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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
