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!

Dell Demos 5K Display

Soulskill posted about a month ago | from the all-the-pixels dept.

Displays 204

An anonymous reader writes: Even though 4k displays are just making their way into consumer affordability, manufacturers are already pushing beyond. Dell has previewed a computer monitor it calls a "5k" display. The resolution is 5120x2880, stuffing 14,745,600 pixels on a 27" screen. For comparison, that's more than seven times the amount of pixels in a 1920x1080 display. Pixel density is 218 PPI, roughly the same as a 15" Retina MacBook Pro. ExtremeTech suggests, "As far as we're aware, no one is actually making 5120×2880 panels, especially not at 27 inches diagonal – so what we're probably looking at is two 2560x2880 panels squished together as a 'tiled display.'" Unfortunately, it's pricy, expected to cost around $2,500. But hopefully it will help drive 4k display prices even further toward mainstream availability.

cancel ×

204 comments

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

I'm sure (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47835697)

/. beta is broken on that screen size.

Re:I'm sure (1, Offtopic)

wcb4 (75520) | about a month ago | (#47835877)

/. beta is broken.

There, fixed that for you.

Hijacking this comment (1)

sycodon (149926) | about a month ago | (#47836353)

Anyone know the effective resolution and screen size of the Oculus Rift?

Can we envision one day the elimination of external monitors in favor of lightweight and inexpensive versions of Oculus Rift with a form factor closer to that of Google Glass?

Re:Hijacking this comment (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a month ago | (#47836491)

The DK1 was 1280x800, the DK2 is 1080p, and the consumer version is at least 1080p but they haven't said more.

Re:Hijacking this comment (3, Interesting)

BlackHawk-666 (560896) | about a month ago | (#47837251)

Not likely any time soon. The DK2 has a 1080p display, but due to the extreme field of view this looks more like an old 800x600 display with a screen door effect to boot and chromatic aberration. The CV1 is expected to use a 1440p display, which is a nice step up, but still might not be enough to reduce that screen door effect.

Reading delicate text and fonts in a no-go with a Rift. Everything needs to be scaled up to deal with the low pixel / degree of view factor. Colours wash out slightly as well I think, but that might just be subjective.

If you live in a hot climate you're not going to want to be wearing the Rift unless you have some nice air conditioning. Things can get sweaty or foggy in there.

I think we can expect to see some improvement in display density, and more accurate adjustments for the chromatic aberrations and other artefacts over the next few years. I wouldn't expect to be replacing my desktop display any time soon with a VR display.

Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47835721)

There's just no mainstream reason that kind of pixel density is required. This is change for its own sake.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47835757)

This. When the pixels become microscopic, there's no reason to pay a penny more. Instead, let's focus on improving 3D technology so that it's more than a gimmick.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47837167)

itll be a long ass time till theyre microscopic.

for a graphics whore (gaming), 8k isn't enough.

ppi is what matters; large screens require huge resolutions for desirable ppi (and don't buy into that "720p/1080p/XXXXp is good enough"; if you enjoy sitting close to a monitor / screen, hate aliasing, and have good eyes... you should judge screens for yourself)

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month ago | (#47837377)

For gaming whores what's the ideal ppi? Just curious.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (2)

wed128 (722152) | about a month ago | (#47837461)

Problem is, there is no ideal ppi, there's an ideal ppr (pixels per radian) which varies with screen-to-eye distance. so 1080p is ok across the room, but not right in your face. GP is lying, a monitor would have to be pretty huge for 8k to not be ok...

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (4, Informative)

ClintJCL (264898) | about a month ago | (#47835833)

Hate to break it to you, but blu-ray took off.

Sincerely, Guy who watched 0% of content in HD 5 years ago, and watches 95% of content in HD now.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47836003)

Yeah blu ray is here. It's the only reason I still use my launch day PS3 (Aside from getting the occasional Katamari Damacy fix - Yeah I've got a rare PS3 with full hardware ps2 compatablity)

Actually game consoles seem to be the best Blu ray players in my experience. Blu ray players all employ a non-trivial bit of computing power.

Most blu ray players are crap because they employ badly designed embedded operating systems. Laggy. Slow menus. Barely usable "apps". Rarely updated. By the time you price up to a Blu ray player that's not complete garbage,you're paying more than you would for a game console. And still getting an inferior experience.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a month ago | (#47836071)

4k Blu-Ray drives and movies are scheduled for next year.

They'll be using H.265 compression and some new DRM.
I'll end up with one, but only if/when my current blu-ray player dies.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (3, Funny)

ClintJCL (264898) | about a month ago | (#47836119)

I was actually kidding/trolling anyway. I haven't inserted a disc into a device to watch or listen to something in many many years.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47836209)

I was actually kidding/trolling anyway. I haven't inserted a disc into a device to watch or listen to something in many many years.

You were actually joking but look, you got 5: Informative.

Speaks volumes about how gullible the moderating crowd is (no pun intended)

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47837343)

Or he was just right.
If you aren't watching youtube videos on your phone, you are watching HD.
At least if you are under 30.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47836093)

Hate to break it to you, but blu-ray took off.

Sincerely,
Guy who watched 0% of content in HD 5 years ago, and watches 95% of content in HD now.

Seriously? Yes, I ask because I read a report a while ago which claims Convenience won between HDDVD and Blue Ray.

Convenience in this case being Netflix and its ilk.

Granted, it's not true HD like that of BluRay but convenience wins when you confront joe public.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (4, Insightful)

ohieaux (2860669) | about a month ago | (#47836113)

HD content, for video, is a lot of data for minimal increased information. Increasing pixel density provides no additional information if added pixels are below the threshold of perception.

Given the option, I'll watch HD over SD, but I can follow all the action on SD.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (2)

ClintJCL (264898) | about a month ago | (#47836169)

Kids who grew up listening to 128kbps also claim to prefer it. Better is still better. I'll watch SD content if I want to see people where I can't quite discern their full expression because I can't see their pupils in distant shots, or a general lack of all detail.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (2)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month ago | (#47837399)

I like my pron in sd so it doesn't get too gross.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | about a month ago | (#47837479)

lol sounds like you're watching the wrong porn! If you want no physical flaws like real people in the real world, might I suggest Hentai? Or whatever the animated version of that is called?

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (2)

CreatureComfort (741652) | about a month ago | (#47836299)

I saw my first 4K display, 32", the other day, running native 4K content off it's internal hard drive.

The difference between it and the same 4K display beside it, up converting off a Blu-ray player was stark, and the difference between even the up converted 4K Blu-ray images and the 1080p displays running off the same Blu-ray source was absolutely obvious and clear.

I wanted to play with the settings on 4K Blu-ray display and the 1080p displays to see if they had been deliberately crippled to make the 4K native look better, but this particular store had everything locked down.

Re: Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47836603)

Did the display say Bose in it anywhere? That's the first clue when checking out an in-store display.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (1)

randallman (605329) | about a month ago | (#47836633)

"Up-Converting" is just a marketing term for scaling and scaling is a techy phrase for stretching. Of course 4K should look better. You can't magically add (real) information that isn't there to begin with.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a month ago | (#47836925)

The original argument though was that the additional information in a real 4K stream would not be apparent...

It is. No upscaling is not going to magically add detail, but if you have a real 4k source you'll be able to see it even on kind of small monitors.

The real question is, where are you going to get 4k sources from...

For desktop use though 4K seems really nice.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (1)

randallman (605329) | about a month ago | (#47836993)

"The real question is, where are you going to get 4k sources from..."

I'd like it for my home video. I've been taking 1080p @ 60 fps for 3 years and it's definitely worth the extra required space. The extra framerate makes it much more realistic. I noticed when shopping for a new video camera there are quite a few that shoot 4K.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47837435)

Pron?

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47837423)

The original argument though was that the additional information in a real 4K stream would not be apparent...

It is.

It depends on how far away you are from the display. [rtings.com]
For example, the average person needs to be less than 4 feet away from a 32" tv in order to see any benefit from 4k resolution over 1080p resolution

Re: Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47836649)

Right. There is also text.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (4, Interesting)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about a month ago | (#47837223)

^ This, thank you...

I see comment after comment from people who are talking out of their back ends, or perhaps their eyes suck...

We saw the exact same comments about 720p vs. 1080p almost 10 years ago, that you couldn't tell the difference.

Stupid is as stupid does I suppose...

True 4k is amazing, it blows 1080p out of the water. I've seen a similar display as you did, but this was on a 70" 1080p next to a 70" 4k display, from about 8 feet away, in a store.

Wow, once you've seen the difference, it is smack dab obvious how much of an improvement 4k really is. You don't have to look at the signs, just watch the video playing.

Now the issue is content... Since we've all now replaced much of our VHS and DVD content for 1080p Blu-Ray, I think few fewer people are going to be willing to do that again.

As much as I like it, I won't spend all that money yet again.

So... If they REALLY want 4k to take off, they need to offer a reasonable upgrade option, perhaps $2 per movie, to get the 4k version.

If I could take my stack of Blu-Ray discs into Walmart or Best Buy and trade them all in for $2 each for 4K versions, I'd probably go buy a 4K TV this Christmas.

$5 each? Meh, that is pushing it, maybe make it $5 each, but $2-3 each if you do 50 or 100 or more or something.

As far as digital copies, such as my now extensive library with Vudu and Amazon, those need upgrade options as well, also for a low price.

Take care of the customer and we'll throw money at you. Try to charge stupid high prices and we'll just not bother.

Re: Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a month ago | (#47837421)

You mean the same BBY that showed the gold plated monster hdmi look so much better than the display next to it?

They crippled it on purpose and what you saw was a downgraded or scaled image to make you blow $$$$. I could be wrong but don't trust Bestbuy

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (1)

Khashishi (775369) | about a month ago | (#47836343)

Yeah, but the threshold of perception is a bit better than HD.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47836165)

*slow clap* because anecdotal evidence

I hate to break it to you (actually no, I enjoy it) but Blu-Ray is a dead format, Sony won the physical media war just in time for digital media to enter the scene

http://www.zdnet.com/whatever-... [zdnet.com]

Want an eye opener? Ok!
Blu-Ray sales (ending June 29th)
http://www.the-numbers.com/wee... [the-numbers.com]
Biggest seller? Frozen with 7 million units

DVD sales (ending June 29th)
http://www.the-numbers.com/wee... [the-numbers.com]
Biggest seller? Transformers with 16 million units, oh and there are more big numbers in that list adding up to an overwhelming difference in per unit sales

Maybe it's just a slow month you say? Here are the numbers for 2013:
http://www.the-numbers.com/hom... [the-numbers.com]
http://www.the-numbers.com/hom... [the-numbers.com]

Same story. DVD is still consistently moving more units, much to my surprise, I honestly thought it would be closer.

All this format war / pissing match conversation is pointless anyway because the day of the disc is done and digital sales will continue to increase.

http://bgr.com/2014/01/08/digi... [bgr.com]

Turns out a stream from Netflix is good enough for most people, packaged media is dead meat

Personally speaking, I prefer the BluRay copy of "Breaking Bad" then a not quite always HD stream... then again I have a record collection, so what does that say about me

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about a month ago | (#47836367)

> Personally speaking, I prefer the BluRay copy of "Breaking Bad" then a not quite always HD stream... then again I have a record collection, so what does that say about me

Even a DVD copy of Breaking Bad will probably be better than streaming it. Streaming quality can go to crap pretty quickly. Plus you have to "download" a stream any time you watch one. This is wasteful, consumes your data cap, and again exposes you to the problem of quality degredation.

Mod parent up (1)

Matthias Löffel (3522589) | about a month ago | (#47837395)

+1 Informative
I was quite sure from personal experience that disc type media would sooner or later die, but didn't know that blu-ray was performing so bad!

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about a month ago | (#47836349)

Blu-Ray didn't take off in the sense that it's not driving massive video sales. Imagine that consumers get tired of buying videos that are obsolete in 4 years.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (1)

theendlessnow (516149) | about a month ago | (#47836469)

Uh.. hate to break it to you but no... Blu-ray does not have the success that it was supposed to have. In fact, the thing that has taken off is sub-par supposedly HD streaming content... which often times looks worse than DVD. Sony paid a whole lot of bribery money and arguably lost (again). http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... [extremetech.com] Hopefully that shows that Blu-ray is hardly a "win"... in fact, it's sort of pathetic... especially if consider the saturation of DVD content and (illegal) the accessibility of such content vs. HD and Blu-ray. That is to say, DVD is doing quite well when arguably it shouldn't be doing well at all. Does it show DVD decline? Yes. Does it show Blu-ray rise? Yes... but doesn't look pretty for Blu-ray. Sony tried to buy their way technology wise this time (after the betamax debacle)... how well is Sony doing nowadays? I find that interesting...

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | about a month ago | (#47837127)

If HD streaming gives worse-looking content than DVD, then that would indicate to me that BluRay *is* the winner. If that's the one way to get reliable HD content for those that care about getting HD content that isn't compressed down -- the winner is BluRay.

(Actually, the winner is bittorrent...)

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47837455)

> If HD streaming gives worse-looking content than DVD, then that would indicate to me that BluRay *is* the winner.

In the same way that CDs are winning versus mp3s and streaming.
Winning!

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47835857)

Implying that desktop computing is no longer mainstream and that nobody gave a crap about the iPhone, iPad, and MacBook Pros all getting high-DPI screens.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47835879)

To be fair Blu-ray actually looks better and they're useful for more than TV and games. Triple layer BRD can store 100GB.

Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47835977)

I have a 35" 4K TV that I use as a display for my main computer. I now wish I had spent the extra money to get a 50".

On the 35" the text is too small to read comfortably for any length of time, I don't see how reading on a 27" is going to work unless you increase your font size which reduces the benefits of the higher resolution.

For viewing pictures/diagrams you will get a sharper display, and for some people the AA fonts will be seen as another plus but I think a larger display is needed to get the full value of the resolution.

PS. If it counts, I am 57. I don't need glasses but I know I can't see details like I did in my twenties.

ECP

Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47836897)

OS teams are "working on the problem" to make your fonts readable on ultra-mega-high pixel density displays - with varying success. Back in Windows 95, you could already boost up the base font size, but it wasn't 100% implemented. They're getting better, but still not up to 100%, I think.

Even back in the 1990s, I knew people who would run their displays at lower than native resolution just to get readable font size.

Now, about your 50" display aspirations - I had a dual 30" setup on my desktop for awhile, and it gave me tennis neck, had to turn my head to switch from reading one side to reading the other side... effectively, I wasn't hindered at all when one of the 30" displays went away, it's actually just as quick / easy to pop windows over each other as it is to locate them in a panoramic view - in my experience. Now, if this is a multi-operator setup, then each display can be setup to work with one person, and that can be very powerful....

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47837013)

If it counts, I am 57. I don't need glasses but I know I can't see details like I did in my twenties.

If you are 57, then you certainly need glasses. Reading glasses [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (1)

jwdb (526327) | about a month ago | (#47837273)

I expect using a larger font, or actually a larger system DPI setting, is exactly what he wants to do. There's a huge difference between a 12 pt sentence at 92 DPI and at 300 DPI, one of the reasons I still prefer to print out articles when I'll be reading them intensively. It's the high DPI in addition to the lack of backlight that makes e-paper displays so great.

I'm only 31 and I can't see details like I used to either, so anything that makes text sharper is good. I'd be interested in a 300 DPI 27", but that's roughly 7050x3960.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47837497)

Assuming you're on Windows, there's a setting for DPI that's been there since 95. On Windows 8, this is even semi-automated and they just give you a smaller/larger slider. (You can also go back to the manual DPI setting but you lose out on multi-DPI support) Ubuntu gives you a DPI slider for each monitor (support for it is slightly crap tho). OSX is programmed to assume anything >4K is a "Retina display" and renders everything at 2x scale, even if the app doesn't support it (it gets upscaled if the app doesn't specify it's tested for 2x scale). It then lets you scale the 2x desktop up or down a bit.

I assume you bought the Seiki, right?

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month ago | (#47837505)

Do you like your 4k because everything gets sharper or because you get more screen real estate? 90% sure apple will release a retina iMac with this, in which case the screen proportions and font sizes but everything would be 2x sharper.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47836177)

Some people use displays for something other than voiewing Hollywood crap or playing silly shootemup games.
The pure resolution would make multi display setups redundant pure and simple.
A couple of these would do me fine for showing all the running all the VM's that go to makeup a complex chemical plant simulation.

There is more to life than Videos and Gaming you know.

Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month ago | (#47837373)

This screen is just right for a retina iMac (2x in vertical and horizontal). 5k sounds like a lot of pix, but it's still just 206px/in. This brings large screens into quality parity with phone and tablet screens.

in the meantime : (2)

polar red (215081) | about a month ago | (#47835751)

when will we finally get hihger than 1920*1080 resolution monitors at a decent price ????

Re:in the meantime : (1)

polar red (215081) | about a month ago | (#47835763)

about 2500 * 1500 should suffice for now.

Re:in the meantime : (1)

Shaman (1148) | about a month ago | (#47835883)

Yes to both the points in your post.

Re:in the meantime : (4, Insightful)

Rafael Jaimes III (3430609) | about a month ago | (#47835851)

when will we finally get hihger than 1920*1080 resolution monitors at a decent price ????

Or when will 1920x1080 be the standard for small laptops instead of 1366x768?

Re:in the meantime : (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47836255)

considering that most LCDs coming out use 1080p now. I would thing you would be hard pressed to find the old ones anymore

Re:in the meantime : (1, Insightful)

brwski (622056) | about a month ago | (#47836283)

Why x1080 when x1200 works so, so much better? Finding an affordable monitor with useful vertical space is getting difficult. There are a good number of people who use their boxen to do something more useful than watching movies.

Re:in the meantime : (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about a month ago | (#47836931)

Why x1200 when x1440 so much better?

16:10 is dead but we've finally got resolution numbers rising again, so you won't miss it much.

Re:in the meantime : (0)

almitydave (2452422) | about a month ago | (#47835951)

when will we finally get hihger than 1920*1080 resolution monitors at a decent price ????

What do you consider a decent price? I got a 24" 1920x1200 IPS monitor (HP zr2440w) this year for $300 - it's fantastic. Newegg has several [newegg.com] 2560x1440 screens for less than $400. 20 years ago a decent 17" CRT cost $1000. That's only 786 pixels/$. My current screen is almost 10 times that. 15, counting for inflation. And they're much better pixels.

If you're only looking at the sub-$200 budget monitor market, you're going to have to accept compromises.

(all prices USD)

Re:in the meantime : (0)

polar red (215081) | about a month ago | (#47836099)

24" 1920*1080 are pretty cheap right now, Last year I got one for 99€ , but usually they go for about 120 - 130 €. While for a 2560*1440 27", you pay at least 400 €; make that 300€, and I'm getting one NOW.

Re:in the meantime : (1)

rthille (8526) | about a month ago | (#47837475)

I just bought a Seiki 39" 4K TV for use as a monitor. I paid $329 (USD) because I was too slow to get the sale price at $299.

Re: in the meantime : (0)

Oscaro (153645) | about a month ago | (#47836503)

Sadly all (or almost all) 2560*1440 monitors are 27". That's too big for my tastes; I find I have to move my head (and my neck) to look around the screen, and that is NOT good.

24" would be MUCH better.

Re: in the meantime : (1)

almitydave (2452422) | about a month ago | (#47837199)

Heh, some mod doesn't like the 2560x1440 options, apparently.

Sadly all (or almost all) 2560*1440 monitors are 27". That's too big for my tastes; I find I have to move my head (and my neck) to look around the screen, and that is NOT good.

24" would be MUCH better.

That's a good point - I was considering one of those when I got my 24", and the dpi on the 24 is about as high as I'd like for a desktop monitor (using standard scaling levels). I currently have two displays connected, both at home and work, so I'm used to having to move my head to look around. I consider 2560x1440 a single-monitor upgrade from two 19" 1280x1024 displays, and at 27" should be less head & neck movement than the dual-monitor setup, but for that dpi to be legible might require you to sit too close. You'd need 30+" to match the dpi of the dual-19 setup, and that might require too much vertical craning.

...which is where 29" 2560x1080 [newegg.com] comes into play!

Re:in the meantime : (1)

zephvark (1812804) | about a month ago | (#47837151)

Yeh, 1920x1200 is chump change. I spent over $2,000 for my 1920x1600 monitor a decade or so back but, it eventually blew a capacitor, and at current display prices I was willing to accept a drop in resolution. It's nice to see that display quality is moving forward again, rather than backwards, although 24" is enough of a desk-eating behemoth that I'm doubtful about increasing the size.

Re:in the meantime : (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47835983)

I'm still using a 1280x1024 CRT (you read that right) that I got in 2004.
I would like to switch to something flat, but I don't want to spend a ton or give up vertical pixels.

Re:in the meantime : (4, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | about a month ago | (#47836007)

You can get 2560x1440 for about $500 +/-200 now - cheap imports are $350 on eBay, top-of-the-line ones are $700+ but you only need that if you do pro graphics stuff. For regular use, there's 27" 1440p monitors all over the place now.

Re:in the meantime : (2)

jon3k (691256) | about a month ago | (#47836133)

Define decent price? You can get WQHD (2560x1440) 27" IPS A- panels for $400. For example, here's the Monoprice one [monoprice.com] .

Re:in the meantime : (1)

ohieaux (2860669) | about a month ago | (#47836159)

My Yoga 2 has a 3200x1800 display. It is practically useless as many applications cannot scale correctly. With windows 8 on there, it's rarely used. I've not found decent Linux distro that works well, either. I'll stick with 1080.

Decent prices... (2)

swb (14022) | about a month ago | (#47836181)

I saw a "Good Guys" circular from the late 1980s yesterday and they had a Motorola "car phone" for sale in there for $1200. IIRC, it must have been a bag phone because I remember they said it was portable from car-car in the ad.

That's like $2500 in today's purchasing power-- can you imagine $2500 these days for an analog-only mobile phone? And what do you suppose calls were back then, 50 cents or more per minute, closer $1/minute in contemporary purchasing power?

About the only thing good about those bag phones was they had more transmit power.

Holding out for 640k (3, Funny)

GlennC (96879) | about a month ago | (#47835823)

Because that ought to be enough for anybody! :D

Re:Holding out for 640k (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47835947)

lmgtfy [google.com]

It's 14M already...

Re:Holding out for 640k (1)

TheP4st (1164315) | about a month ago | (#47836183)

Woosh....

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=640k+is+enough

Re:Holding out for 640k (1)

Bloke down the pub (861787) | about a month ago | (#47836269)

That's over 9000!

Fix 4k first (5, Interesting)

MytQuinn (1846480) | about a month ago | (#47835899)

How about they focus on getting 4k working decently first. Saturates DisplayPort and cuts in and out in major graphics cards, and screen tearing with dual HDMI. I'm sure Dual DisplayPort at 5k will fix it all....

Re:Fix 4k first (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a month ago | (#47836245)

Until there are GPUs powerful enough for gaming on a 4k screen, I'll just wait this one out.

Re:Fix 4k first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47836315)

No one cares.

Re:Fix 4k first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47837211)

depends on the game. a fairly powerful contemporary GPU (gtx 570+ w/ ~2GB+) can play many console ports at 4k no problem. I do it (oc'ed gtx 580 3GB)

you can even benchmark your current gaming PC today to see how it fares at 4k while running any resolution monitor. in your control panel set scaling to the GPU instead of the monitor, create a custom 4k resolution, run your game, select the resolution from the in-game menu (like you would any "normal" resolution), and volia - 4k benchmark. its called downsampling.

nice 60 hz 4k for $600 with included 250 gig SSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47836001)

on newegg.... thats getting downright "4k is here"

In other news: Are 4K displays worth getting yet? (1)

Maddog Batty (112434) | about a month ago | (#47836023)

I was thinking about getting a Asus PB287Q 28" 4K 60Hz as it has good reviews but was unsure as to whether I can stick with icons and stuff being small. I love the idea of the additional pixels as I always seem to not have enough but I here some programs aren't a good match as they don't scale well.

Anybody use a 4K display for programming / development work? Good or bad idea?

Re:In other news: Are 4K displays worth getting ye (1)

Yakasha (42321) | about a month ago | (#47836129)

I was thinking about getting a Asus PB287Q 28" 4K 60Hz as it has good reviews but was unsure as to whether I can stick with icons and stuff being small. I love the idea of the additional pixels as I always seem to not have enough but I here some programs aren't a good match as they don't scale well.

Anybody use a 4K display for programming / development work? Good or bad idea?

This guy thinks so: http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-i... [tsotech.com]

The Seiki is only 30Hz @ 4k resolution, but at 39" and $339 (compared to the Asus 28", 60Hz at $600), I (hoping, because one is being delivered next week) think its a better deal.

Re:In other news: Are 4K displays worth getting ye (1)

polar red (215081) | about a month ago | (#47836277)

Anybody use a 4K display for programming / development work? Good or bad idea?

i would LOVE that. I am now using 2 * 1920*1080, and i would gladly trade them in for a 4K. I would love to be able to see more code, multiple windows side by side, and more vertical space would eliminate a lot of scrolling

Re:In other news: Are 4K displays worth getting ye (1)

jasno (124830) | about a month ago | (#47836303)

A lot of folks at work are switching to these and they seem happy.

I'm going for a stand-up desk first. I'll look into the 4k monitor early next year and see how things are then.

Re:In other news: Are 4K displays worth getting ye (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about a month ago | (#47836843)

I'm thinking Black Friday / Cyber Monday might be a good time to get a 4K monitor.

Re:In other news: Are 4K displays worth getting ye (1)

Maddog Batty (112434) | about a month ago | (#47836309)

30Hz is a deal breaker for me. 60Hz or nothing. 30Hz is ok for watching movies apparently but I don't think I could cope with mouse lag.

39" would be nice though and removes the issue of everything being small.

Re:In other news: Are 4K displays worth getting ye (1)

jerpyro (926071) | about a month ago | (#47836573)

The mouse lag is annoying at first but it's not so bad if you get a high dpi mouse and spend a few weeks getting used to the new setup. I wouldn't play games on it, but it's been awesome for code/productivity at the office.

I've had one [the seiki 39"] for about 9 months now. It's due with our baby in two weeks, because we had such a honeymoon when I first got it.

Re:In other news: Are 4K displays worth getting ye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47836885)

I've used a 50" seiki as a monitor for about a year and a half, it is actually too big, I have to slightly turn my head too much so I just don't actively use about 2 inches on the one side. I'm not fond of the glossy screen. Otherwise I have no complaints, although the PPI isn't any better than 4x 1920x1080 at least I don't have bezels any more.

I've done a little gaming on it and it worked ok, a little bit of lag but not unplayable for just casual FPS stuff. Keep in mind the 30Hz is over the HDMI, the screen itself is always 120Hz.

I got the 39" for another computer last month(I paid $339 + free shipping and have a $50 rebate coming for a total of $279), Size is about right..everything else is pretty much the same.

They work great for having a bunch of reasonable sized rdp sessions(big enough for couple console sessions, a debugger, ice, etc.) up on different systems while doing development.

Re:In other news: Are 4K displays worth getting ye (4, Insightful)

Mal-2 (675116) | about a month ago | (#47836295)

Do you have eagle eyes or sit close to the screen? (Yes, and no, in my case.)
Can you see the scan lines and pixels of a normal, good-quality display from a distance greater than the diagonal size of the monitor itself? (I do.)
Have you ever set shell windows to 6 or 8 point fonts so they don't clutter up your screen(s), yet still find them legible? (Also yes for me.)
Are you looking to reduce the WALL OF DISPLAY effect without losing precious real estate? (I have three monitors totaling 6.5 MPix, and wouldn't mind at all if I could reduce that to two [I'd still want a video display for watching across the room] or just one [if the scaling works well enough to do said video]).

If you sound anything like me, then yeah, you probably want this. If you're one of the types that runs a display at something other than its native resolution ALL THE TIME, because everything is too tiny for you, then you almost certainly do NOT want this.

Re:In other news: Are 4K displays worth getting ye (1)

Maddog Batty (112434) | about a month ago | (#47836437)

All good points. I do like stuff small so it would probably be ok for me and I absolutely insist that displays are run at native resolution. It would be nice to see a 4K in operation though before I purchase. More research needed.

Re:In other news: Are 4K displays worth getting ye (1)

CrankyFool (680025) | about a month ago | (#47836553)

I got this display -- Asus PB287Q -- for work. It's been absolutely delightful.

That said, I found that at the distance I'm sitting -- about 24" from the display -- The full 4K resolution was way too high and made me have to upscale things pretty regularly. I downgraded to the second-highest resolution (~3200 instead of ~3800 on the horizontal) and it's delightfully usable, and gives me SO MUCH more real estate than the previous monitor (27" Apple Cinema Display -- the standard for my workplace).

One word of warning: On a MacBook Pro Retina, I found that powering via HDMI got me the resolution, but only 30Hz (which for programming I don't care about in the last); my MBPR was a circa-2012 model. when I upgraded to a 2014 model I found that going directly via the DP port (via a mini-DP-to-fullsize-DP cable) let me get 60Hz. Which, still, I don't care about all that much :)

Re:In other news: Are 4K displays worth getting ye (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47836629)

Depends on which platform you are developing on and what the resolution is. There are basically two setups that work great at the moment:

1) 40" 4K monitor. Works well for all platforms, huge workspace area (40"!). However the PPI is only in the same range as tradional monitors (near 96 PPI).

2) 24" 4K monitor. This gives you a "retina" monitor where the UI scale has to be exactly 200%. This setup gives you absolutely stunning fonts and desktop image (if you pick a 4K one). Unfortunately only OS X has propper support for this. If you try to use the monitor with Windows 7, virtually all applications seem to roll a dice when it comes to font sizes. This includes Microsoft's own flagship products like Office 365. Quite pathetic actually given they all declare thenselves DPI-aware to the OS. The problems go as deep as the DWM window decorations - doesn't anyone at Microsoft have a 4K monitor? :)

Besides this both OS X and Windows 7 seem to have trouble with DisplayPort. On my Windows machine (DP 1.2) the OS makes that "you just plugged in a device" sound every time I turn my monitor on or off, and on my old Mac Mini (DP 1.1) OS X occationally moves all the windows because it thinks for a split second the resolution is lower than what it really is.

Re:In other news: Are 4K displays worth getting ye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47836745)

Windows 8, for all its flaws, does a pretty good job of dealing with the "small icon/text" issue. What OS would you be using?

Higher Resolutions in Bigger Screens (1)

asylumx (881307) | about a month ago | (#47836075)

This may not be practical, but I'm still glad to see companies driving bigger displays with higher resolutions. It wasn't that long ago that our cell phones had better resolutions than our 55" TVs. I can't wait to see where technology takes us next!

Re:Higher Resolutions in Bigger Screens (1)

Mal-2 (675116) | about a month ago | (#47836321)

This may not be practical, but I'm still glad to see companies driving bigger displays with higher resolutions.

Me too. It may be more than current video cards can handle, but personally, I typically go through two video cards for every desktop computer, and two to four desktop computers for every generation of displays I buy. That means the video hardware will get there.

It will never beat my tv. (1)

wcrowe (94389) | about a month ago | (#47836239)

Mine goes to 11.

Re:It will never beat my tv. (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | about a month ago | (#47836911)

And the blacks? "None more black."

Meanwhile at HP HQ . . . (5, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about a month ago | (#47836261)

"Fuck it. Boys, we're going to 6K!"

Fuck Everything, We're Doing 5K (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47836267)

Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of displays in this country. The Dell 4K was the display to own. Then the other guy came out with a 4K display. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the Dell 4K Turbo. That's a 4K display and an Ethernet port. For connectivity. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened—the bastards went to WiFi. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling 4K displays and Ethernet. Connectivity or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to 5K.

With apologies to The Onion

when asked about their 5k display... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47836361)

They responded "Well, you know those 4k displays? Well, this display goes up one more!"

Obligatory: Five Blades (4, Funny)

rsborg (111459) | about a month ago | (#47836385)

http://www.theonion.com/articl... [theonion.com]

"What part of this don't you understand? If two blades is good, and three blades is better, obviously five blades would make us the best fucking razor that ever existed. Comprende? We didn't claw our way to the top of the razor game by clinging to the two-blade industry standard. We got here by taking chances. Well, five blades is the biggest chance of all."

What is the point? (0)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a month ago | (#47836471)

A "retina display" might be nice on a laptop or anywhere where need such resolutions (medical applications perhaps?)

I rather get a 60" display, or two even, with that resolution, than a 27" one ... sorry, as a software developer that makes no sense at all.

E.g. if I'm a dispatcher for a set of power plants I loved to have big screens with lots of information. Or as an air traffic controller or weather researcher/service.

Mediocre screen sizes with high resolution are pointless ... you can only make the fonts and icons "so small".

Sure, before you start nitpicking: everything that is purely based on image resolution, everything with image manipulation benefits, but the human limit is reached soon.

"Pricey" (1, Informative)

timothy (36799) | about a month ago | (#47836473)

Yes, it's pricey -- $2500 gets a workable used car off the local Craigslist. However, it's crazy cheap, if you use the time machine in your brain to think about what the equivalent display would have cost (if it existed) one, five, or 20 years ago ...

In fact, $2500 is just about what Silicon Graphics' 1600SW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGI_1600SW) cost when it came out. And that was in 1998 dollars :) (According to this online calculator http://www.usinflationcalculat... [usinflatio...ulator.com] , flawed as it is to compare tech items over time by clumsy measures of inflation, that would make it more than $3600 worth of monitor, then.) That is, $3654 *now* has about the purchasing power that $2500 did *then* ...

It is a good example of how that kind of "value of dollar" calculation is a poor measure for technology under rapid developement, though: the backwards calculation is nothing like equivalent. That is, a 17" LCD panel (ignoring things like that today you'd probably want HDMI or other modern input) with 1600x1200 resolution would *not* cost the "dollar equivalent of $2500," which works out to be about $1710 1998 dollars. More like ... what, $100-150? Seems fair; random Amazon hit does even better: http://www.amazon.com/Asus-VE2... [amazon.com]

  Not to say that "anything in the now is cheap if the equivalent would have cost more at some point in the past when you were facing a different set of constraints" ... things are complicated. But calling this pricey is only true in relation to *other* things that have meanwhile hugely improved. For instance, it might not seem worth the price of 5 of these: http://www.amazon.com/PB278Q-2... [amazon.com] ... unless 5K makes sense because it helps you resolve details on an X-ray or some other special purpose.

At last ... (1)

Misagon (1135) | about a month ago | (#47837059)

... a display that actually has the number of kilopixels in width that is advertised.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?