels at 1080p on 27" displays. We can definitely make use of more pixels at that screensize for more readable graphs and especially things like minigraphs.
adam.
As long I can see _same_ amount of graphs with 4K displays and not having them blurry - i don't care.
We basically don't want even smaller graphs even if 4K allow it as it have more pixels.
On 27.05.2014 9:56, Adam Armstrong wrote:
We still run out of pixels at 1080p on 27" displays. We can definitely make use of more pixels at that screensize for more readable graphs and especially things like minigraphs.
And you have weird display, most 27" nowadays run at 2560x1440
On 27 мая 2014 г., at 9:56, Adam Armstrong adama@memetic.org wrote:
We still run out of pixels at 1080p on 27" displays.
participants (2)
-
Adam Armstrong -
Nikolay Shopik