beschizza — 2014-01-08T10:36:36-05:00 — #1
nathanhornby — 2014-01-08T10:45:48-05:00 — #2
Contrast ratio and blacks are what I find suffers the most on cheaper panels - which to be fair isn't a huge issue for most applications, but then if you want/need a 4k monitor you're probably going to care about those things (gamer, video editor, modeller, etc.).
I'm pretty convinced that 1080p is more than enough for a TV though, due to the distance you're sat from it. I can already see the finer details of Deirdre Barlow's chest wrinkles; I don't need any more than that. I know people said the same thing about HD, but you can only perceive so much density from 10 feet away.
Admittedly I see the use in monitors though, as then it's essentially a retina display, which does make a difference when you're up close.
incarnedine_v — 2014-01-08T10:51:39-05:00 — #3
even the low end Dell monitors have been really good with their contrast ratios in the past, so I don't think it will be as big an issue as you'd have with something like Philips.
Plus low cost Dell monitors aren't exactly low end. Whenever Dell puts out something new, they tend to sell it for a short while at a low cost, then crank it up later.
ffabian — 2014-01-08T10:55:38-05:00 — #4
I wonder when these cheap 27+-inch monitors show up if Apple is going to sell iMacs with retina displays in the next iteration. I'm on the fence on buying a new one this year.
dholden — 2014-01-08T10:59:05-05:00 — #5
FWIW, 3840 is "UHD", not 4K. 4K is actually a standard which encompasses other things such as encoding and a resolution of 4096. 3840 is just 1920 x2 and hench the UHD moniker.
chickied — 2014-01-08T11:01:30-05:00 — #6
The real issue with 4K delivery is not the monitor but the other pieces of the puzzle:
1) Was the photo or video recorded in high enough resolution to be viewed full screen at 4K?
2) Is the system cable of transmitting such a huge file quickly?
3) Is there much of a point of you investing in a 4K monitor and content when most other people can't? In other words, how much will be you be able to share content and work with others?
akahans — 2014-01-08T11:09:24-05:00 — #7
This article is interesting. It clearly describes why this whole 4K teevee trend is a marketing farce:
In the case of a desktop monitor, which will be rather close to the viewer, it's possible the viewer's eyes will be able to physically detect the difference in resolution.
nathanhornby — 2014-01-08T11:09:50-05:00 — #8
Sorry my comment was a bit confusing, I wasn't saying it was a low end monitor, it was just based off of Rob's closing comment. i.e. IF it's a cheap panel, that may be an issue.
As I agree, Dell monitors in my experience have been as good as any others I've used (well apart from Apple Cinema Displays… but my god the price).
built2spill — 2014-01-08T11:19:05-05:00 — #9
It's not just about the viewer's eyes it's about screen real estate. At this high of a resolution there is less need for multiple monitors when you need to see several windows and apps at once. Currently I'm sitting in front of four monitors connected to one PC, and using them all.
the_damned_fool — 2014-01-08T11:21:52-05:00 — #10
Interesting, something (potential retina monitors and the Mac Pro?) seems to be driving 4K monitor capability at a reasonable price point.
ladyfingers — 2014-01-08T11:22:00-05:00 — #11
Well, more than 30fps at 4K/UHD is a helluva load for any gaming PC to serve a display. If you can afford that monster of a PC, buy a 46" 4K TV for gaming instead of this. Even at arm's length on your desk, that's enough resolution to satisfy the eye.
Also, the above-bargain price Dell monitors typically have DisplayPort in addition to HDMI. I think DP can transmit great bandwidth currently than HDMI can.
incarnedine_v — 2014-01-08T11:22:44-05:00 — #12
1) photos are most definitely best worked on at higher resolution monitors and while watching a video will not likely be at 4k for a long time, editing one on a 4k monitor makes a ton of sense.
2) any gaming or multimedia workstation should be more then capable of this. The only systems incapable are mobile devices or the lowest end PCs/macs.
3) This is definitely aimed at people who are in multimedia production. Video editors, any kind of new media or 3d animation and the price drop means that even hobbyists can take advantage of this.
thaumatechnicia — 2014-01-08T11:54:04-05:00 — #13
Agreed. Besides, except for, say 'Brazil', '2001: A Space Odyssey', 'Baraka, and other visual feasts, the added pixels don't help.
I wish there was a feature in TVs that could correct the fact that some many movies are just plain crap!
jerwin — 2014-01-08T11:59:17-05:00 — #14
4k is "only" 8.3 megapixels-- most cameras sold today have a theoretical resolution greater than this. Assuming good lighting conditions, a steady hand, a sharp lens, a large enough sensor, and stopped down aperture, pictures that saturate UHD are more than possible.
nathanhornby — 2014-01-08T12:45:31-05:00 — #15
Well you'd only gain screen real estate by making things smaller, relatively.
This is more about density, I'd have thought?
Otherwise you end up in a situation where you can fit lots of stuff on the screen but can't see any of it properly.
fuzzyfungus — 2014-01-08T12:48:47-05:00 — #16
'4K' is marketing bullshit either way; but can be one of several different flavors of marketing bullshit, depending on who is talking about it.
DCI 4K is 4096 x 2160, 17:9, and backed by the movie studios as a digital theater projection format. This makes it pretty well established in terms of cameras and workflow tools; but the only playback devices are wildly expensive projectors with DRM that makes HDCP look like a Pirate Party darling.
The TV guys back 'UHD 4K', which is 3840 x 2160, 16:9, and appears to be the resolution of everything you can actually buy, or seem likely to be able to in the immediate future.
There is also HXGA, 4096x3072, 4:3, which appears to be entirely theoretical.
The main kicker in the cheap seats, right now, is that HDMI 1.4 does not have the data rate to drive a UHD display much above 30 FPS. Displayport does (but the cheap TVs don't have it) and HDMI 2.0 apparently will; but is essentially unreleased at present.
wearysky — 2014-01-08T12:53:13-05:00 — #17
I'd love to see more cheap, high resolution monitors. I'm super annoyed at all the 4K TV hype going on at CES this year. Here's a pretty good read on whether 4K TVs are useful or not:
(tl;dr? At normal TV viewing distances, no, they are not. Unless you want to watch 1080p 3d content with passive polarized glasses)
tyger11 — 2014-01-08T13:04:21-05:00 — #18
If you do some research, you'll find that 4K is not actually a standard, it is an unofficial family of related standards, some of which havae 4096 pixels across, and some do not. UHD is among the "4K" standards available. Wikipedia has a good list of some of the 4K standards. UHD is the most convenient one because it's a simple doubling of 1080p in each axis, whereas other 4K standards have different aspect ratios (some very different).
codinghorror — 2014-01-08T14:47:38-05:00 — #20
Warning, this is very likely a TN panel:
You do not want a TN panel these days. Or ever, but the price differences used to be much higher.
ronaldpottol — 2014-01-08T15:00:58-05:00 — #21
I want that cheap $500 monitor mention above, I want a lot of text, so I have a few web pages, email, chat, and a bunch of console sessions all visible at once. I loved the job where I had 6MP worth of displays, and 10 would be better (that panel at 8MP, and laptop for another 2MP). Yes, it's a bad TV, bad for gaming, not so hot for photo editing, but good enough for a bunch of text.
next page →