Hi! 
Who uses a 32 inch monitor (3840 x 2160). 150% or 120% display scaling.
Can you please show a screenshot like I did? (my monitor 24 inch 1920 x 1200)
Blender Interface - resolution scale – 1.00 ?
*Word - Calibri 10, 100% zoom.
…
Then you get 3840 x 2160 - 100%
I need 150% or 120% display scaling 
Okay… overlooked this and i’m not sure… but upsscaling your scrrenshot to 120%, 150% first and then putting this together might give you the idea how this would look like…
1 Like
Unfortunately I don’t think it works that way 
. It should not increase proportionally…
ok,
don’t need Word, just a Blender
ideally with Windows Explorer still open but not necessarily 
Hmmm… 
…then… what is this % for ??
Also you may have a look at something like this:
ohh wait… i forgot… i’m on linux… and
i just can resize the window to whatever i want… 
ohh just forgot… Blender Resolution Scale is 1.1
1 Like
Thank you! 
Serious question: whats the point of using a larger monitor, scaled to the resolution of a smaller monitor?
Is it basically about just wanting the same real estate, but larger for easy reading?
2 Likes
I don’t have enough space on my monitor and don’t want two monitors. On a 27-inch 2k monitor at 100% scaling, everything is too small for me. And by setting the scaling to a higher level, I will get almost the same as on my monitor. I was thinking of going with 32 inches 4k and 150% scaling to get about the same text and interface size as on my monitor but a larger screen area for everything. But it seems to me that 150% may be too much. I wanted to make sure.
I have a choice to take a large diagonal but with ~94 ppi and use it at 100% scaling (sacrifice clarity) or take a 32-inch diagonal of 140 ppi but use 120-150% scaling…
Sorry for my English
1 Like
If you have a 27" which resolution seems good?
If I am not mistaken you might be at 2560, then this means that you could have UI scale at about 150%, depending on what suits you better.
As far as I see for 4K monitors that 3840 is the real deal. This means that you must place the UI scale at 200%.
Generally the case of picking the resolution and UI scale, depends on what it looks good, in combination to the view distance (standard view distance could be about 70cm) and the standard resolution (that makes graphics look crispy and not blurry or pixelated).
1 Like
I recently went from 27" 1440p to a 32" 4K (AOC PD32M).
Attached screen at 150% (windows display properties recommends this scale)
And at 125%
I am finding 150% quite comfortable. I use 125% on the 27" 1440p for the last year or two as I am getting old and my eyesight is not what it was.
1 Like
Thank you. I currently have 24 inches 1920x1200 (I like how everything looks and 100%).
27 inches 2560 100% I think everything will be small for me.
Thank you very much! this helped a lot!
How resolutions work?
Say for example that at 1920 by a 23" you are at 100% of UI scale. You can use this as the “standard” measurement because everything is aligned properly. Resolution of GPU, monitor DPI, UI scale.
Then by breaking this standard, I don’t know exactly intuitively how these analogies would work. More or less I assume that you tweak settings until you find a good match.
Then by a 4K resolution, you would go to GPU resolution of 3840, then the equivalent UI scale would be 200%. Then the rest depend on the monitor surface.
If you assume that 2560 sits in the middle, then is about either A or B of UI scale as @Cinnsealach (thanks for the screenshots! :)).
How about a 36" inch monitor? I guess that is about taking the 1920 resolution, expanding it to 3840 (twice the size), then simply get far more surface area, but you have a direct 1:1 ratio between resolution and monitor pixels. Hence you leave scale at 100%.
Is this actually how it works?
1 Like
I just look at the screen sizes on displayspecifications and scale the screenshot in millimeters to see the actual size on my monitor.
It seems to me that 36-40" inch will be inconvenient to turn your head all the time. I’m not sure, but I’ll try to look for it and see it live.
Thanks everyone for the help and tips. I think this is enough to decide.
1 Like
I did buy an LG C2 42 inch to use as a monitor after it was recommended to me by a friend, but I found it far too big to comfortably use. Though I do now have a nice TV for the bedroom 
I am finding 32 inch to be perfect. With 150% scale, it looks to be more or less the same real estate as my 27 inch 1440p at 100% but obviously everything is a bit bigger, so easier to see!
3 Likes
I am fortunate enough to have a seriously luxurious triple monitor setup with my Mac Pro. I have a 32 inch, 3840x2160 screen as the main screen with two 24 inch, 1920x1200 monitors, one on each side of the main monitor. I find this great for working with a lot of software as it allows me to run a browser with tutorials on one screen and then still have my main screen for Blender, Affinity Photo, Logic Pro or whatever. I often have my email client sitting on the right screen, the main software I am using on the big screen and a browser or other software on the left screen showing a web tutorial or a tutorial on YouTube.
Logic Pro and Affinity Photo can effectively use all three monitors at once. With Affinity Photo I can put the main image uncluttered on the big monitor and all the palettes and tool windows on the other two monitors, giving me very quick access to any tool I need. With Logic Pro I can put my mixer to the left, track listing on the right and have the score editor or piano roll editor on the main screen.
It’s a great way to work if you have the space.
2 Likes
It is definitely a case, that if you render on 1920 resolution you are doing fine, however rendering at 3840 (4K) is quite something to take note.
I don’t know exactly about the case of Blender, since is a bit more event-oriented rendering, that happens on the viewports only when an event occurs. Also that the usage style is very slow and steady.
Compared to games, if you are not able to get 60FPS on modern games is a deal breaker. For old games like Quake or Skyrim you are 100% safe.
There could be a chance, that you set the resolution down to 1920 in order to gain a few missing FPS. Perhaps in racing games or somehow in third person action games, you might not have trouble at all.
However for games that are heavy on the GUI, as text tends to get blurry or pixelated lower resolutions are not nice.
(P.S. As a sidenote, a lot of people like to use ReShade, however I have no clue if is possible to do something to smooth lower resolutions. However I know that is feasible somehow with a good shader. As I have played many times some SNES emulators, where you have the ability to apply a super-sampling filter and turn the classic pixels to a bit more smooth and sharper images (almost as good as SVG).
1 Like