Dell Ultra Sharp 24" 4K display
accessories.us.dell.com
accessories.us.dell.com
I also expect prices to come down, as 4K TV panels start to create economies of scale (even though the price isn't extortionate for what it is in the current market). The panel shouldn't always be a niche like 1920x1200 is. So I reckon this one is for early adopters.
One last side-note. The Dell UltraSharp UP2414Q does not contains a built-in scaler, and none of the AMD and Nvidia cards we tried were able to display lower resolutions on a full screen. Nvidia cards used a quarter of the screen in the middle for Full HD 1920x1080 resolution, with AMD cards we were only able to select 1920x2160, which is half the screen. Until the GPU manufacturers adopt their drivers for this, the UP2414Q can only run its native UHD resolution full-screen. That does limit how you can use this screen right now.
See also this thread on dpreview, Roland Wooster has the monitor and has posted opinions:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3591245
And screenshots:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7re6a9_3U2nOFhZNU1N...
from:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52771357
Viewing the screenshots full-screen on an existing 24" approximates the usability, albeit with blurrier text.
3.6 times as many pixels as a 1920x1200 display. The difference isn't all that profound. I would think that those games should run, since they tend to target a range of graphics features such that they can run on old and new hardware. And the kicker: you shouldn't need to turn on anti-aliasing with this monitor (although I don't know how much performance that saves you, it's certainly something).
I like a solid 60fps. Any time I see a dropped frames, or lagginess in a big scene, I pop into the graphics options and start cutting away fidelity until I get back to smoothness. Many games, even 5+ years old, don't run 100% at 60 fps on highest detail on the 680. Almost all games these days are GPU limited, as they're tuned for consoles. Asking to pump out 4x the pixels isn't cheap.
I have to wonder how much that's got to do with unoptimised drivers and unoptimised engines. It annoys me that there are some games I'll never be able to run (on PC) as well as they ran on the devs' PCs.
> But I still generally don't enable anti-aliasing over 2x unless it's a very old game, because it still costs too much.
You probably won't need it at all with this monitor, so you'll hypothetically be able to get some performance back that way.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gtx_780_ti_sli_geforce_...
And these cards are 600-700 USD each.
This is where Nvidia G-Sync technology will come in handily. It will allow a game to run at a variable frame rate without the graphics card being forced to send repeated frames so that the monitor can maintain 60hz. Instead, every frame rendered will be sent to the monitor as soon as it's available and the monitor will display it right away.
This will be doubly crucial for 4K displays, as otherwise it'll require far too much performance to maintain 60hz.
Are you sure that's correct? I was under the impression that virtually all GPUs have hardware scalers that wouldn't harm performance.
I dunno if that's true or not, but my aging ATI card definitely has an option for this, so I'd be kinda surprised if it was.
http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra/d...
But it can only do 30Hz at 4K due to its limted inputs. You can game on it at 1080p@60Hz (hopefully without any scaling issues since 4K has exactly 4 pixels for every 1080p pixel).
You may notice a little bit of stuttering during long, slow pans, but for everything else, it should work pretty well.
I'd be interested to see this display in action (not quite interested enough to experiment with $500 though) to see how it affected my vision of things.
LCDs have a continuous backlight and the liquid crystals need to change orientation to change frame. There's no flicker as long as they're showing the same frame. Here the flicker is noticeable as jerky motion, and is mostly just a problem for video, games, mouse cursor motion, smooth scrolling, etc.
That said, the points above about the mechanics of LCD's being different enough that I might not object are reasonable. I've really not tried using a 30hz LCD display.
The obvious difference in the scenarios you mentioned is interactivity. I find something charming about the 24hz look of traditional film (often even lower in animation, where "animating on twos or threes" can drop the effective framerate down to 12 or even 8 FPS), but I sure as hell wouldn't want to use a computer at 24FPS. Even outside of games, 120hz feels significantly better than 60hz just moving a mouse cursor around on a desktop.
I'm holding onto the idea that it's something that has to be pointed out to you before you really care, but beforehand there is still an unconscious negative effect. Say, you're talking about the steps you took to eliminate a frame of lag from a game, and it seems ridiculous and pointless to a layman, but then they turn around and complain that their game feels "unresponsive" or "floaty" ("I pressed the button and he didn't do anything!") The problem still affected them, they just didn't know what to attribute it to (or perhaps having not experienced, say, a PC FPS played on a CRT monitor, they don't have a frame of reference for how responsive a game should feel).
The thing is, movies aren't shown at 24fps - they actually flash each frame on and off a few times to reduce flicker.
It used to be done with a multiple bladed shutter on film projectors, but I believe digital projectors and TVs can do the same thing (on the TV if you turn off that awful motion interpolation that they all have turned on by default for some reason).
But one thing movies don't typically have is a very fast moving mouse pointer on the screen all the time... The mouse, and fast scrolls on web pages and stuff will likely have issues at 30Hz.
If you look on eBay for QHD (2560x1440) monitors, the ones that include a Displayport input are about $100 more than the ones with only HDMI, because they can be used by so many more computers.
It seems confusing for the semi-informed.
Is there an explanation other than marketing reasons?
I would prefer "2X", which Apple calls retina. We could also call it 4X with respect to area, but 2X would be the scaling factor for applications to hit.
But (just a guess) I hypothesize 4K comes from the film industry, while 720p and 1080[ip] come from TV and computer industries. So the two systems of measuring resolution were created independently and both have historical precedents, and the marketing mishap stems from blithely conflating the two. So I guess my explanation is: coincidence
So I guess we're just seeing a conflation of cinema, TV and computing, at least when it comes to displays and resolutions, so the marketing terminology is conflating too.
Especially since 4k is an exisiting standard, I'm willing to give them a pass for keeping the naming convention. (Although the 4k TV standard, which most 4k monitors will be using, is slightly different: It's the cinema standard cropped to a 16:9 aspect ratio.)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Initiatives#Imag...
Ultra HD 3840 x 2160 packs in four times the resolution of Full HD
Dell is smart and won't ever use 4K while selling monitors, thats why they said four times HD instead of 4K.
Which makes sense because 4K resolution exist in the field of digital cinema, digital cinematography and digital television.
Full HD has a defined pixel size, and they're simply saying that this screen has twice the resolution in both directions.
4K UHD is 2160p which is 3840 pixels wide by 2160 pixels tall, which turns out to be four times as many pixels as 1920 × 1080
> In coverage of the CIE 1931 color space the Rec. 2020 color space covers 75.8%, the digital cinema reference projector color space covers 53.6%, the Adobe RGB color space covers 52.1%, and the Rec. 709 color space covers 35.9%.
So yes, Adobe RGB covers less of the reference color space than Rec. 2020 (4k/UHD), but more than Rec. 709 (HDTV).
I am hopeful that with Retina and 4K, we'll swing back into a push for progressively better & progressively cheaper displays -- much like we had with the initial LCDs when they first started coming onto the market.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2K_resolution&act...
4096 × 2160 (standard) 4096 x 3112 (super 35)
Then for 4k cameras, the following resolutions have become fairly common for "4k":
3840 x 2160 4096 x 2304
so these days, it's difficult to know what's been talking about...
I actually prefer UHD being promoted, because I wouldn't want us to switch to another weird resolution now, and I want videos to just scale up perfectly.
TV has always described resolution in "lines", because only the vertical direction had a fixed number of lines, the horizontal was analog and thus there wasn't a specific number of lines (there was a maximum frequency it could display accurately, and thus a minimum feature size, but no discrete "lines"). So, SD NTSC is 480i (i for interlaced), PAL is 576i. Actually, NTSC was really 525 lines, but some of them were not visible and part of the blanking interval. When you started moving into HD, they kept this convention, referring to 720p, 1080i, 1080p, etc.
When movies started being distributed in digital formats, the movie industry chose a different standard of naming the resolutions, calling it 2K for 2048x1080. I'm not sure why they chose to focus on the horizontal rather than vertical resolution like the TV industry, but there you go. So the 2K/4K terminology comes from the movie industry, 720/1080 from TV.
Just be glad that we're using this term and not the computer industry term for it, which is WQUXGA (edit: sorry, QFHD, WQUXGA has 2400 vertical pixels, not 2160, see how memorable these names are?), though it is frustrating that "4K" is used for something that doesn't actually have over 4000 pixels in either dimension. In fact, this doesn't meet the official definition of 4K, it's actually just 4 times the size of 1080p, so it would be more appropriate to name it 2160p or QFHD instead of 4K. But for some reason, 4K has become the de-facto buzzword for this generation of resolutions, so it's what we're stuck with.
Admittedly, those are the widths of the film strips rather than the frames, so there is no direct correspondence here, and there are formats (such as IMAX) which run the strips horizontally, so the width of the strip constrains the height of the frame, rather than its width. But this is my story and i am sticking to it.
These monitors are old, they have a fan, they require 4x DVI achieve this resolution and they are limited to 41Hz screen refreshes (not flickering though). Still, once you get used to truly sharp fonts, you don't want to go back. Can't wait for more of these new monitors to arrive in different sizes, with 60Hz refresh (preferably also offering 1920x1080@120Hz) and with HDMI 2.0. I believe 27" is the perfect size for a single desktop monitor.
I think I'm going to get the 32" 4k variant and replace my TV with it. This is especially relevant since shows are starting to be released in 4k resolution, though I worry that 32" is kind of big for computer work and kind of small for TV. Sigh. Small apartments :(
I love my 2560x1600 30" and will certainly by a 32" with bigger resolution. However that 30" is just big enough for two a4 documents side to side. So higher resolution is very welcome.
Get the Cannon 4096x2560 or the Chrome Pixel if you need something closer to square.
Chrome Pixel isn't even a monitor.
Your advice is not at all helpful.
(1 gbp = 1.64 usd according to google)
I think this is particularly the case for specialized niche equipment, as it tends to be bought only by those who really need/want it, so demand tends to be relatively price-inelastic...
Doesn't seem that bad, or any worse than usual.
References are quite easy to find, but here's one, from the Telegraph, quoting data from the OECD:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100006775/...
Higher taxes in the UK do not, however, explain why the same product is 1.6x more expensive here. Part of the different will be accounted for by VAT (20%) and import duty (14% for this product, I think), but nowhere near all.
Incidentally, the US has import duty too. (But I think it's generally lower than for the UK.)
TB1/Display Port equipped Macs will be limited to 30hz.
Here's my Amazon review of a Seiki 4k display: http://www.amazon.com/review/R4OJ5D5RPILCH
However, many "prosumer" monitors have supported greater than 24-bit color for a while now. Still, my nVidia drivers still don't allow me to select anything higher than 24-bit.
Are you sure the banding you are seeing isn't just because, like most users, you have a 6 bit panel?
It's a beautiful piece of kit. I'm guessing any hardware scaling would seriously impact on the image quality and this type of screen would show up any imperfection.
E.g., currently my computer has a dedicated video adapter card and is sending 1024 x 768 pixels to a CRT with a 15.5" diagonal. It appears from Windows > Start > Control Panel > Display > Settings that the most pixels is 1280 x 960.
For me, 1024 x 768 pixels are plenty, but on my screen with diagonal only 15.5", a lot of text is too small to read, even if I used a magnifying glass.
So, I'd like a bigger screen, but still with only about 1024 x 768 pixels.
That a screen can display more pixels is from useless to me down to a concern: My guess is that, now that CRTs are out, the current solid state displays have some actual physical pixels, independent of the signal from the computer, and that when the computer sends, say, 1024 pixels on a line somehow the display (or video card?) has to fit the 1024 pixels across the 1200 or whatever the number of pixels the screen has. Sounds like a good opportunity for some moire effects.
Also, my old video card may be sending a signal that newer monitors can't use.
So:
Q 1. What should I do to display the 1024 x 768 pixels I want but on a screen with diagonal longer than 15.5"
Q 2. What about moire effects or other issues from displaying, say, 1024 pixels from my video card on a screen with more than 1024 pixels, say, 1200 or many more?
Q 3. How can I use the signal from my old video card, or do I need to get a new video card?
Thanks!
Q 2. I don't think the issues to do with non-1:1 scaling are that bad if you have poor eyesight anyway.
Q 3. I don't think there is enough information to answer this, though even graphics cards made 10 years ago should support more than 1280x960. Though often I find windows isn't very good at giving you those options. Most likely 1280x960 is the limit of the CRT you have already connected.
> So, I'd like a bigger screen, but still with only about 1024 x 768 pixels.
Why? You can have bigger text without having bigger pixels (and, at any given size, readability should be better with more pixels because the lines making up the characters will have better definition.)
Get a monitor the size you want, with as many pixels as you can (given your budget), use all of them, and use the text scaling setting in your OS to get text the size you want. Don't hobble yourself with a low-resolution device (or low-resolution setting on a high-resolution device) to get bigger text, that's the worst possible way to do that.
But a larger screen with each character taking the same amount of area on the screen as now would make the maximum number of characters per line larger letting me see whole lines more often without scrolling and/or let me have each character take up more screen area without scrolling.
E.g., here at HN I'm seeing 90 characters per line which is way too many. Why HN wants such long lines I don't know. What does HN want, screens 10 feet wide? Traditional typing at 10 characters per inch horizontally on 8 1/2 x 11" paper with 1" margins gives maximum line lengths of 6 1/2" or 65 characters per line. Newspapers commonly had many fewer characters per line. 90 characters per line is just wacko in several respects -- there's no good reason for it.
On my Windows XP SP3 system (yes, I recently got a DVD of Windows 7 Professional 64 bit, for my next computer when I finally give up on XP), it appears that nearly all the text from Microsoft's programs, e.g., essentially everything that comes from the tree rooted at Start > Control Panel and Start > My Computer, was designed for a screen with diagonal about my 15.5" but with 640 x 480 pixels. Using the Microsoft software to set the screen resolution down to 640 x 480 makes the old Microsoft software much easier to read but, then, commonly has too few characters per screen to display all the screen contents -- e.g., the screen from Start gives a message that some content could not be displayed. So, keeping my present 1024 x 768 pixels per screen but having a screen with diagonal larger than 15.5" should basically just magnify what is shown on the screen, that is, each character would take up more screen area and be larger and easier to read. But a screen with a diagonal larger than 15.5" and, say, 1280 x 960 pixels or some, say, 2048 x 1536 would, unless I got a huge screen, say, diagonal 31", make each character on the screen take up less screen area and, thus, be still more difficult to read.
Yes, more pixels per character would give nicer looking characters, but characters with just 10 x 18 pixels are easy enough to read if they take up enough screen area. That is, for reading text, I don't really need more pixels per character, as nice as that could be.
E.g., in my Web site development, commonly I am specifying font sizes in terms of pixels, e.g.,
font-size: 25px;
line-height: 30px;
Net, I'd be happy with just my present 1024 x 768 pixels but displayed on a larger sheet of glass. Or, a larger sheet of glass with, say, 4 times as many pixels, could be more difficult to read instead of easier. Basically all I need is just a magnifying glass none of my computer hard/software knows about.
IIRC -- and its been a while since I used the display settings on XP since all my regularly-used Windows systems are on either 7 or 8.1 now -- you can change this by adjusting the DPI setting for your display in the control panel in WinXP. Win7 brings scaling more to the front and actually makes it the primary setting on the Display control panel.
Start > Control Panel > Display > Settings > Advanced > DPI Setting > Custom
which looks nice. So, converting their 100% to 150% gives characters much easier to read. I don't know just what software would honor such a setting. And to get the setting I got a message that had to install the fonts and reboot Windows. Gee, once my HP laser printer died and I got a Brother printer, the Brother was not fully compatible with the old HP/GL commands so that for one of my favorite DIY printer utilities, e.g., just to do a nice job printing flat ASCII files, I wrote some Windows GPI code -- a real pain. If the font changes from reinstalling fonts would change the spacing in that program, then I'd have to revise that program -- bummer.
It looks like 'scaling' has been work in progress for the industry for a long time. The easy approach to scaling for me is just a larger piece of glass with the same number of pixels, filling the glass, and with my hard/software not knowing about the change.
Still, it has been way too long since there has been any progress in display resolution, so by pushing into "4K" territory it means something like 2560x1440 might just become mainstream.
Win/win: early adopters get the a shiny new 4K display for Christmas, and I get 2560x1440 for less :)
Edit: here's some screenshots
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7re6a9_3U2nOFhZNU1N...
from:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52771357
Download full resolution and view full-screen on a 24" monitor to approximate the experience.
Don't get me wrong, I think this is an awesome monitor, and my current secondary monitor is on the fritz so I've been researching replacements for the past few days. But even though I have the need, and I can easily afford it, I've not yet made the leap to buy.
Dell announced the one discussed here ($1399) and a 32" version ($3499). A 28" consumer model for under $1000 is to be available in early 2014. All "Ultra HD", which is 3840 x 2160.
Although I'm waiting for an OS X Mavericks Update to support 4k at 60Hz via Thunderbolt 2 (i.e. Display Port 1.2).
Why is Apple the only company producing beautiful computers still?
I personally don't find them cheap looking and I'd rather have a "plastic" looking bezel with a mate screen over a sleek looking screen with an all-glass shiny front.
I doubt there would be a lot of interest in lurid colours. However, 'stealth black', 'piano black', 'paper white' and 'cubicle grey' might increase the USP and appeal to some customers. The white might make sense to those doing desktop publishing, the stealth black might appeal to those doing video in a darkened, distraction free environment, the grey might appeal to Apple users and the shiny black could be the default option.
In corporate and customer facing environments a muted bright colour that happens to be consistent with branding might make sense so logo-free bezels in red, green and blue could sell too.
Sadly, none of the major computer manufacturers besides Apple seem to have any sense of design. The old ThinkPads (when they were still IBM) are the nearest competitor; at least they were solid, square, and black looking. Stylish, not so much, but at least they looked professional. (I guess Microsoft gave it a good try with the surface; the hardware at least looks kind of cool)
Their laptops are on the shitty Toshiba-ish side of things, granted (although higher quality build). But their monitors and keyboards are top notch. Simple, black, non-glossy bezel. USB ports on the side. Swivel, portrait, and height base adjustments. Their keyboards remain consistent with the 1980s standard PC arrow/home/numpad configuration and not that weird Microsoft/Logitech shit of putting tiny arrow keys in random locations, or F-lock.
"Ultra HD", would be used for displays that have an aspect ratio of at least
16:9 and at least one digital input capable of carrying and presenting native
video at a minimum resolution of 3,840 × 2,160 pixels.