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!

4K Displays Ready For Prime Time

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the all-the-pixels dept.

Displays 207

An anonymous reader writes "After the HD revolution, display manufacturers rolled out gimmick after gimmick to try to recapture that burst of purchasing (3-D, curved displays, 'Smart' features, form factor tweaks, etc). Now, we're finally seeing an improvement that might actually be useful: 4K displays are starting to drop into a reasonable price range. Tech Report reviews a 28" model from Asus that runs $650. They say, 'Unlike almost every other 4K display on the market, the PB287Q is capable of treating that grid as a single, coherent surface. ... Running games at 4K requires tons of GPU horsepower, yet dual-tile displays don't support simple scaling. As a result, you can't drop back to obvious subset resolutions like 2560x1440 or 1920x1080 in order to keep frame rendering times low. ... And single-tile 4K at 30Hz stinks worse, especially for gaming. The PB287Q solves almost all of those problems.' They add that the monitor's firmware is not great, and while most options you want are available, they often require digging through menus to set up. The review ends up recommending the monitor, but notes that, more importantly, its capabilities signify 'the promise of better things coming soon.'"

cancel ×

207 comments

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

Where's The Content? (3, Interesting)

CycleFreak (99646) | about 4 months ago | (#47128841)

So I can get a 4k display for less than $700. Where can I get content worth watching on that display? Not only worth watching, but is somehow made better by all those extra pixels.

All that aside, seems like it would make for a really nice PC monitor.

Re:Where's The Content? (3, Interesting)

by (1706743) (1706744) | about 4 months ago | (#47128883)

If the BBC released their nature documentary series (Life, Planet Earth, Africa, Frozen Planet, etc.) in 4k, that would really be tempting...

I'm sure David Attenborough's voice would sound even better in 4k ;)

Re:Where's The Content? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 4 months ago | (#47129767)

All shot on HD video as far as I understand it, so no 4k.

Re:Where's The Content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47128929)

I have a SEIKI 39" 4K display which hit under USD$500 on Amazon.com last winter. It's one of the most beautiful things I've had for interacting with spreadsheets in my life. The 30Hz frame rate is quadrupled to refresh the pixels at 120Hz on the panel I have.

Running stock firmware required a BIOS mod for my AMD Radeon to drive it at the 4K mode which broke HDMI secure video, so now I get to see overlay green for anything that's "hardware accelerated."

Still worth it for seeing more data at once.

Re:Where's The Content? (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 4 months ago | (#47129029)

Note: that's not a monitor, technically, but a TV.
Still good for regular desktop applications, though.

Re:Where's The Content? (2)

Albanach (527650) | about 4 months ago | (#47129135)

Note: that's not a monitor, technically, but a TV.

Besides the addition of a tuner, is there really a difference in this day and age? Some TVs come with higher and lower refresh rates, resolutions, etc., as do some monitors.

Re:Where's The Content? (1)

ProzacPatient (915544) | about 4 months ago | (#47129293)

Typically monitors have a lower pixel pitch since they're meant to be viewed up much closer than a TV you'd be watching from several feet away on your couch.

Also in my experience monitors tend to have superior firmware in terms of reliability and adjustments whereas hooking up a PC to a TV sometimes has unpredictable results in the way the TV will display the image with little control to correct it even when using VGA or HDMI.

Re:Where's The Content? (1)

pla (258480) | about 4 months ago | (#47129269)

Note: that's not a monitor, technically, but a TV.

The distinction has become largely meaningless - The only real difference between the two, it has a TV tuner in it while a "monitor" would not. And as a bonus, it has halfway decent sound capabilities by default, which most (but not all) monitors do not.

Re:Where's The Content? (0)

BlackHawk-666 (560896) | about 4 months ago | (#47129477)

I would take the complete lack of sound from a monitor over the fucking awful shite that passes for sound on TV speakers any day. Save me $2 and don't include the speakers thanks.

Re:Where's The Content? (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 4 months ago | (#47130105)

Apart from pitch size, panel quality, color accuracy, setting fine-tuning and viewing angle size? Not really, no :)

Re:Where's The Content? (0)

sexconker (1179573) | about 4 months ago | (#47129389)

The 30Hz frame rate is quadrupled to refresh the pixels at 120Hz on the panel I have.

That makes no fucking sense. Pixels don't need to be refreshed any faster than content is available. If you're dealing with fast motion shit can sometimes look better with blanking (typically achieved in LCDs by strobing the backlight). But you're running 30 Hz spreadsheets.

Re:Where's The Content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47129479)

I got a Seiki for 275... which has a single "dead" pixel that I didn't even notice for the first few weeks (and matches the scratch I put in it not long after).

I love all the real estate and detail for work.

Updated the firmware and updated my graphics card. No issues what so ever here :)

Re: Where's The Content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47128945)

Ummm, this is about using it as a monitor since that's what it is.

Re:Where's The Content? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#47128949)

For the moment, PC monitor is pretty much the compelling use case. There are a few pricey white-elephant 4k video sources; but not many. PCs, by contrast, just see a bigger monitor(barring a tediously long list of, sometimes GPU-vendor, even model, specific gotcha interactions with some of the hacks used by certain 4k displays to cope with the fact that none of the common interfaces are quite there yet for 4k, with Displayport, a monitor trying to use MST can get...interesting. With HDMI, I hope you like 30Hz, because them's the breaks, and I assume that EDID is total garbage, as ever). If you do comparatively lightweight stuff, even a modest GPU can probably drive it without incident. Gaming will require some serious punch; but anything remotely modern can run at the resolution it is told to, if you have the power.

Re:Where's The Content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47128951)

Get one with support for PiP. Then you can have the miniature picture in 720p.

Perhaps it will be possible to turn off anti-alias-filters if you use the 4k display for gaming.

Re:Where's The Content? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47129025)

A: Steam.

Re:Where's The Content? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 4 months ago | (#47129053)

This is what you use to create it. As a monitor, content generation and video editing station, it rocks. And without a cheap way to create content, how would it be created?

Re:Where's The Content? (4, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | about 4 months ago | (#47129203)

I did the calculations and don't care to repeat them again, but depending on your use case, it might help... or it might be totally imperceptible. A medium-large on the other side of a good-sized living room, your eyes shouldn't be able to see the difference. On the other hand, a large computer monitor right in front of you, in many situations you will be able to see the difference. Note that human eyesight isn't a simple matter of resolution comparisons, it gets kind of complicated... there's basic measures of how far apart you can see two black dots or lines separated by white before they merge into one, but the less the contrast, the greater the distance they have to be separated (absolute brightness matters too, as does distance from the center of your field of vision and all sorts of other stuff), and of course your ability to perceive fine detail drops tremendously when viewing moving objects. But in relatively static, high contrast images, on a large screen near the viewer (say, a nice computer monitor), most people shouldn't have trouble seeing the difference in a side-by-side comparison.

The only problem with this gimmick is that we're basically running into a resolution dead-end here, there's only so far you can go before the improved detail becomes meaningless. I hope for their sake that they come up with true (non-stereoscopic) 3d or something of that nature, or they're going to be running out of TV-sales gimmicks.

Hmm, I just thought of something that I heard about a good while back but haven't seen any movement on - "peripheral vision" TVs. I seem to recall reading years ago about a type of TV that used lights around the edges to dimly shine the peripheral colors on the TV image around the room parallel to the TV, giving the illusion to your peripheral vision of an expansive screen. I could envision improving that with a video format that includes a lower-resolution peripheral video stream and side projectors instead of simple side lights. Maybe that could be the next gimmick. ;)

Re:Where's The Content? (1)

Tx (96709) | about 4 months ago | (#47129393)

"Hmm, I just thought of something that I heard about a good while back but haven't seen any movement on - "peripheral vision" TVs. I seem to recall reading years ago about a type of TV that used lights around the edges to dimly shine the peripheral colors on the TV image around the room parallel to the TV, giving the illusion to your peripheral vision of an expansive screen."

Philips Ambilight.

Re:Where's The Content? (5, Funny)

strikethree (811449) | about 4 months ago | (#47129501)

The only problem with this gimmick is that we're basically running into a resolution dead-end here, there's only so far you can go before the improved detail becomes meaningless.

Why would you even discuss this now. We are NOWHERE near the types of resolutions that my eyes are happy with. Yes, I am an elitist snob who couldn't tell a pixel from a hole in the ground. I do not care. Stop whining about how none of us can tell the difference. I can tell the difference and even if I can not, I believe I can tell the difference.

I do NOT want to see even a hint of blockiness or fuzziness at the edge of a font. I want curves that appear to be perfect curves. As it stands now, I can clearly see blockiness in all fonts. With hinting turned on, some aspects of the blockiness goes away but it is still there... and now the fonts are fuzzy too. Will 4K solve that? Not even close. Will it be much much better than what we have now? Yes!

Stop blocking progress with your negative whining about arcs and distinguishability. I may not be able to argue against your science and maths, but science always loses out to reality. Look at the blocks and fuzziness in this message and dare to tell me that I am wrong.

Re:Where's The Content? (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 months ago | (#47129733)

Inch. Away. From. The. Screen.

Slowly.

Re:Where's The Content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47130083)

You're probably just a really stupid idiot trying to be cool

Re:Where's The Content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47130123)

Stop whining about how none of us can tell the difference. I can tell the difference and even if I can not, I believe I can tell the difference.

Finally, an advocate of 4K displays who admits that he's self-delusional! There's no point arguing with him, because he doesn't care about the facts.

Re:Where's The Content? (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 4 months ago | (#47130125)

Maybe you need glasses, it looks fine to me. Or you're being a douche because this is Slashdot. Do you have aerodynamically square Monster cables too?

Re:Where's The Content? (1)

kcitren (72383) | about 4 months ago | (#47129665)

medium-large on the other side of a good-sized living room, your eyes shouldn't be able to see the difference

That's simply not true. While you won't notice it in level of detail, you will notice it due to the increased dithering and smoothness of color gradients. Things will look better at all normal viewing distances. Although my real hope for the future is in ultra-ultra-ultra high definition displays (think something like the equivalent of a 32K 46" monitor). With that new possibilities actually open up, tie that to a Lenticular lens system an you'll have multiple angle high definition viewing. Imagine a tele-conferencing system where they place the monitor and multiple cameras at the edge of the conference table with a similar setup on the other end. The effect would be more like looking through a piece of glass dividing the table than looking at a flat monitor.

Re:Where's The Content? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 4 months ago | (#47129793)

there's basic measures of how far apart you can see two black dots or lines separated by white before they merge into one

This is a really common misunderstanding of how human vision works. While it's true you might not be able to distinguish two dot, you can distinguish varying line widths and the sharpness of high contrast edges like text.

That is why text looks sharper on a 4k display, even at some distance. It's why people can distinguish a 4k display from a 2k display at normal viewing distances. It's why people can tell the difference between a Nexus 7 and an iPad Retina (264 ppi vs 323 ppi) even though both are seemingly beyond the ability of the human eye to distinguish individual pixels. It's why printers and publishers use 300 DPI or more.

Re:Where's The Content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47129215)

Play a game on lower graphics settings, disable antialiasing

Re:Where's The Content? (2)

EvilSS (557649) | about 4 months ago | (#47129615)

All that aside, seems like it would make for a really nice PC monitor.

It probably seems that way because it is a PC monitor.

Re:Where's The Content? (2)

Hadlock (143607) | about 4 months ago | (#47129673)

Netflix? House of Cards and all of their new original series are shot and displayed in 4K if your device and display support it.
 
Also, there's a much higher quality Samsung 4K display [techreport.com] for $50 more, that is probably the model you want.

Re: Where's The Content? (1)

Coder_R (3643737) | about 4 months ago | (#47129947)

As of now there is no content, at least that I am aware of, except for to nature documentaries I saw advertised with the 4k TVs at Sears. And as for the price the ones I saw were still over $3000, but then again I've only seen the ones in the store and haven't really done research on 4k TVs.

Slashdot Beta not ready for Prime Time (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47128869)

Seriously guys. If you want me to stop trolling about this then stop forcing me into Beta. It's garbage.

Re:Slashdot Beta not ready for Prime Time (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 4 months ago | (#47129067)

Seriously guys. If you want me to stop trolling about this then stop forcing me into Beta. It's garbage.

Nobody's forcing you. http://slashdot.org/?nobeta=1 [slashdot.org]

Re:Slashdot Beta not ready for Prime Time (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about 4 months ago | (#47129075)

Click here [slashdot.org] . Don't delete the cookie. Was that really THAT hard to do?

Re:Slashdot Beta not ready for Prime Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47129747)

Actually, it doesn't work like you think it does. That's fine for the front page but there are times it still forces Beta when going to a story.

Re:Slashdot Beta not ready for Prime Time (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#47129419)

Additional question: why am I seeing advertisements even though the "Ads Disabled" checkbox is ticked?

Please quit conflating TV's and monitors. (2, Insightful)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 4 months ago | (#47128885)

The burst of HD purchases, and the resultant gimmicks were largely for home TV use. The display reviewed is spoken of being used as a display device for a computer. More specifically for PC gaming. The two are NOT the same. Please quit comparing them.

I may have use of a 4k monitor. I doubt I will ever need a 4K tv, even if source material were readily available. My rarely watched 1080p does just fine. Most consumers would likely agree. For TV/Movie viewing 4k IS a gimmick.

Please quit conflating TV's and monitors. (1)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | about 4 months ago | (#47128965)

I was at Costco the other day and they had a 4K tv on display running a demo with scenes of flowers and mountains. The detail was amazing and I can certainly see myself buying one once they are reasonably priced. For the time being, I'm fine with my 6 or 7 year old 50" 720p plasma tv.

Re:Please quit conflating TV's and monitors. (1)

Xest (935314) | about 4 months ago | (#47129241)

I've seen Costco's demos too and it's a great picture but I don't get the feeling it's any better than 1080p on the 55" demo. I guess coming from 720p you probably see a bigger difference, but I can't see the value in jumping from 1080p.

I can see it being worthwhile if you buy one of those badass 90" motherfuckers they have for sale there, but not at anything in the 60" or lower range.

Certainly I can't see the value on a 28" screen.

Re:Please quit conflating TV's and monitors. (1)

Ost99 (101831) | about 4 months ago | (#47129321)

It's not a 28" TV, it's a monitor.
I have a 4k monitor at work now, and would really like that at home as well - but until know it's been way to expensive.
At $650 it's below what a decent 1440p monitor costs, and will be within budget for most home-office users.

Re:Please quit conflating TV's and monitors. (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 4 months ago | (#47129563)

i had been waiting for this as well, now that Star Citizen DFM is delayed a few days ( yes i expect every one to be addicted to all things RSI and know what I am talking about) maybe I can get one on my desk pronto.

Re:Please quit conflating TV's and monitors. (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 4 months ago | (#47129637)

alas... not a gaming monitor, must wait

Re:Please quit conflating TV's and monitors. (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 4 months ago | (#47130127)

There IS a lot of difference in quality but the key is you need to get up close enough to see the difference. If you watch a smallish TV from 3 meters back maybe you don't see a difference. The other thing is you actually need 4k content which is lacking now.

Give it 5 years and when all movies are released in 4k mode and iTunes / Netflix / Amazon Firetv all have a 4k download option you may change your mind a bit....

good grief, why not wooden pixels?! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 4 months ago | (#47130065)

50" 720p plasma tv

Fred Flinstone, is that you? How's things down at the quarry?

Re:Please quit conflating TV's and monitors. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#47128993)

Hey, tell that to the manufacturers... For whatever insane reason, they've recently been on a kick of adding features that would actually be useful for monitors (like curvature, which might actually make a difference when you are 18 inches from a rather large screen; but barely matters from across the room, except making the thing harder to wall-mount, and 4k, for which there is essentially zero movie, TV, or cable content; but PCs can spit out on demand) to TVs and then being vaguely confused when the public goes out and buys whatever reasonably big TV is cheapest.

Thankfully, "TV" now mostly just means "LCD monitor with ATSC tuner and probably more HDMI ports", so using TVs as monitors isn't a big deal (sorry brits, pay your BBC fee!); but it's still weird.

Re: Please quit conflating TV's and monitors. (1)

richy freeway (623503) | about 4 months ago | (#47129185)

You don't have to pay the TV licence if you own a TV, only if you watch broadcast TV. You can have an antenna connected and listen to the radio with your TV and still not need a licence.

Re:Please quit conflating TV's and monitors. (2)

timeOday (582209) | about 4 months ago | (#47129039)

I disagree that 4k TVs are a gimmick, particularly as they get bigger. Football and soccer would look GREAT on an 80 inch 4k TV. It will change how the games are shot, so you can really get a sense of what everybody is doing instead of following the ball so closely.

Granted, for now the bitrate rather than resolution is the limiting factor, since cable/satellite/broadcast signals aren't even 1080p, they're 1080i or 720p with inadequate bitrates. But the quality of video through Netflix / Amazon Prime right now was almost unimaginable when youtube launched, less than 10 years ago(!) with 320x240 video only, and it seemed doomed to crash the Internet.

I also play split-screen games on my TV with my son and it would be great for that, although not with the current generation of consoles.

Re:Please quit conflating TV's and monitors. (4, Informative)

Hadlock (143607) | about 4 months ago | (#47129961)

Football and soccer would look GREAT on an 80 inch 4k TV. It will change how the games are shot, so you can really get a sense of what everybody is doing instead of following the ball so closely.

Football is shot at close angles specifically to tell a narrative; they will not and are required not to show the full field during a play. This is the view that coaches get on a closed loop. It is available to the public, but only 4 hours after the game ends and you have to pay a special subscription to get it.

Re:Please quit conflating TV's and monitors. (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 4 months ago | (#47129087)

You lost that battle years ago. Once widescreen laptops took over, it was decided by the LCD manufactures that no one needed more than 1080p anymore. That is why I am on an "antique" 24in Dell Ultrasharp.

Re:Please quit conflating TV's and monitors. (1)

Ost99 (101831) | about 4 months ago | (#47129375)

There's a whole bunch of 27" 1440p monitors out there, and they sell a lot.
At the office we've not bought one single 1080p since starting up in 2010. We started off with 1200p when that was still possible to get, and moved on to 1440p and now 4k for those who want it.

Re:Please quit conflating TV's and monitors. (1)

ZahrGnosis (66741) | about 4 months ago | (#47129659)

I don't see how 3D gets permanent "gimmick" status while 4k doesn't... there are times when seeing things in 3D give you a completely different perspective, feel, immersion, and experience than something not in 3D. There are times when higher resolution does the same. And there are times when both actually seem to make things worse. Curved TVs as well... I run three monitors on my desktop and I'd be ecstatic if I could get the same resolution in a single curved display. If it weren't curved, though, then I'd have to sit farther away to see the edges properly and that distance is beyond the "retina" distance for my monitor's resolution, so I'm kind of wasting pixels.

Much of the math is different between TVs and monitors and, yes, much of what is gimmicky in one situation is definitely not in another.

3D capable models (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 4 months ago | (#47128913)

But when are the 140Hz or 120Hz 3D capable models going to be available? Even if 3D is limited to 1140p or 1080p I want the capability for 3D gaming and watching 3D movies on my PC. Right now the best I can get is a 1080p, or very soon, a 1440p monitor, and will have to buy separate 4K 2D monitors for 4K. :-(

Re:3D capable models (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 4 months ago | (#47129123)

The problem is bandwidth. How do you get all that data down the wire? The original Korean high def 2550s used Dual DVI, essentially 2 cables. This worked, but was poorly supported. The Seiki 4k is HDMI 1.4, so it is stuck at 30hz. To get 60hz, you need HDMI 2.0, and that is far from common right now. Then you start looking at bus speeds... 4k 120hz is a LOT of data.

Re:3D capable models (1)

afidel (530433) | about 4 months ago | (#47129349)

Then you start looking at bus speeds... 4k 120hz is a LOT of data.

Not really, 4k 4:4:2 @ 120Hz is only ~16Gbps which requires only 2 PCIe 3.0 lanes (8GT/s per lane).

Re:3D capable models (1)

level_headed_midwest (888889) | about 4 months ago | (#47129549)

They will probably be available in a year or two. We moved from hackish 30 Hz split-input panels to native 60 Hz single-input panels in about a year. However anything beyond 60 Hz is pretty much useless except for bragging rights as you can't see it anyway. Broadcast TV and movies are shot at 29.997 and 24 Hz, respectively. The lack of benefit of higher refresh rates is especially true on a display that is capable of displaying static images like an LCD.

Samsung UD590 is nice... (5, Interesting)

RyanFenton (230700) | about 4 months ago | (#47128925)

I got it recently, and it's got 4k at 60FPS, in a 28" size - great for programming.

Review link [ubergizmo.com]

Just to try it, I was able to get all the single-player PC Ultima games running in about half the screen real estate:

ALL THE ULTIMAS [imgur.com]

It's around $600 when its on sale, so I think it just about matches the model slashvertised here.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Samsung UD590 is nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47129095)

I see you even threw Windows XP into the nostalgia mix!

Re:Samsung UD590 is nice... (1)

armanox (826486) | about 4 months ago | (#47129579)

Say what? He's either running Windows Vista or Windows 7.

Re:Samsung UD590 is nice... (1)

jerpyro (926071) | about 4 months ago | (#47129109)

I bought one of these for my office:
http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE... [amazon.com]

The pixel density is perfect for the opposite side of my desk, and since it's the office, being restricted to 30Hz doesn't hurt anything. At $400 it's a great place to get started with 4k computing. I agree that programming in 4k changes your entire way of working.

Re:Samsung UD590 is nice... (1)

Stem_Cell_Brad (1847248) | about 4 months ago | (#47129227)

I got the Seiki 39in too. It replaced a set of dual displays. The single huge monitor changed the way I work and has allowed me to better utilize screen space. Plus, I enjoy all of the "Oohh that's a big monitor." comments from people as they enter my office.

Re:Samsung UD590 is nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47129117)

Don't forget the ones on other platforms, like Runes of Virtue on the gameboy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0jnjiispk4

Re:Samsung UD590 is nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47129351)

I've been thinking about getting one of those 39" seiki 4K monitor/tvs for ~$450. [amazon.com] They only do 30FPS, but for programming that's fine. I see it as a reverse of a multi-monitor set-up - consolidating my 3 monitors onto one screen.

But what I am wondering about is if there are window managers that know how to handle that kind of real-estate. Right now I can dedicate an app to a specific monitor and unless I deliberately drag a window over to a different monitor they don't interfere with each other. If I maximize a window, it only expands to fit the monitor. Etc.

I want a window manager that lets me define regions of a display as "virtual monitors." For example, split the display into 3 regions and if I maximize a window it only fills up that one region.

Can anyone recommend a window manager that provides that sort of functionality? And not in a kludgey tacked on after the fact way, I want something that is "native" to the design of the window manager.

Re:Samsung UD590 is nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47129373)

Forgot to mention that tiling window managers aren't quite what I'm looking for. At least the ones I've seen don't make it easy to drag windows around too. I want to be able to drag a normal window so that it straddles "virtual monitors" too.

Re:Samsung UD590 is nice... (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 4 months ago | (#47129651)

ALL the ULTIMAS.... love it

Re:Samsung UD590 is nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47129723)

And it looks like they have all been upscaled by a factor of 2 by DoxBox, and they still fit.

Hi Res (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47128939)

4k is fantastic and all that.

But you know what worries me more than resolution? Deep blacks.

My Atari ST monito has better color accuracy than anything samsung ever put out. And that's just sad.

Re:Hi Res (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 4 months ago | (#47129751)

My monitor is so black that I can't see any light at all (Dell IPS). Don't get me wrong, it's not black - at night, with all the lights off, it's clearly not completely black. However, since about 99.999% of my time in front of the computer is with some other form of illumination, or with some portion of the screen being light (and fouling my night vision). I find it hard to get really worked up over "good" blacks that aren't "perfect."

Re:Hi Res (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47130063)

My monitor is so black that I can't see any light at all (Dell IPS). Don't get me wrong, it's not black - at night, with all the lights off, it's clearly not completely black. However, since about 99.999% of my time in front of the computer is with some other form of illumination, or with some portion of the screen being light (and fouling my night vision). I find it hard to get really worked up over "good" blacks that aren't "perfect."

Never played Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines in a true dark room with surround sound? Even a little grey would ruin the atmosphere, but might prevent heart attacks when you go into the haunted house for the first time.

Re:Hi Res (1)

karnal (22275) | about 4 months ago | (#47130119)

Even Plasma "blacks" aren't truly "TV Off" blacks, but they're a good bit less luminous than any LCD technology I've seen thus far - and when watching tv in a darker room, really does make it look nicer.

Sweet, now we just need to wait for OS Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47129001)

Which if it follows the support for multiple monitors means that windows 14 and Ubuntu 24 should have good support for it. ETA for Mac is unknown.

Re:Sweet, now we just need to wait for OS Support (3, Informative)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 4 months ago | (#47129111)

I believe Apple just pushed a patch to mavericks with better 4k support. http://au.ibtimes.com/articles... [ibtimes.com]

Re:Sweet, now we just need to wait for OS Support (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 4 months ago | (#47129145)

Ran both Windows 7 and Ubuntu on a Seiki 4k with no problem. (Well, other than finding a video card that supported it at a reasonable price...)

Re:Sweet, now we just need to wait for OS Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47130075)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009L946II/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Got a used one for $150 (2 avail for $250 currently) and haven't had any issues with running dual HDMI (I have a second 1080 monitor, in addition to Sieki 39").

Best dual monitor support I could find that wasn't rapish on price.

Re:Sweet, now we just need to wait for OS Support (2)

Ost99 (101831) | about 4 months ago | (#47129391)

Both Linux and Windows 8.1 deals just fine with 4k.
Requires a decent graphics card with drivers that actually work, but other than that there's no problem.

Re:Sweet, now we just need to wait for OS Support (2)

EvilSS (557649) | about 4 months ago | (#47129589)

Which if it follows the support for multiple monitors means that windows 14 and Ubuntu 24 should have good support for it. ETA for Mac is unknown.

I have a 4K monitor and Windows 8.1 handles it just fine. The only problem I have is that I have on 4K and one 1080p and Windows seems to have issues getting the dpi correct. 8.1 supports per-monitor DPI but it won't let you set the DPI manually for each monitor, it tries to figure it out and fails. It will either get the 1080p right, and the 4K will make me feel like I need to get my eyes examined, or the 4K looks perfect and the 1080p looks like I already had my eyes examined and was found legally blind.

120 hz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47129013)

That's nice, but we're still waiting for the 120 Hz 27" and 30" IPS's that do it out of the box at 2560 that aren't Korean and overclocked.

Re:120 hz (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 4 months ago | (#47129159)

Keep waiting. That panel resolution is not popular enough to be continued. 4k will take it over.

Re:120 hz (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 4 months ago | (#47129385)

Not sure about that. If you create a 70" 4k panel substrate, and part of it is defective, you can cut that down into a 2560 panel at a smaller screen size. The bigger the screen, the easier it is to hit 4k, thanks to lower pixel densities. There are only a few pixel densities being manufactured at any given time and they are cut to size for production.

Runs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47129051)

Can we please just say 'costs' or 'is priced at'?

A boon for CAD, hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47129065)

I often work on fancy PCB designs and can always use more resolution and a bigger screen, within limits. There's no point in having a screen so wide that my head is always moving like at a tennis match.

But more resolution makes editing quicker and easier.

Now if only there were a way to get stereoscopic depth display of PCB layers while editing...

Re:A boon for CAD, hopefully (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 4 months ago | (#47129155)

pcb layers in Allegro are basically 2 dimensional, you'd need more than just monitor support. Also given a typical stackup for a PCB I'm not sure the "depth", unless exaggerated, would be so helpful. A motherboard is so many inches wide, but a pcb layer is somewhere around what, 8 thousands of an inch thick? Then if the fiber or prepreg is modelled it would appear to be "floating".

A tool from Ansys called SiWave does this (including allowing layers to be exaggerated), I didn't find it to be useful for much more than helping me place probe points. Boards are just too damned flat.

Re:A boon for CAD, hopefully (2)

harrkev (623093) | about 4 months ago | (#47129283)

I often work on fancy PCB designs and can always use more resolution and a bigger screen, within limits. There's no point in having a screen so wide that my head is always moving like at a tennis match.

But more resolution makes editing quicker and easier.

Bah. You PC board wusses. Try doing physical design on a custom ASIC (note my sig).

More pixels definitely helps. I have been using a 30" 2560x1600 (Dell for about $1200), but more pixels for half the money seems like a great deal! The down side is less glass itself, so the pixels are smaller. My old eyes would probably have a hard time staring at text at that resolution. Yes, I know that I can change fonts, but I am a strong believer in more monitors in general. You can have the layout on the big glass, and terminal and/or EMACS windows on the side monitors. Now THAT is a productivity boost. The problem is that with your side monitors having a significantly different pixel density from the main monitor make having an ideal font size impossible. Either too big on the side monitors or too small on the big, central monitor.

OSX is not ready (3, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | about 4 months ago | (#47129127)

I jumped the gun a while ago and got the Dell P2815Q, which is one of those that only do 4K at 30 hz. I can confirm this is not adequate for a large number of uses :)

What surprised me is the poor OSX support for 4K. Windows can scale everything (although I had to manually add a display mode to the NVidia advanced settings to even get 1080p!?), but OSX cannot. I am running it on a recent MacBook Pro 15" with discrete graphics.

The problem is that you cannot chose to run at a lower resolution. Display preferences lists ONLY the native resolution. Using QuickRes (a 3rd party add-on for more resolution choices), none of the lower resolutions work, at least until you go all they way down to 1080p

In particular, you cannot use HiDPI on an external display (where the application sees a lower resolution, but the OS renders fonts at full resolution). (No, it does not help to enable HiDPI with Quartz Debug, nor with the QuickRes "Enable HiDPI" button). So the menus and all applications are absolutely tiny.

You could adjust the size of everything on a per-application basis, but then they won't look right when you're working on the laptop display, unless you use something like QuickRes to run the laptop display at its native resolution. I guess I will try that for a few days. So I mainly use my older, power-hungry 2550x1600 30" displays.

If I could just select the highest of the HiDPI resolutions available for the laptop display in the System Preferences, and mirror *exactly* that to this display, I would be a happy camper. You can't do that.

I understand an upcoming release will improve support with HiDPI on external displays. But as it stands, I could not recommend a 4K display for a Mac - or a Mac for a 4K display.

Re:OSX is not ready (4, Informative)

omnichad (1198475) | about 4 months ago | (#47129417)

I thought that 10.9.3 addressed this (Not quite two weeks old). Might be time for you to try again.

Re:OSX is not ready (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 4 months ago | (#47129675)

Before posting that I googled the status and found this page [apple.com] , which specifies "OS X Mavericks v10.9.3 or later" and DOES show the "Larger Text / More Space" (HiDPI) slider being associated with an external display. So I consulted "About This Mac", which says I have OSX 10.9.3. So I re-connected the 4K monitor and tried again before posting, and it still does NOT show me that slider. (I also still don't see it on the 2560x1600 30" display I am using right now). So, I can't explain it. I am skeptical my OSX release has been updated in the last couple weeks, but it says 10.9.3, and the Available Updates only lists updates for iTunes, Safari, iMovie and iPhoto.

Re:OSX is not ready (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 4 months ago | (#47129737)

Not sure if it depends on the model (artificially) - but someone here is showing it as working:
https://discussions.apple.com/... [apple.com]

Smart TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47129189)

my dad has a 30 inch Smart Samsung wide screen TV. (I forgot the exact size) He hardly uses all the fancy features though. I haven't seen him use the smart interface screen much. He hardly uses picture in picture either. Just making an observation.

A sad truth . . . (0)

mmell (832646) | about 4 months ago | (#47129273)

Early adopters can go ahead and buy this. They can make it economically feasible for other companies to compete in this area, driving down the price and driving up the usability.

I'll wait a few years for that to happen and buy when it's cheap and widely available - and fully consumerized. I personally can't afford to invest in leading/bleeding edge technology only to see something else become the standard. My example? Wax transfer printing. I used to own an Okimate-10 (and later and Okimate-20) printer. Great stuff. Unlike impact printing, I could have color. Well, it still exists, but only as a niche technology. Most end users nowadays (including myself) are using either color inkjet or color laser technology for printing (I own one of each). I ended up throwing both my Okimate printers away long ago, when it became impossible to find supplies for them. I'll admit it's a lot less likely for a monitor to become unsupported the way printer is; all the same, I'll wait a couple years and see where this goes before I plunk down my money for one.

Re:A sad truth . . . (1)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | about 4 months ago | (#47129361)

+1 on waiting for consumerization. I'm one of those who bought a scanner when they were about $500, one of the first color inkjets that was also about $500 (Epson stylus color), etc. and that's when $500 was worth something. I'm a little more conservative with this stuff now days.

Re:A sad truth . . . (1)

mmell (832646) | about 4 months ago | (#47129543)

I see that Alex has a sock-puppet with mod points. Good to know I'm still loved! X^D

Content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47129453)

4k compter displays would be great, the double resolution Apple Laptops look great and I would like to see that on the desktop. As for 4k TV, firstly your TV is going to have to be pretty large to notice 4K, or you sit at it pretty close, but more importantly what are you going to what on it, where is the 4K content, the film industry is just starting to get ready for 4k in the theatre. Getting higher frame rates for film and TV would be a much bigger pay off, 48fps would be great, 60fps is a little better but not significantly from the one demo I saw, close up on a computer screen 60fps may matter more.

I have the 39" seiki and love it. (1)

kenj123 (658721) | about 4 months ago | (#47129527)

It does have some issue with contrast and refresh, but its still very impressive. the 28" Samsung could be a better deal now.
Some observations.
1. Youtube has quite a bit of 4k content. however you need a 15-50Mbps connection, mine is a 6Mbps Verizon dsl line so I get quite a bit of buffering. I can download the videos and they are impressive, however, I think you need at least a 60in monitor to appreciate the difference. I've switched my video mode to 1080p and I can see some difference in fine, curved lines, but that's about it. The photos I take with my digital camera look really good on the monitor, but mostly because its so big. If there is text in the picture its easier to read at 4k, but the picture looks almost the same if I set it down to 1080p. The monitor has made me realize I need to upgrade to a DSLR camera.
2. At 2k it is really awesome at displaying text. the 39" is a bit too big, I have to move my head around to see where I'm clicking, but I do program on it and I have ways around that problem.
3. I do watch a lot of nature show on my HD tv. I've been underwhelmed with the video quality of things like tree leaves, fire, flocks of birds flying, ocean waves and water splashing, groups of people or animals running. I'm hoping to see some 4k content of those things and compare to 2k
4. I am watching the pricing on 4k projectors. they are about 5grand right now which is pretty good. not long ago 2k projectors where 3grand. a 4K projector displaying a 120" picture should look incredible. I have a place already picked out to put it in my house.

Re:I have the 39" seiki and love it. (1)

kenj123 (658721) | about 4 months ago | (#47130091)

2 more things that are pretty impressive on 39" seiki at 4k are PDF magazines, especially ones in HQ and Google Earth/Streetview/Maps. All of them have a mix of pictures/graphics and text that look really good at 4k. 3D buildings on Google Earth take a long time to build, partly because my video card is a bit slow. I just read Slashdot while they are loading...

Old Bugger (1)

BlackHawk-666 (560896) | about 4 months ago | (#47129555)

Maybe I'm getting old, but a 24" monitor running 1080p about 40cm frrom my face seems pretty damn good. About as good as I will ever need. My eyesight is not likely to improve, and despite the fact it is pretty good for me age, I don't really see any gains to be had from doubling the resolution of my monitors (x3).

I'm the sort of guy who buys the 42" TV because...he knows he can just fucking sit a few feet closer to it if he wants the pixels and screen to appear larger!

The day I need a 4k monitor for programming is the day I need neckstrain from looking up, down and all around.

Lest we forget... (1)

thegreatbob (693104) | about 4 months ago | (#47129581)

... that IBM had a '4K' (I abhor this term as much as 'HD') monitor in production from 2001-2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ... 3840x2400 in a ~22 inch panel. Good luck finding a "4K" monitor of that resolution (~204 ppi) any time soon.

I have an application for one... (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 4 months ago | (#47129603)

I want a 4K 40" OLED display for photo work. This would be something that would come a lot closer to the capability of the sensor in my camera than anything than I can buy now.

In addition the high resolution would be great for displaying large amounts of text, that is for programming.

28" with crappy color gamat and a ridiculous dot pitch isn't close to what I want.

Resolution or Definition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47129957)

There are studies out there that claim an average user with 20/20 vision sitting 9 feet away from a 72 inch screen can't tell the difference between 720 dpi and 1080 dpi. Also the speed at which we are able to discern frames per second limits us and the motion will seem unreal at highest speeds say 48-60 frames per second. The need of the higher and higher resolutions and definitions are quickly maxing out along with the need and the average user's ability to make use of the technology. So walk candidly and read what studies you can find before you shell out the bucks for technology that you won't be able to discern usefully.

joke is on the consumer (1)

think_nix (1467471) | about 4 months ago | (#47129999)

While 4k is technologically cool the joke again is on the consumer. As in Blu Ray "Mastered in 4k" which isn't realy 4k but "Re-mastered" and downscaled to 2k. IIRÄ they are having difficulties getting true 4k onto disc still? Then apart from the few US streaming services (available in US only TM). Sounds like another hype from the content providers to make even more money, unfortunately.

"reasonable" cost for a 28" screen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47130051)

Our definitions of reasonable are greatly divided. When a 4k resolution tv costs more than a used car, I wouldn't call that reasonable. The fact that my $600 gpu can't push 4k resolution smoothly, and also I don't have any content to display at 4k resolution, and game devs release 4k texture packs that are larger than the core game, I would definitely say this is a wait and see situation. Such a small screen would hardly benefit from 4k resolution anyway. These are more things for the people who have more money than intelligence.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?