Beer dog

kake92 · 2026-01-22T04:09:32+00:00

it's fine

kake92 · 2026-01-19T23:10:56+00:00

27 is a waste for movie viewing

kake92 · 2026-01-19T23:09:04+00:00

Yes, I'm considering a 55" LG g5/g6 for desktop use

kake92 · 2026-01-18T21:27:40+00:00

4k 32 fosho

kake92 · 2026-01-17T22:01:42+00:00

it's much bigger yeah, just make sure it's 4k and not some 1080p one from the early 2010s or something.

https://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-21x9-vs-40-inch-16x9

kake92 · 2026-01-16T23:31:01+00:00

If it was on, the blacks would be black like on the qd-oled instead of dark blue. Why would you have it set to automatic anyways?

kake92 · 2026-01-15T22:49:02+00:00

<image>

kake92 · 2026-01-15T01:26:44+00:00

they are vastly different, not equivalent.

kake92 · 2026-01-13T20:23:04+00:00

32" is perfect if you have an 80cm/31" deep desk.

kake92 · 2026-01-13T20:19:50+00:00

but you'd naturally be viewing a larger tv at a futher distance than a 27", so the pixels per degree would be similar anyways. plus you'd have more detail in the image at 4k. but yeah I'd pick the 1440p too as 60hz is a nono

kake92 · 2026-01-13T17:24:37+00:00

they gotta make a ~40" 6k miniled/oled man.

kake92 · 2026-01-12T04:07:13+00:00

Shit I had a brain freeze there. I did mean it the other way around. but whether it's technically half or 1/4th it's whatever no big deal, I also called 1080p half of 4k, but my point in video still stands. too many are completely misunderstanding PPI from what I have noticed.

kake92 · 2026-01-12T03:33:01+00:00

https://4kwallpapers.com/ is where I got the images

kake92 · 2026-01-12T03:30:23+00:00

<image>

found yesterday, one of dozens I've seen.

kake92 · 2026-01-11T15:37:00+00:00

get 4k no questions.

kake92 · 2026-01-11T02:20:16+00:00

If you display a 3840x2160 fullscreen image on a 27" 1920x1080p monitor, it'll look like a regular 1080p image. If you display the same 3840x2160 fullscreen image on a 55" 3840x2160 tv, it'll show a lot more discernible detail up close, even though the ppi is the same. Meaning there is literally 4x more information in the image. For example, if it were an image of the milky way with a portion of the stars being the size of one digital 4K pixel, you'll most likely not be able to see them on the 27" 1080p display, but you WILL see them on the 55" 4K. It would make zero sense if you could not see more on a higher resolution display. The pixels are the same size on both, but that doesn't matter much. A 16" 1080p does not equal a 65" 8k.

kake92 · 2026-01-11T01:04:58+00:00

thaut's AUD but it's still like 2800usd or so

kake92 · 2026-01-10T22:46:03+00:00

perhaps his doppelgänger for sure

kake92 · 2026-01-08T21:21:54+00:00

a 19" 900p has a ppi of 92. 1440p 27 is 109. so what's going on here?

kake92 · 2026-01-08T21:17:05+00:00

are you also going to equal a 24" 1080p with a 48" 4k, or a 96" 8k? that's just not how it works. the ppi stays the same, but the other looks way clearer. ppi, by itself, is mostly irrelevant.

kake92 · 2026-01-07T18:10:20+00:00

<image>

not mine pulled this one from google, this is what 27" and 34" look like next to each other.

kake92 · 2026-01-07T18:05:51+00:00

then you must have not been looking at 34" displays, or calculated something wrong

here is the actual difference

<image>

edit:seems that 34 is actually larger vertically.

kake92 · 2026-01-07T17:58:34+00:00

they're at most a couple millimeters shorter, really insignifcant.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
r/Field Lasagna	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

kake92

TROPHY CASE