Parsec on Mac - Matching Client Resolution

My Mac host has an attached monitor at 2560x1440, and my Mac client has an attached monitor at 3440x1440 (UWQHD).

Is it possible to create a Virtual Display on the Host that matches the Client resolution? Or what are my options to use the full resolution on my client monitor?

When I create the Virtual Display in Parsec, I only get 16x9 or 16x10 resolutions in the Host’s Display Settings, even when I select “Show all Resolutions.”

As an aside -
I’m testing out Parsec, and I’m a ‘Warp’ user so I’m paying $10/month.
It appears the only support option for me at the Warp level is a Discord channel where a surly off-hours engineer may or may not feel like helping me. It does not inspire much confidence in the company:

I think Parsec only streams what the host can recognize.
Quick googling gives me these options:

  1. BetterDisplay
    GitHub - waydabber/BetterDisplay: Unlock your displays on your Mac! Flexible HiDPI scaling, XDR/HDR extra brightness, virtual screens, DDC control, extra dimming, PIP/streaming, EDID override and lots more!

  2. Display emulator dongle that does 3440x1440?

We use Jump Desktop for the macs, but we have used emulator display dongles on our Windows workstations with Parsec and they work well.

1 Like

How have you found Jump Desktop to work well for you? Is playback ok and how is the Wacom usability?

BetterDisplay allows you to test drive for 15 days and has a Virtual Display Adapter built in as @jarak08 mentioned. It could work but admittedly I’ve never tried it since we don’t use Parsec.

1 Like

I’ve used Virtual Display Pro in the past which worked well too as a virtual display adapter. Cheap too.


I’ve been satisfied with Jump Desktop - I’m trying out Parsec because people here have recommended it.

Playback is pretty consistent, and pen pressure works.
Plus, it automatically creates a virtual display at the client resolution.

If Parsec brings 4:4:4 and 10-bit color to Mac, then it may be worth it for me to mess around with a custom virtual display. But for now, I’ll probably stick to Jump.


1 Like

There are some advanced options, which includes settings for 4:4:4 and 10bit. I haven’t tested them specifically. We use Parsec daily, but not for color critical work.

The virtual displays are very handy indeed, but yes, the sizing is limiting.

we use a edid cloner dongle to clone a uktrawide display for out mac studios, it works really well, but if you find a awesome software solution Inam all ears

On Linux or Windows you can use the NVIDIA software.
On Rocky Linux 9.3 it is called ‘NVIDIA X Server Settings’.

My ancient Eizo is plugged into Display Port 2.

If I want to generate a synthetic EDID I press the ‘Acquire EDID…’ button.

It permits saving in Binary or ASCII format, and you will most likely benefit from the binary version.

There’s probably software to do this on a mac but I don’t use macs much any more.

Better Display, which I mentioned above, will also export bin or ascii edids on the Mac side of things as well as creating virtual displays and a host of other random display stuff that some nerds here might value.

1 Like

thats very cool, i tried many of those things but i missed this one.

good to know!

we used this one to clone the edid of our eizo ultrawide

1 Like

yea thats how I did in back in my HPZ remote boost days :smiley:

sadly no 4:4:4 on macos host thats windows only :frowning:

Keep in mind though:

8bit vs 10bit you can make out on the screen. Visible banding.

4:2:2 vs. 4:4:4 on the display - have you found that you can tell the difference? That is the difference of two neighboring pixels sharing a chroma value (still differentiated in luma). That would have to be a fairly colorful gradient with a steep Cb or Cr ramp in a significant part of the image to be discernible.

Keeping 4:4:4 in processing, absolutely. The algorithms can tell the difference. But in the final display, and always fixed resolution, as this subsampling isn’t subject to you zooming in on the image… Not sure. Also as it’s display only, it doesn’t impact the deliverable, only your ability to see the difference (maybe).

All that assuming that you started with 4:4:4 material (or that algorithms in-between made use of that extra chroma resolution). In the Flame world we may actually see a good amount of 4:4:4 acquired material. In the wild, that is much less common.

I don’t know - I think that is chasing another unicorn in my mind. Good in principle, and nothing wrong with all other things being equal. Also potentially useful talking point with clients. But it wouldn’t keep me up at night if that means I have a better and more efficient workflow for display setups (different story for processing).

its 4:2:0 h264/h265 bascially you can tell with text , like a code editor or just regular buttons , not really that much with video, its mostly that text tends to look a little bit more blurry

the higher the resolution the less it matters.

i also just run 422 video over SDI to my reference monitor, as you said, it doesnt really matter for any real content, GUI stuff however you can tell.

Yes, 4:2:0 is a different animal.