Samsung's ViewFinity S9 5K Smart Monitor Hits All-Time Low $999 Price ($600 Off)

[daneoni]

I was interested in one of these, and if you're only looking for a screen and nothing else then its decent value.

But next to the Studio Display it starts to show its compromises quickly;

Plastic construction (wobbly on desk)
Weaker USB ports in terms of bandwidth/power
Sometimes power hungry
Weak/flat speakers
Basic artificial sounding mic
Ginormous power brick
No glossy option

But Samsung wins in terms of basic stand ergonomics , thinner bezels, slightly better third party support, cheaper matte access, and price.

 

[azentropy]

I decided to keep mine that I ordered last month (I think my last day for return is Wednesday). While it does have some drawbacks as other's mentioned (my biggest complaint was the god awful speakers) I think for 1/2 the price of what the nano-texture ASD display goes for it is worth it. While I wouldn't want it as my "downstairs" display where I have a regular ASD now, it works perfectly in my office and the matte display is much appreciated. There I can have external speakers, hid the power supply and I do not need to adjust the brightness throughout the day due to more consistent light.

 

[bradman83]

ppi is one measure of resolution, but a far more useful one when dealing with optics is angular resolution. That means you have to take viewing distance into account.

The angular resolution of the human eye with "20/20 vision" (which represents typical human vision, not the best) is - by definition - 1 arc-minute (= about 0.0003 radians). (If I recall correctly the test is being able to see a 1 arc-minute gap in a "c" and distinguish it from an "o").

If you look at a 300 ppi screen from 11" away, the angular size of a pixel is (1/300")/11" = 0.0003 radians, so close to the limit of what a typical human can resolve. That was the most likely basis for the term "retina display" coined by Apple for the 326ppi display on the iPhone 4 (for which 11" is a reasonable minimum viewing distance). I.e. from more than 11" away, people with 20/20 vision will not be able to perceive 1-pixel size features on a 300ppi screen).

If you do the same calculation for a 27" "4k UHD" display (there's a calculator here) then the "retina" distance comes out at about 21" - so if you typically watch your 27"display from twice as far away as you hold your iPhone 4, you should get a similar "retina display" experience without obvious pixelation.

The whole "retina" thing is very hand-wavy (for starters many people have better/worse than 20/20 vision - and how various eye conditions affect the result is somewhat more complicated than that) but really, beyond 21" viewing distance, increasing the resolution beyond 163 ppi leads to rapidly diminishing returns. That doesn't mean you won't see the difference between 4k and 5k in a side-by-side comparison, but it should make you question whether the "improvement" is worth paying 3x or more extra for 5k.

(And, while we're at it, a "looks like 1440p" image on a 4k display is effectively a 5k image downsampled to 4k and contains a lot more detail than you'd see on an actual 1440p display - although you do need to ask yourself whether your game/3D package can render smooth motion at 4k, let alone, 5k - which is also why you shouldn't be jonesing for a 120Hz 5k display until we've seen another iteration or two of Apple Silicon GPUs).

THANK 👏 YOU! 👏

 

[HiVolt]

5K is more directed for Mac users as 5K is meant for their Retina display and macOS rendering. 4K on macOS requires scaling down to like 2560x1440p. macOS is very finicky on resolutions so the fonts look right.

I'm honestly baffled that Apple has not fixed this in macOS yet. Windows has had adjustable UI scaling since Win8, you can use any resolution/PPI you want.

Apple is stuck with this "Retina" fixed scaling.

macOS needs a major core technology rewrite.

 

[chrfr]

Samsung made a big mistake by omitting HDMI or display ports.

This display has Mini DisplayPort and USB-C inputs in addition to the Thunderbolt port.

 

[Anaron]

I had to get it exchanged twice before I got one that didn't have any issues. The first one had a noticeable dead pixel in the top let corner and coil whine. The second one had what looked like a tiny ink blotch in the middle with coil whine too. Finally, the third one had barely noticeable dead pixels that I couldn't see from a normal viewing distance. I didn't want to take my chances again and settled on that.

I got it for $1208 CAD (~$902 USD) after tax. If I paid closer to regular price, then I would've requested a refund after the second replacement.

 

[svish]

Decent price for a 27" 5K display. Can be a good option to pair with Mac mini

 

[MacFarmer]

I would get it if not for the stupid "smart" features! I want a plain monitor, not a surveillance and data gathering device!

 

[mazz0]

5K is more directed for Mac users as 5K is meant for their Retina display and macOS rendering. 4K on macOS requires scaling down to like 2560x1440p. macOS is very finicky on resolutions so the fonts look right.

Hmm? What do you mean? I'm using a 4k 32" screen with my Mac - are you saying I'd get sharper text if I downscaled it?

 

[mazz0]

A 4K image on a 27” screen comes out to 163 ppi.

That’s just slightly worse in terms of clarity to a 1080p image on a 13.3” laptop screen (165 ppi). It’s fine for gaming or sitting back watching a movie, because you don’t care about sharpness so much, but it’s not ideal for productivity applications. In fact, a lot of gamers use 1440p monitors - not because they can’t afford 4K displays, but because they’d rather have higher frame-rates and enable processing-intensive realistic lighting feature over crystal-sharp text.

A 5K image on a 27” screen comes to about 220 ppi, so 35% more pixels per inch than 4K. It’s a significant improvement to image clarity, and lots of people value that.

You wouldn't have a 27" monitor as close to your face as a 13" laptop screen though would you?

I have a 32" 4k screen about 80cm from my eyes and it's pretty damn sharp. I wouldn't say it's perfect, I could see the value of 5k at this size and distance, but shrink it down by 5" and I really don't think that would be true.

If somebody could do the maths on pixels per arcsecond (or arcseconds per pixel) for the sizes and distances in questions that'd help, but I couldn't find an online calculator that does that easily.

 

[theluggage]

If somebody could do the maths on pixels per arcsecond (or arcseconds per pixel) for the sizes and distances in questions that'd help, but I couldn't find an online calculator that does that easily.

See https://tools.rodrigopolo.com/display_calc/

TLNR - see my post a page or so back - 20/20 vision is one minute of arc - or 0.0003 radians = the angular size of a pixel at 300ppi seen from 11" (1/300" divided by 11" = 0.0003) - Double the distance, halve the required minimum resolution.

So, yes, a "4k" UHD 27" display in a typical desktop viewing distance just about qualifies as "retina" - for what that's worth (its all ball-park stuff and 20/20 vision is a norm, not a maximum).

Hmm? What do you mean? I'm using a 4k 32" screen with my Mac - are you saying I'd get sharper text if I downscaled it?

No. On a "4k UHD" you will get optimal quality at either "looks like 1920x1080" mode or "looks like 3840x2160" mode (misleadingly named - as long as you're using modern retina-capable software they're both full 4k UHD resolution, the first just uses double-size UI elements). Trouble is, on a 27" display, the UI elements in "looks like 1920x1080" come out rather large and use up a lot of screen estate, while "looks like 3840x2160" makes the UI almost unusably small (although, depending on your eyesight and viewing distance preferences you may be happy with it on your 32" display, in which case, you're good to go).

The "fractionally scaled modes" are all about giving you intermediate UI sizes by rendering the screen internally to (say) 5k and then down-sampling it to 4k. This results in a slightly soft focus effect on text, and some scaling artifacts in graphics - YMMV as to whether these are (a) unacceptably hideous abominations that will make your eyes bleed or (b) very subtle effects that you won't notice in everyday use unless you spend your days doing A/B comparisons with a Pro XDR display & are a sensible compromise given the cost of 5k. You may gather that I tend towards (b).

Important point(s), though, on a 4k UHD display "looks like 1920x1080" mode and "looks like 3840x2160" mode are - for most practical purposes - native, artefact-free, full 4k modes, while the intermediate modes offered in display settings may have resampling artefacts they still render more details than their "looks like" names suggest. Also, Apple's use of the term "scaled mode" covers two very different types of "scaling".

 

[satchmo]

I had to get it exchanged twice before I got one that didn't have any issues. The first one had a noticeable dead pixel in the top let corner and coil whine. The second one had what looked like a tiny ink blotch in the middle with coil whine too. Finally, the third one had barely noticeable dead pixels that I couldn't see from a normal viewing distance. I didn't want to take my chances again and settled on that.

I got it for $1208 CAD (~$902 USD) after tax. If I paid closer to regular price, then I would've requested a refund after the second replacement.

Where did you get it for that great price and low exchange rate?

 

[BradMacPro]

I have a 27 inch iMac but I need two screens for the work I do. How hard would it be or what would I need to be able to use both screens where I can drag stuff from one screen to another/use it for work? Sorry I'm a dummy when it comes to this stuff

It's not a problem to have two screens on a Mac mini M2 Pro or a Mac Studio and extend the desktop and not just mirror the two displays.