Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ASUS PQ321Q Monitor Brings Multi-Stream Tiled Displays Forward

timothy posted about a year ago | from the eyestrain-be-gone dept.

Upgrades 94

Vigile writes "While 4K displays have been popping up all over the place recently with noticeably lower prices, one thing that kind of limits them all is a 30 Hz refresh rate panel. Sony is selling 4K consumer HDTVs for $5000 and new-comer SEIKI has a 50-in model going for under $1000 but they all share that trait — HDMI 1.4 supporting 3840x2160 at 30 Hz. The new ASUS PQ321Q monitor is a 31.5-in 4K display built on the same platform as the Sharp PN-K321 and utilizes a DisplayPort 1.2 connection capable of MST (multi-stream transport). This allows the screen to include two display heads internally, showing up as two independent monitors to some PCs that can then be merged into a single panel via AMD Eyefinity or NVIDIA Surround. Thus, with dual 1920x2160 60 Hz signals, the PQ321Q can offer 3840x2160 at 60 Hz for a much better viewing experience. PC Perspective got one of the monitors in for testing and review and found that the while there were some hurdles during initial setup (especially with NVIDIA hardware), the advantage of a higher refresh rate made the 4K resolution that much better."

cancel ×

94 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Slashdot = fagets (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44333527)

Is Slashdot full of gheys? Do u fagets even lift?

Re:Slashdot = fagets (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44333623)

This FUCKING FAGGOT can't even spell FAGGOT correctly!

Re:Slashdot = fagets (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44333687)

Fagets fagets everywhere. Let's all string them up.

Oh and, u got trolled, brah.

Re:Slashdot = fagets (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44333769)

Yes, let us string up these bundles of sticks.

Re:Slashdot = fagets (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44333881)

What does a bundle of sticks have to do with a faget like yourself? Do u even lift, brah?

Re:Slashdot = fagets (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44333787)

Why don't we have all the fucking faggots and slutty dykes break into the Westboro Baptist Church and fuck til the cops cum.

so how much is this sharp one? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44333533)

so how much is this sharp one? why mention price of 5k and 1k?

Re:so how much is this sharp one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44333569)

Re:so how much is this sharp one? (1)

nefus (952656) | about a year ago | (#44333593)

so how much is this sharp one? why mention price of 5k and 1k?

A simple search reveals $3,500 at Newegg. Oh ok, for the anal types... it's $3,499.99.

Re:so how much is this sharp one? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44333971)

huhuhuh.. you said 'anal' huhuhuhuh.. that was cool..

Re:so how much is this sharp one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44334393)

Shut up Beavis.

Re:so how much is this sharp one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44334441)

that was butthead.. beavis goes 'heheheheh' and butthead goes 'huhuhuh'

get it right. these are important facts of life.

Re:so how much is this sharp one? (1)

JohnRoss1968 (574825) | about a year ago | (#44337537)

I read this and LOLed. Pity it is posted as anonymous otherwise I would have spent a mod point on it.

Re:so how much is this sharp one? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44333611)

Newegg [newegg.com] price for the ASUS monitor seems to be USD $3.5k

For the Sharp [newegg.com] , it seems to be USD $5.3k

39" 4K monitor - $700 (3, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#44333617)

FYI, Seiki also has a 39" version of their 4K monitor/tv for only $700 MSRP. It is limited to 30Hz at 4K but will do faster at lower resolutions. You might even be able to convince it to do passive 3D, I haven't paid close attention to the people hacking at that on the 50" version.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DOPGO2G/ [amazon.com]

Re:39" 4K monitor - $700 (3, Interesting)

dfghjk (711126) | about a year ago | (#44333883)

If it is anything like their 50", which I'm sure it is, the 30Hz limitation will be the least of its awful problems. It may be passable as a TV but not as a monitor.

Of course, many people's standards are low and they wouldn't know better anyway. If you think DSLRs exhibit grain, it's the product for you. You won't notice the horrific color problems anyway.

At least the screen size is right. I don't get the 30" screen size for this resolution. 50" is too big for a desktop.

Re:39" 4K monitor - $700 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44334997)

"50" is too big for a desktop."

typing this from a 50" pioneer plasma acting as my compy's primary display. mount the thing on a wall, put a desk in the sweet spot (your mileage will vary), and its awesome... at least for gaming, light/moderate game development, internet videos, internet browsing, music playback (fullscreen foobar), and other media consumption stuffs.

cant wait to get a quality 4k display do the same exact thing.

Re:39" 4K monitor - $700 (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#44335049)

It may be passable as a TV but not as a monitor.

Are you speaking from experience?

Re:39" 4K monitor - $700 (1)

mandark1967 (630856) | about a year ago | (#44335343)

Of course he's not. I doubt he's even seen one other than at Google images.

I am more than pleased with my 50" Seiki. It's been a great monitor so far, even with the 30Hz limitation. And I still have $2200 in my pocket to save up for the next batch that will do 60Hz via whatever input standard they settle on, whether it's Display Port MST or the new HDMI standard

50" is not too big for a 4k desktop (1)

Molochi (555357) | about a year ago | (#44335361)

It replaces 4x 25" 1080 displays with a single VESA mount. You mount it on the wall behind your desk. Use 4K for work and 1080p with a modest videocard for games. Sounds just about perfect.

I'm not saying it's perfect for most people, but I'd prefer it to the 3x 32" 1080x1920 (sideways mounted) monitor setups I'm seeing.

Re:39" 4K monitor - $700 (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44348619)

as long as the pixels are pixels.. why wouldn't it work as a monitor - if the colors are off why would it work better as a tv?

I use a 55" monitor at home. of course it's like 2 meters away from me, wouldn't mind a 100" 4k at all.

Unusable aspect ratio (2, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#44333647)

16x9... pass.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44333669)

What a retarded post. What exactly is "unusable" about it?

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year ago | (#44334001)

vertical vs horizontal space... Those who do more with their computers than watch broadcast tv prefer it.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#44334741)

You could buy a 9x16 monitor then.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (2)

jon3k (691256) | about a year ago | (#44334887)

Please name a 4:3 monitor with more vertical space, in either inches or pixels, than this monitor.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

Molochi (555357) | about a year ago | (#44335443)

Exactly. 4k eclipses the argument. Heck, the argument against 16:9 has been moot since the switch from 1360x768 LCDs to 1080p panels.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (2)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year ago | (#44335751)

Worst thing about a 1080p monitor is web sites are annoyingly wide in a maximized web browser. Coupled with lousy panels and leaky lighting, on the cheap panels at least, that can make a rather bad browsing experience.
You can size the window so it takes about three quarters of your display area, now you have other windows/desktop icons and the like showing, which is ugly and distracting. And not that much space left for other apps (what are you going to do in a width of 500 or 600 pixels?),

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

jon3k (691256) | about a year ago | (#44336863)

My only complaint about 16:9 monitors is that multi-monitor setups become extremely wide and you waste a lot of vertical physical space. So for example, at 3x27", I have to turn my head extremely far side to side. I'd gladly sacrifice some horizontal pixels on each monitor. Unfortunately it's not an option.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | about a year ago | (#44337773)

I wish somebody would make a matched pair of LCD screens designed so that you'd have one ~24-30" in portrait orientation with 16:10 aspect ratio, and two more made from the second screen with 3:4 portrait orientation, the same vertical resolution & scale, and the same subpixel arrangement (when portrait) as the "middle" screen.

Or, making the sizes a little more standard...

Middle monitor: ~27", 1920x1280 (square pixel, 16:9 aspect ratio if you just ignore 200 of the vertical rows)
Flanking monitors: 960x1280, at whatever size gives them the same pixel size & aspect ratio as the middle monitor.

God forbid, maybe someone could even design the monitor so the side displays are hinged from the middle one, with optional handle & latch that can be screwed on & stand that attaches to a quick-release mechanism that screws into the VESA mount. Make sure that it has a recessed area for the DisplayLink and power cables, and power it with the same voltage used by airplane power adapters. Perhaps make a second variant that's small enough to satisfy airline maximums for carry-on luggage. Internally, all interconnects between the panels would be some open, robust standard (maybe microHDMI), to make it easier for third parties making specialized systems to buy semi-commodity panels + controllers, then wire them up themselves in coture cases. Designing and manufacturing LCDs is a huge barrier. Controllers are still a large one. Assembling panels & controllers purchased on Alibaba using semi-commodity cables into customized cases machined/molded/3D-printed locally? Something an entrepreneur could do in his garage.

Going a step further... someone could use those monitors as the basis of an entire new class of "highly transportable" desktop PCs, and resurrect the "lunchbox" form factor. Let's call it, "LaTX" ("Lunchbox aTX"), with a second possible variant called "LaaTX" ("Lunchbox airline-compliant aTX"). The general idea is that you define a case intended to bolt onto one of the monitors I've described. You attach the DisplayPort & power cables, fish them through the hole in the case, bolt the monitor onto the case from behind, then install the microATX (maybe larger) motherboard. At the large, non-airline-compliant LaTX size, it would basically be a fairly normal *ATX case inside, maybe with built-in UPS (or even larger source of battery power). The power supply would be a variant of current ATX supplies that also provided the ~18v power for the displays. The smaller, airline-compliant LaaTX cases would probably be at least slightly nonstandard, but could probably be made to be mostly compatible with peripherals made for low-profile HTPCs.

As I'm envisioning it, a microATX motherboard would probably be rotated 90 degrees, so the "front" pointed up, the "rear" pointed left or right, and the "top" pointed away from the monitors & user. Since this would use only ~half the space behind the monitors, the other half would be for hard drives, power supply, batteries (if desired... at least enough to act like a 5-minute UPS, maybe enough to last for hours in a ruggedized version).

The side of the monitors+case combo with the exposed backplane would be covered in transit by a latch-on shell intended to stow the keyboard, mouse, and maybe other small items like flash drives. At some point, somebody would probably make a latch-on shell for a popular case that allowed users to disassemble a real Lexmark Model M and transplant it into the latch-on shell.

IMHO, it's the next logical evolution of desktop PCs. Laptops will always be a compromise, but components have shrunken enough that evolving ATX to its next logical stage to make easily-luggable powerhouse computers that don't really have any drawbacks (besides cost, but at this point people who build their own computers are fairly cost-indifferent anyway as long as we're talking about a 50% premium or less... maybe even a bigger premium IF buyers can feel confident that they'll be able to buy an expensive case + monitor now, and do board swaps for the next 5-10 years. A thousand-dollar LaTX case+monitor is likely to be cost-prohibitive for a random person who'd just as soon buy HP instead of Dell because it's $49 cheaper, but probably no big deal for somebody who'll rip out the guts and do motherboard upgrades every 14-20 months for the next 7 years with it *anyway*.

So... what would something like this take? Basically, a company in the "case" business, like Cooler Master, Antec, Silverstone, etc, to partner with a Japanese LCD panel manufacturer who's feeling squeezed by low-margin competition from China & would *kill* for something that would give people a reason to pay 4-10 times as much for THEIR panels. The matched vertical scale and size is likely to be the hardest part. Worst case, if they had 1280x800 panels that had the same pixel dimensions as a 1920x1200 panel, maybe they could put a jumper setting on the side panel boards to make them look like 800x1200, with the extra 80 pixels either split between top & bottom and "bezeled over", or lumped on one side (so the bottom edges would be straight across all 3, but end users who didn't care if the flanking monitors were 80 pixels taller could enable them. Or, better yet, make Linux(*) drivers that made them look like 800x1200 + 1920x1200 + 800x1200 panels to the desktop window manager, then treated the two orphaned 80x800 areas at the top of the two side monitors as auxiliary displays for things like marquees, indicators, temperature, time, whatever.

------------------

(*) Of course, it would be nice if Windows had support like that too, but I've largely given up on Microsoft even having a real future anymore. They're like a once-wealthy individual who went senile, developed a gambling problem, then kept doubling-down on losing bets until they lost everything. Microsoft won't go out with a bang... they'll go out with a press release declaring that desktops are dead, mobile is the future, and "Window/MobileEdition" will be the greatest thing, ever... and then it will flop like the Kin & Surface. Post-bankruptcy, we'll have a small edgy Seattle-based development house with kick-ass developers whose main product is Kinect's descendants, plus edgy niche apps that Microsoft never knew what to do with, like Songsmith, and a large company named "Microsoft" based in Bangalore churning out mediocre social mobile apps for housewives, jocks, and pre-teens. And probably at least one SCO-like company that ended up with a few table scraps from Microsoft's IP portfolio who'll spend the next 20 years suing everyone who does anything with a CPU...

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

jon3k (691256) | about a year ago | (#44339187)

For what it's worth, I think this might be what you're looking for: http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/6687/16421896.jpg [imageshack.us]

This is done with 3 dell monitors and is referred to as a "PLP" setup (Portrait-Landscape-Portrait). One 30" in landscape and two 20" monitors in portrait. I'm sure it doesn't meet all your criteria, but it might be a reasonable option for you. Good luck in your never ending search for the perfect monitor setup, I'm on the same hunt. Right now using 2x24 Dell 2408WFP on Ergotron LX mount, but deciding on what three 27" monitors to upgrade too right now (Dell U2713HM is currently at the top of the list for a nice compromise for gaming, development, photograph/photoshop, etc).

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | about a year ago | (#44345669)

Not 4x3 but there is the 16x10 IBM T221, 3840x2400... I have three of them and I'd certainly buy a new monitor like this one if they'd made it with a sensible aspect ratio.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

jon3k (691256) | about a year ago | (#44345841)

The color reproduction and refresh rate is so low it's basically useless as a modern monitor for 99% of uses. That's great that it works for you, but it's not even really worth discussing. It also requires four DVI inputs to drive it, if I remember correctly. It's also very expensive and has been produced since 2005. Also, as you pointed out, its 16:10.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | about a year ago | (#44347387)

Yeah I'm just talking about the aspect ratio and resolution. Another good example would be the 'retina' Macbook Pros - they are also 16:10 though not quite such a high number of pixels (the 15" has 3/4 as many pixels on both axes as the T221). But since you mention it, I wouldn't agree that a slow refresh rate or poor colour gamut rules out 99% of uses. Probably only about 5% of users require colour accuracy; the T221 is no worse than most monitors, photos look pretty good on it. (I use a wide-gamut monitor too but for day-to-day use it makes no difference.) Even a 24Hz refresh rate is enough for text-based work such as programming, office apps or web browsing. So don't knock it till you have tried it!

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

Molochi (555357) | about a year ago | (#44335403)

I do understand the OLD argument about 4:3 vs. 5:4 vs. 16:10 vs. 16:10

But a 4k monitor is 2160pixels tall, so your only concern should be getting one big enough that you don't have to use increased font size to read notepad.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

toddestan (632714) | about a year ago | (#44346903)

It would still be kind of nice to have a 2160 pixel high monitor that's not over 3 feet wide. That's my problem with the 27" 2560x1440 monitors - they are just too damn big and anything less than 27" in 16:9 is 1080p at best. Meanwhile you can get a 1600x1200 20" 4:3 monitor, at least while they still make them.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#44333683)

16x9... pass.

You holding out for 4:3?

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year ago | (#44333775)

16x9... pass.

You holding out for 4:3?

256:81

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#44334613)

Get over it.

4:3 is not coming back. Its old and appears odd today in the 21 century.

Many apps like Office make use of the wide screen by by having more than 1 page up at a time. Eclipse and now VS 2012 put more toolboxen and tools to the right and left of the screen so this is not just for movies only.

When I read these I image geeks still running Office 2003 fearing the ribbon, XP, and now having a 40 pound CRT monitor and living in the past fearing change. I find nothing wrong with 16 x9 and yes some of us do watch movies too on our computers where a wide screen view in youtube would eat up too much screen in a limited 4:3 configuration. Also the ribbon is not bad and it makes you look funny bashing it too ... yes I know I made an assumption here but that is just what I have observed.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44335543)

XP still has a huge user base, it's certainly not just some geeks who fear change.

Re: everything's now widescreen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44335855)

> Many apps like Office make use of the wide screen by by having more than 1 page up at a time. Eclipse and now VS 2012 put more toolboxen and tools to the right and left of the screen...

Because they have to. Because the users were forced to buy widescreen. Because the manufacturers gave them no alternative other than widescreen.
It's sad that those decisions are forcing developers to change their software (desktops and the programs on them) to workaround the limitations of that particular screen ratio, even for those people who would have preferred to buy fullscreen instead. And then, because the software has been changed to fit, that's now used as an argument why widescreen is better.

Re: everything's now widescreen (1)

radiumsoup (741987) | about a year ago | (#44336831)

prior to widescreen, I was forced to buy non-widescreen monitors. Because the manufacturers gave me no alternative other than standard aspect ratios. It was sad that those decisions were forcing developers to design their software for such a limited space (desktops and the programs on them) to work around the limitations of that particular screen ratio, even for people who would have preferred to buy widescreen instead. And then, because the software was designed to fit, it was used as an argument on why the aspect ratio should never change.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | about a year ago | (#44345809)

4:3 is not coming back. Its old and appears odd today in the 21 century.

I suspect millions of Ipad users would disagree.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about a year ago | (#44334755)

Honestly I don't have a problem with 4:3 monitors for desktop use. You must really like scrolling.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

Skrapion (955066) | about a year ago | (#44335025)

Erm... you realize that nobody in this thread implied that people have problems with 4:3 monitors, right?

Actually, make that almost nobody. By posting this defensive response to your invisible friend, you implied that somebody - your invisible friend - has problems with 4:3.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#44334295)

You have 31.5 inches that'll be practically as much vertical space as a 30 inch 16:10 monitor and 2160 vertical pixels to work with, but it's unusable... fine by me, pass it this way ;)

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year ago | (#44334465)

30hz is unusable for almost everything besides watching 4k tv. Plus the 30" panel forces the user to pan his head around. I'd rather have 2560x1600 in a 23" panel at 60hz, than 3840x2160 in a 30" panel at 30hz. Of course, they don't make the former either.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

jon3k (691256) | about a year ago | (#44334897)

Good thing the ASUS does 4K @ 60hz. A 30" display doesn't force you to pan your head. Increase the font size. Put 2 apps side by side.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#44334975)

Plus the 30" panel forces the user to pan his head around.

That's baloney.

I am typing this on a 30" 2560x1600 panel right now. No panning needed.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44336605)

That's baloney.

I am typing this on a 30" 2560x1600 panel right now. No panning needed.

Well, that's entirely a function of viewing distance, so YMMV applies to everybody. At my preferred distance, my 24" 16:10 monitor is about 2" too wide for my foveal field of view. Give me a 22" IPS or perhaps OLED at 200dpi, and my wallet will fall open. I found when switching from CRT to LED/LCD I could no longer see the scan lines, so sitting closer wound up being better. Plus no electron beam aimed at my brain, for whatever that might be worth.

Actually, I'd prefer goggles with that kind of angular resolution, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#44336689)

Plus no electron beam aimed at my brain, for whatever that might be worth.

Not much, since the whole reason it needs to be a vacuum tube is because air would stop the beam.

I don't know what you're talking about (1)

Molochi (555357) | about a year ago | (#44335475)

By saying "almost everything" do you mean PC FPS games?

Re:I don't know what you're talking about (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#44335953)

By saying "almost everything" do you mean PC FPS games?

Which became effectively 2D due to monitor limitations.

Compare the amount of 3D features in Doom (despite hard to design hacks) or Quake with that of this year's FPSes.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (3, Insightful)

NoMoreMrNiceGuy2 (2989999) | about a year ago | (#44334351)

If you want vertical space, 9:16 is also available :)

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (4, Interesting)

Skrapion (955066) | about a year ago | (#44334947)

Actually, if you like square monitors, this one is even better than a 4:3 display.

Since there's no display standard that can do 4k at 60Hz, this monitor works around that limitation by conceptually presenting itself as two 8:9 monitors side-by-side.

So not only do you get two monitors in one, but 8:9 is closer to square than 4:3.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44336177)

It is called pick the damn thing up and rotate it on its side.

THERE, GLORIOUS 9:16, ALL THE LINES EVER so you can never code anything and only read Slashdot articles. A whole 2 at the same time if you use the stuff from summary to split to dual screens. AWE.

Re:Unusable aspect ratio (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#44336195)

It is called pick the damn thing up and rotate it on its side.

9x16 is way over the edge on the other side, I'm afraid.

Impact on Photography (2)

negRo_slim (636783) | about a year ago | (#44333703)

As these become more common it's going to be interesting to see how this affects SLR usage. I'm using a Nikon at 4928x3264 and it seems as screens approach that size I will at least lose some of my cropping range and also when you are viewing images close to 100% grain and other sometimes unavoidable artifacts become more apparent. I'm sure for people who do a lot of printing this will be a minimal issue but for sharing on Flickr and Google Plus this might force some wallets to open sooner rather than later!

Re:Impact on Photography (3, Interesting)

dfghjk (711126) | about a year ago | (#44333773)

Grain?

What does screen size have to do with your "cropping range"? You believe the purpose of a camera is to fill your screen?

People whose goal is to share on "Flickr and Google Plus" don't need DSLRs or 4K displays. People who don't realize that grain is a film characteristic don't either.

Re:Impact on Photography (2)

walshy007 (906710) | about a year ago | (#44333833)

People whose goal is to share on "Flickr and Google Plus" don't need DSLRs or 4K displays. People who don't realize that grain is a film characteristic don't either.

He probably meant image noise

When viewed at less than 100% multiple pixels are averaged resulting in lower image noise being shown for the pixels that are displayed.

At 100% the image is also softer because of the bayer filter nature of colour imaging sensors used in dslrs.

But at these resolutions it _really_ doesn't matter. If viewing fullscreen the screen will be higher resolution than most people can easily discern anyway,.

Re:Impact on Photography (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#44334787)

That's the point. 31" is really too small for 4K. My 30" 2560x1600 has plenty of pixel density.

What I really want is a 60 Hz 40" IPS 4K monitor.

Re:Impact on Photography (1)

jon3k (691256) | about a year ago | (#44334913)

31" is really too small for 4K.

Only if you're further than 25" from it. [isthisretina.com] At any distance closer than that, you'd be able to resolve individual pixels. Until pixels are so small they are invisible, pixel density isn't high enough.

Furthermore, If you sit closer than 31" to a 40" monitor at 4K (as we all would), you'd be able to see individual pixels. So no, the pixel density on a 40" 4K monitor wouldn't be at the limit of normal visual acuity.

Re:Impact on Photography (1)

Molochi (555357) | about a year ago | (#44335511)

"Furthermore, If you sit closer than 31" to a 40" monitor at 4K (as we all would), "

Why the fuck would I do that? Just put on the wall behind your desk. If you see pixels get a smaller monitor or just don't sit so close. If you can't read the text get a bigger monitor.

Re:Impact on Photography (1)

jon3k (691256) | about a year ago | (#44336869)

Because of the physical space available for most people at their desk. My desk, like most people, is 24" wide and sits against a wall. It's not really practical for most people to sit 3+ feet from a monitor. Why not just use a smaller monitor with higher pixel density and sit it closer? This saves physical desk space, power and reduces cost because it's cheaper to produce a smaller glass panel. I don't see the advantage of making the monitor larger and moving it back. That's a compromise we make in the living room so more than one person can look at the same screen.

Re:Impact on Photography (1)

Molochi (555357) | about a year ago | (#44338497)

FWIW I was primarily responding to the "we all would" statement. I'm not saying everybody wants what I want.

I really don't want a monitor on my desk right in front of my face and I've always disliked wasting my desk space with a monitor. This is at least a commonly enough held opinion, that it is rather easy to find massed produced ways to get around the "problem". I'm also not so confined by space at work or home that I "have to" sit close to the wall. For me it's about 4 feet from eyeball to wall. I also would not say that any of my clients are more confined than I am. But I'm being anecdotal with currently only having a support sample size of a few thousand people in about 50 local companies.

I use a pair of smaller monitors at work that are mounted on those spring loaded metal arms, so they don't sit on the desk. And you can just position the monitors however you need. And you can get cheap (not spring and hydraulic but still serviceable for smaller monitors) versions (~$20 each) at Monoprice. So that's an option. Though I believe the ones at work cost about $350 for the pair when they were ordered and today run about $100 for single arms. If you prefer working with multiple higher resolution monitors and/or with monitors with different native resolutions these are certainly a viable option.

Of course there is another consideration.

I believe around 1:10 people under 45 have hyperopia (farsightedness) and I think by 65 it's a malady that affects the majority of people. Reading glasses or bifocals are fine correction for books, phones, and tablets. They are less than ideal for monitors. The better solution is to just get a bigger monitor with whatever resolution you want and move it further back so that that you aren't squinting.

 

Re:Impact on Photography (1)

jon3k (691256) | about a year ago | (#44339169)

I have a similar setup, I use Ergoton LX dual monitor mount (~$250) and a pair of Dell 2408WFP (1920x1200, 16:10). Sitting 4' from a wall while using a computer would definitely be an usual configuration. Or, more specifically 4 foot from a wall mounted display. I appreciate that we don't all have the same, or sometimes even similar, office configurations and that one size doesn't fit all. But as you of course know, to build quantities necessary to drive these cost downs into the realm of reason, we have to build them at massive quantities.

Re:Impact on Photography (1)

Molochi (555357) | about a year ago | (#44340851)

I don't think quantity is going to be a problem as Humongous 4k LCDs become mainstream. It's the next inevitable "thing". I'm just suggesting a practical use for it.

Re:Impact on Photography (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#44337385)

Not being able to discern pixels is wasting information.

It's a nice aesthetic effect but if you are looking at text or examining an image for critical purposes you want to be able to discern pixels.

Re:Impact on Photography (1)

jon3k (691256) | about a year ago | (#44337439)

I think you'd want a display to be JUST beyond the ability to resolve individual pixels. Any critical process that required viewing individual pixels provides a zoom function.

Re:Impact on Photography (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44335415)

That's the point. 31" is really too small for 4K. My 30" 2560x1600 has plenty of pixel density.

Speak for yourself. My last CRT was .25mm dot pitch. I want pixels without swiveling my head. Give me a 24" 16:10 unit at .20mm or so and however many pixels you can put onto that I'll buy three (or six!) of 'em and wrap 'em around my head!

Re:Impact on Photography (1)

negRo_slim (636783) | about a year ago | (#44333863)

Grain?

Yes grain. Just like when film was used. Even at low ISO with fast prime you will still see grain, especially at 100%.

What does screen size have to do with your "cropping range"? You believe the purpose of a camera is to fill your screen?

If I need an image 1000px wide today, I only need roughly a fourth of an image. But at these resolutions to fill the same space now will require more pixels, giving me less range of choice. And yes I do expect my camera to fill my screen, you'll notice "Full Size/Full Screen" a feature on my websites that allow sharing of images.

People whose goal is to share on "Flickr and Google Plus" don't need DSLRs or 4K displays. People who don't realize that grain is a film characteristic don't either.

Would you prefer I called it noise then? Either way it functions the same from my vantage point and also, I'm sorry but you simply are not in a position to determine what I need or what I don't need. Frankly you sound fairly unfamiliar with photography in general and I am wondering why you bothered to respond?

Re:Impact on Photography (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44335535)

Yes noise.

Grain is specific to analog film. Noise is specific to digital sensors. They mean different things and don't even look similar to a real photographer.

Re:Impact on Photography (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44335879)

Actually you have both noise and grain in both analogue and digital.

A single grain is like an irregular shaped pixel on a frame of film, or the rectangular pixel on an image sensor (you may need to count multiple sensor elements because of bayor filtering). On film grain is very pronounced because each one of them has a slightly different sensitivity, on a sensor the sensitivity for each pixel is compensated for.

Noise is also available in both film and on an image sensor, especially in low light conditions the amount of photons needed to charge a photo site or excite the film is relatively low compared to other radiation sources. On film the different sensitivities of each grain will mask the noise, but it is still there. The irregular shape of film grain helps in other ways, like eliminating aliasing, and having a sort of dithering effect.

Maybe in the future someone will create an image sensor which is highly irregular. For motion images that may be disturbing, but for still images it would work fine.

Re:Impact on Photography (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44335573)

Heh, fucking hipster.

Re:Impact on Photography (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44335019)

Not everyone sits a few inches from their tv-as-a-monitor hooked up to their computer. At proper viewing distances, the image should seem clearer, not grainier.

Neat, but the standard is HDMI (0)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#44333707)

My TV box has HDMI out, my video camera has HDMI out, my surround receiver has HDMI in/out for pass-through, in fact the only places I can find DisplayPort is on graphics cards and screens mostly intended as monitors, not TVs. HDMI version 2.0 with 4K/UltraHD @ 60Hz support should be out any day now (it was scheduled for first half of 2013, apparently a little late) and unless they completely break backwards compatibility I think that's what everything will use. So unless you really want 4K right now(tm) even though content is extremely rare except stills I'd wait a few more months.

Ah, now I understand the terminology (3, Funny)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44333761)

It's looking as if 4k refers to the price more than the pixel width :(

Wait a bit. (2)

tokiko (560961) | about a year ago | (#44334211)

It'll come down to only $3840 pretty soon.

Re:Neat, but the standard is HDMI (4, Informative)

dfghjk (711126) | about a year ago | (#44333911)

It will take your TV box, your video camera, your surround sound receiver, and all the rest of your HDMI devices since it has HDMI inputs. Of course, those won't be 4K since none of your HDMI devices do 4K. The only devices that currently will use DisplayPort, thus that solution. So much for your complaint.

Re:Neat, but the standard is HDMI (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#44339489)

Obviously, but the point that people seem to be missing is that any one of those boxes is only likely to upgrade to anything compatible with HDMI 1.x. You get a HDMI 2.0 set top box? Well either it talks HDMI 1.x (1.4 probably, maybe 1.3) to your TV or it's a dud. Nobody's going to ship a DisplayPort-only TV until they're sure everyone has a DisplayPort source and nobody's going to ship a DisplayPort source-only device until they're sure everyone has a DisplayPort TV. It's always the extra that you might have, like Firewire to USB. Not every computer has a Firewire port, but you can assume that anything relatively modern will have an USB port. Maybe the tide will turn the tide with Apple etc. pushing mini-DP, but I haven't seen it happen yet.

Re:Neat, but the standard is HDMI (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44349073)

multi stream could be either one.. just stick two hdmi cables into it.

Re:Neat, but the standard is HDMI (1)

adolf (21054) | about a year ago | (#44335023)

Seeing as it's sold as a computer monitor and not a television, I don't see a problem with using displayport.

The only equipment between my computer and my monitor is a cable. It doesn't really matter to me if that cable is Displayport, HDMI, or DVI.

(That said, will this monitor be ideal in my home theater? No, doublefuck no. But I don't really care about it for that -- it's the wrong application.)

An odd choice. (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about a year ago | (#44334425)

I understand the need to split the screen into tiles to get a higher refresh rate with current connectivity options but it seems it would have made more sense to do it as three 1280x2160 panels because both of the major video card manufacturers are already on board with presenting three screens as a single display. Been doing it for ages now. Yeah, it's an extra cable to run but it works right now. Eyefinity from ATI and Surround from Nvidia would handle this just fine. At most they'd need a minor driver update to provide the unusual resolution.

Re:An odd choice. (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year ago | (#44335777)

1280x2160 might be just over the spec that a single-link DVI or HDMI equipment can do. 1920x1200 or 2048x1152 are about max res, 2160x1280 would be resp. 20% and 17% more pixels than that. So in your suggestion, instead of two simultaneous high bandwith links, found on latest gen graphics cards/integrated GPU (not all of them, ommitting the displayport connector is popular), you now need three high bandwith links.

Re:An odd choice. (1)

unrtst (777550) | about a year ago | (#44337505)

1280x2160 might be just over the spec that a single-link DVI or HDMI equipment can do.

Correct.
DVI-I can do 2.75 megapixels at 60 Hz. That's:
16:10 = 2098 x 1311 = 2750478
4:3 = 1915 x 1436 = 2749940
5:4 = 1854 x 1483 = 2749482

1280 x 2160 = 2764800 (too much).
Or another way to say it: 3840 x 2160 = 8294400; 8294400 / 3 = 2764800

Even two DVI-D links aren't really enough.
Highest res 60 Hz on DVI-D is 2560 x 1600 = 4096000
3840 x 2160 = 8294400; 8294400 / 2 = 4147200 ... I'd be quite happy with a 3200 x 2560 monitor though :-)

Re:An odd choice. (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about a year ago | (#44337989)

I'm trying to figure out how any of this refutes what I said. My gaming rig with two video cards has four dual-link DVI connections, two DisplayPort connections, and two HDMI connections. Right this very second, I'm typing on it as it treats three 2560x1440 monitors as a single 7680x1440 display device at 32 bits of color depth and 60Hz refresh rate using three dual-link DVI cables. Dual-link DVI cables aren't sorcery. They start at $4.19 at monoprice.

200% scaling? (1)

bored (40072) | about a year ago | (#44334653)

"In order to address these scale/DPI issues, in Window 8.1 the maximum DPI scaling value was increased from 150% to 200%"

So, basically, somewhere between XP/2003 and windows 8, Microsoft removed the 200% scaling option? Lets hear it for progress, windows 8.1 now with features we had 14 years ago. What next overlapping windows?

Ha, no wonder people keep complaining about windows scaling.

Also, per their full screen chrome screenshot, maybe the guy in charge of the pcper style sheet should consider that fixed width layouts sort of suck. Even on a 1920 wide screen it looks stupid that 50% of the horizontal resolution is whitespace.

Re:200% scaling? (1)

Skrapion (955066) | about a year ago | (#44335117)

So, basically, somewhere between XP/2003 and windows 8, Microsoft removed the 200% scaling option?

Same for multi-monitor task bars. Dropped in WinXP, brought back in Windows 8.

In other news, the chocolate ration has been increased to 20 grams.

Exactly what IBM did, but IBM did it easy. (1)

White Flame (1074973) | about a year ago | (#44334781)

IBM's T221 [wikipedia.org] monitor, the now ancient 3840x2400 22" 200dpi display, did the exact same thing.

It had 4 DVI inputs (newer models can support 2 dual-link DVIs), splitting up the screen into 1-4 stripes, depending on your bandwidth and setup. It's also directly plug & play, with no setup issues whatsoever on Linux, for what it's worth, and max frame rate is simply bound to how large each link is offering.

I've got a single card driving 2 T221s at a whopping 12Hz (single-link DVI each), and some low-res 30" 2560x1600 monitor with the displayport connector. 22 megapixels from 1 card is pretty nice, and I could be driving the T221s at 24Hz if I had the dual-link DVI connectors.

They were very flexible in their setup, not sure what Asus did here to make it a pain to set up.

Re:Exactly what IBM did, but IBM did it easy. (1)

jon3k (691256) | about a year ago | (#44334929)

They're driving it over a single Displayport 1.2 using MST. It's new technology that hasn't fully developed yet. The advantage will be that it can be done over a single small displaylink cable, instead of using 4 DVI cables. It will also do it at 60hz (if not more).

Reviewer is smoking crack (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44335051)

it seems that we need an ACTIVE DisplayPort to HDMI 1.4 adapter (which I have ordered but are still not yet available) to get it to work correctly

The requirement to use active DisplayPort to HDMI adapters on AMD cards has been around since 2009 when the Eyefinity-6 SKU of the HD 5800 cards were released. This lowers the cost of the cards for end users who don't run multimonitor configurations by leaving some costly components off the card and putting them in the dongles instead. I take issue with anyone claiming expertise in display technology who does not understand this.

Well, I learned a reason not to buy Nvidia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44335943)

From reading that article, I've learned nVidia have deliberately crippled their drivers to disallow a 2x1 surround setup. For absolutely no rational reason I can discern. So grats nVidia, my next graphics card will be AMD.

Dear god (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44336071)

Someone tell me were not going down the 90s road again of having bigger monitors with ASS refresh rates for the high resolutions or worse Interlaced.

ASUS is far better than rivals including HP (1)

nyatty (1869046) | about a year ago | (#44336135)

ASUS is far better than rivals including HP
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>