or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Dell, Lenovo, Asus debut more affordable 4K monitors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dell, Lenovo, Asus debut more affordable 4K monitors

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
This year's Consumer Electronics Show has been a boon for buyers awaiting an affordably-priced entry into the world of ultra-high definition monitors, with several manufacturers unveiling sub-$1,000 4K displays.

Pro Parts
Apple's new Mac Pro can drive up to 3 4K monitors


The price drops come as the market for 4K desktop displays begins to gain steam -- Apple's Haswell-based MacBook Pros support 4K output over Thunderbolt, and the company's all-new Mac Pro can drive up to 3 of the ultra-high resolution monitors. For readers looking to make the leap, AppleInsider has rounded up this week's more affordable announcements.

Dell 2815Q

Dell 2815Q


Dell's newest 28-inch display is actually the company's third entry into the 4K arena, but its previous efforts --?a $1,299 24 inch model and $3,322 32-inch variant --?bore premium price tags. The 2815Q, according to a report from Forbes, will cost consumers just $699.

The new 28-inch model sports a 3840 x 2160 pixel anti-glare TN panel, in contrast to the IGZO parts found on its more expensive siblings. Connectivity includes DisplayPort in and out, HDMI, and a built-in USB hub. Availability is still unknown.

Lenovo ThinkVision Pro2840m

Lenovo ThinkVision Pro2840m


Lenovo's ThinkVision Pro2840m is another 28-inch, 3840 x 2160 display mounted on a tilt and swivel stand. Lenovo has not specified the type of panel used on the professionally-targeted monitor, but the company does tout a 72 percent color gamut.

The Pro2840m also features touch-sensitive controls and edge-to-edge cover glass. DisplayPort, mini DisplayPort, and HDMI ports provide video connectivity, while a USB hub and dual built-in speakers round out the $799 device. Lenovo expects to begin shipping the Pro2840m in April.

Asus PB287Q

Asus PB287Q


Asus's PB287Q mirrors its competition with a 28-inch, 3840 x 2160 panel. The display does boast the quickest response time of any other sub-$1,000 unit released thus far at just 1ms, and sports a native 60Hz refresh rate.

Taipei, Taiwan-based Asus says the PB287Q will ship in the second quarter of 2014 for $799.
post #2 of 47

I'd like to see an Apple 32" 4k Thunderbolt 2 display. I'm sure they're working on it. Maybe even a 30 and 32" or something like that...maybe larger. I'm sure it won't be cheap coming from Apple though. You typically get what you pay for with Apple displays from my experience. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #3 of 47
1) Sure, they exist and they have the right ports but does Mavericks support these monitors? So far it seems you need to run Windows natively on a Mac to get these to work right.

2) These sub-$1000 4K monitors and HDTVs should mean quality 1080p set prices will be dropping, which is what I'm counting on as I look for a 60"+ LED-backlit ultra-slim 1080p set this year.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #4 of 47

I'm sure these displays won't be near the quality of Apple's. Maybe this is why Apple hasn't released one yet. To me, it doesn't really matter who is first, it matters who does it better. Getting it out just to say I have one doesn't cut it for me if its a POS. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #5 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

I'm sure these displays won't be near the quality of Apple's. Maybe this is why Apple hasn't released one yet. To me, it doesn't really matter who is first, it matters who does it better. Getting it out just to say I have one doesn't cut it for me if its a POS. 

These are very low cost monitors. If you're coding or writing they may be great for text but I doubt any video or photo professional would consider them. Apple does sell a 4K display as an option with their Mac Pro but it's $3,600.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #6 of 47

A TN panel for this type of monitor? (which I consider at least moderately high end, based on pixel count)

 

A TN 4K monitor seems like an oxymoron.

post #7 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by formosa View Post

A TN 4K monitor seems like an oxymoron.

I would say so but some people would like to see a Retina Macbook Air even if it was just the resolution that went up. In that scenario, if the choice is TN or Retina TN then the latter is better.

In this scenario, I wouldn't say it's bad to have 4K TN panels if and only if they were price competitive with TN panels but they aren't. I would take a $799 1440p IPS display over a $799 2160p TN display any day.

I can actually see a lot of these displays being returned because the PC crowd buying these tend to try and hook them into whatever configuration they have and expect it to work. When they find their PCs not running them at 60Hz and lagging, they'll go back to the store. The Dell one is noted here as being 30Hz:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/01/07/dell-wasnt-joking-about-that-28-inch-sub-1000-4k-monitor-its-only-699/

"I now have confirmation of the P2815Q’s full specs, and have listed them below. Unfortunately, it tops out at 30Hz 3840 x 2160 and 60Hz for 1920 x 1080. This should prove a deal breaker for gamers, but the monitor still has a solid feature set for the asking price."

That's a deal-breaker for anyone IMO because the mouse and other UI elements will lag all the time. Gamers who like 60FPS will be disappointed and are the only real audience for a high-res TN panel.
post #8 of 47
These "technically" aren't 4K monitors.

"4K" is a video standard used by the movie industry that measures 4096 x 2160 (1.9:1 aspect ratio) and represents a standardized specification, including compression algorithm, bitrate, etc. These are "Ultra High Definition" monitors (UHD) that represent a display resolution of 3840 x 2160 (1.78:1 aspect ratio).

The monitor industry needs to stop referring to these as 4K monitors when they don't meet the 4K video specification.
post #9 of 47
Originally Posted by David Byers View Post
The monitor industry needs to stop referring to these as 4K monitors when they don't meet the 4K video specification.

 

They also need to stop referring to them as 4K monitors when they’re 2K monitors. You can’t arbitrarily change what dimension you use to name it without people noticing.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #10 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


These are very low cost monitors. If you're coding or writing they may be great for text but I doubt any video or photo professional would consider them. Apple does sell a 4K display as an option with their Mac Pro but it's $3,600.

I do both of the first two and used to do the third many years ago:D (hopefully more coding and less video in the future). I'll wait for NEC to come out with a spectraview version, then wait for it to come down in price. Past experience suggests they're a little slow with bug fixes, then really solid once those fixes are in place, and a year in they are typically in line with Apple's pricing. Eizo is even better, but they're extremely expensive. The Sharp is a 32". I prefer something closer to 24". Otherwise graphics tablets tend to be too jumpy.

post #11 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

They also need to stop referring to them as 4K monitors when they’re 2K monitors. You can’t arbitrarily change what dimension you use to name it without people noticing.

We've gone over this before. You're conflating different marketing terms. They aren't calling these 4000p or 3840p monitors, they are calling them 4K. That's very different.

And they can change which axis to market, and frankly I like using the longer axis anyway.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #12 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

The Sharp is a 32". I prefer something closer to 24". Otherwise graphics tablets tend to be too jumpy.

I don't necessarily want something as tall as the 32" but I want something wider. I really hope we see a move to a wider aspect ratio for these larger desktop monitors and HDTVs. Our eyes are designed for it.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #13 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Byers View Post

These "technically" aren't 4K monitors.

"4K" is a video standard used by the movie industry that measures 4096 x 2160 (1.9:1 aspect ratio) and represents a standardized specification, including compression algorithm, bitrate, etc. These are "Ultra High Definition" monitors (UHD) that represent a display resolution of 3840 x 2160 (1.78:1 aspect ratio).

The monitor industry needs to stop referring to these as 4K monitors when they don't meet the 4K video specification.

 

If we're being pedantic about it, "real" 4K is 4096 x 2560. 4096 x 2160 is DCI standard theater 4K, but consumer/television 4K - aka 4x 1080p, or 3840 x 2160 - is the only thing that will ever actually find its way onto someone's desk in mass quantities.


Edited by BobJohnson - 1/8/14 at 3:59pm
post #14 of 47
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
they are calling them 4K.

 

So basically this is the iPhone 5, huh? It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the device/technology in question, but it’s explicitly named in a way that misleads people into thinking so.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #15 of 47
That $699 Dell is what you can characters as one big POS. the Ultra 24" for $1299 is the only 4k to look at under $2500 worth wasting money on.
post #16 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobJohnson View Post
 

 

If we're being pedantic about it, "real" 4K is 4096 x 2560. 4096 x 2160 is DCI standard theater 4K, but consumer/television 4K - aka 4x 1080p, or 3840 x 2160 - is the only thing that will ever actually find its way onto someone's desk in mass quantities.

 

Not necessarily true.  The "real" 4K you're referring to is a screen resolution, not a broadcast standard.  The DCI 4K is officially standardized with not only screen resolution, but image compression, bit rate, and more.  But technically, 3840 x 2160 shouldn't be called "4K" at all.  Of course, nobody uses the "real" name for 1080p either, which is "Full HD".

 

My point is:

3840 x 2160 should be referred to as UHD.

4096 x 2160 should be referred to as DCI 4K.

4096 x 2560 should be referred to as 4K.

7680 x 4320 should be referred to as QUHD.

 

Check out this article... it explains it better than I do.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/174221-no-tv-makers-4k-and-uhd-are-not-the-same-thing

post #17 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

I'd like to see an Apple 32" 4k Thunderbolt 2 display. I'm sure they're working on it. Maybe even a 30 and 32" or something like that...maybe larger. I'm sure it won't be cheap coming from Apple though. You typically get what you pay for with Apple displays from my experience. 

You are certainly NOT getting what you paid for if you get Apple current monitor. Instead of ripping off people Apple should either upgrade it or stop selling it.
post #18 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So basically this is the iPhone 5, huh? It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the device/technology in question, but it’s explicitly named in a way that misleads people into thinking so.

When it comes to marketing it can be anything they want, even if it sounds somewhat technical. The iPhone 5 being the 6th generation iPhone and the first with 4th gen cellular technology works but I think T-Mobile and then AT&T calling HSPA+ '4G' is a more apt. Unless they called it 3GPP 4G it's perfectly fine from a legal standpoint as annoying as it is (but with cellular the problem started long before T-Mobile).

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #19 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I don't necessarily want something as tall as the 32" but I want something wider. I really hope we see a move to a wider aspect ratio for these larger desktop monitors and HDTVs. Our eyes are designed for it.

 

 

Wider than 16:9? There are things I like about wide formats if the GUI works well with them. Having extra width makes it easier to use one display rather than primary and secondary ones. I often use a secondary one for notes or reference, but it does mean having to glance over at it. It's possible that the other way would promote distraction, but I haven't yet tried it. The other thing is that I would like to see touch screens of very high quality in larger form factors, but that may only appeal to a small subset of possible customers. What I really want is something like this by a company not known to use cheap soldering and poor cable designs. In 4K it would be even better. I don't expect such a thing to surface anytime soon, especially with the number of patents owned by Wacom.

post #20 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


Wider than 16:9? There are things I like about wide formats if the GUI works well with them. Having extra width makes it easier to use one display rather than primary and secondary ones. I often use a secondary one for notes or reference, but it does mean having to glance over at it. It's possible that the other way would promote distraction, but I haven't yet tried it. The other thing is that I would like to see touch screens of very high quality in larger form factors, but that may only appeal to a small subset of possible customers. What I really want is something like this by a company not known to use cheap soldering and poor cable designs. In 4K it would be even better. I don't expect such a thing to surface anytime soon, especially with the number of patents owned by Wacom.

Yes, because I feel one monitor is more effective than two if it's designed properly. Our eyes and muscles are designed for a wider aspect ratio than taller one as displays get larger.

For instance, the current iMac and ACD use:

27" 16:9 = 23.5w x 13.2h = 311.48 sq in


If we make the display 31.5", like we see in the quality 4K panels that are coming out we see you don't get an excessive mount of additional area but you get a lot more usable space. (note: they are 16:9 but I'm using the Cinemascope aspect ratio for this example):

31.5" 21:9 = 29.0w x 12.3h = 357.50 sq in

If we were to scale that so it's the same display height as the current 27" display it would be about a 33.5" display which i think would be absolutely brilliant for Xcode.
Edited by SolipsismX - 1/8/14 at 5:37pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #21 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Byers View Post

These "technically" aren't 4K monitors.

"4K" is a video standard used by the movie industry that measures 4096 x 2160 (1.9:1 aspect ratio) and represents a standardized specification, including compression algorithm, bitrate, etc. These are "Ultra High Definition" monitors (UHD) that represent a display resolution of 3840 x 2160 (1.78:1 aspect ratio).

The monitor industry needs to stop referring to these as 4K monitors when they don't meet the 4K video specification.

LOL. Fat. Chance. Who's going to make them?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #22 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

LOL. Fat. Chance. Who's going to make them?

I appreciate his desire for more correctness and lack of confusion but it's simply not going to happen, and if he really wants to make sure that there isn't a misunderstanding he will just have to refer to the resolution.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #23 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post


You are certainly NOT getting what you paid for if you get Apple current monitor. Instead of ripping off people Apple should either upgrade it or stop selling it.

 

Explain?

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #24 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Byers View Post

My point is:
3840 x 2160 should be referred to as UHD.
4096 x 2160 should be referred to as DCI 4K.
4096 x 2560 should be referred to as 4K.
7680 x 4320 should be referred to as QUHD.

Dear Consumers,

Memorize these numbers and acronyms. There will be a quiz at the end.

Love,
Your Consumer Electronics Industry

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I appreciate his desire for more correctness and lack of confusion but it's simply not going to happen, and if he really wants to make sure that there isn't a misunderstanding he will just have to refer to the resolution.

"Lack of confusion"? More acronyms = more confusion.

From a consumer perspective (and we are talking about consumers because this is CES not CinemaCon), the only resolution they will directly make a choice about is 3840 x 2160. So why not let them call it "4K"? Isn't it close enough?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #25 of 47

So if 1080p is “True HD”, that implies 720p is “fake HD”. I personally buy that, but that’s beside the bigger point.

 

What’s “4K”? “Truer HD”? “Truest HD”?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #26 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

From a consumer perspective (and we are talking about consumers because this is CES not CinemaCon), the only resolution they will directly make a choice about is 3840 x 2160. So why not let them call it "4K"? Isn't it close enough?

It works for me if you just say 4K instead of the more proper 4K UHD to mean 3840x2160 but if he thinks you mean 4096x2304 there could be issues, which is why communication is important.


PS: I'm not sure where he's getting 4096x2560 from. I know of 4K being defined as 4096 x 2160 which is 16:9 but his is 16:10 aspect ratio. The only 4K 16:10 I see is 4K WHXGA at 5120x3200.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #27 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So if 1080p is “True HD”, that implies 720p is “fake HD”. I personally buy that, but that’s beside the bigger point.

What’s “4K”? “Truer HD”? “Truest HD”?

That's why Ultra is prefixed to HD. So what will 8K be?

Again, I really hate all these marketing terms that seemingly were made up by the geeks inventing the technology a decade before they were even feasible to be used in shipping tech. They will all be outdated and yet in 20 years 1920x1080 TVs will be pretty bad yet they'll still could be known as "True High Definition" displays.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #28 of 47
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
That's why Ultra is prefixed to HD. So what will 8K be?

 

Do you swear to tell the ultra, the whole ultra, and nothing but the ultra? :p

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

You are certainly NOT getting what you paid for if you get Apple current monitor. Instead of ripping off people Apple should either upgrade it or stop selling it.

If what they're selling is priced too high, then people will stop buying. You and I both know that the "upgrade" schedule depends on IGZO production. Sharp is getting the first shot at selling to the early adopters, at a high price to help Sharp out. When there's enough to supply Apple, we'll start seeing 4K IGZO monitors from Apple.
post #30 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



If we were to scale that so it's the same display height as the current 27" display it would be about a 33.5" display which i think would be absolutely brilliant for Xcode.

 

Whether I would buy one would depend on many things including how good of a year, but I do like that concept. The 27" is still a little tall for me. I've worked with a reasonable variety of displays, and the 24" 16:10 height is one of my favorites. It's comparable to my old 21" 1600x1200, but wider. When it gets too tall, I find it has a subtle impact on my ability to efficiently navigate as quickly as possible. It's not that likely that it would affect me if Apple made one. I would probably wait for NEC to come out with one. Typically if you wait about a year after release, they drop prices to roughly Apple's price points. If an immensely wide 24" came out this year, I would probably replace my CG243W next year, assuming work picks up:grumble:.

post #31 of 47

It's amazing how quickly the prices have come down.

post #32 of 47
That is competition for you in the computer field.
post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
PS: I'm not sure where he's getting 4096x2560 from. I know of 4K being defined as 4096 x 2160 which is 16:9 but his is 16:10 aspect ratio. The only 4K 16:10 I see is 4K WHXGA at 5120x3200.

 

4096 x 2560 was invented by the film industry because they prefer 16:10, but the entire point is moot because it's never going to be seen by anyone unless you're watching the unadulterated feed from a full-frame 4K camera. See, for instance, this $40,000 Canon production monitor. 

 

DCI cropped it to 16:9 for the sake of everyone's sanity. 

post #34 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Byers View Post

These "technically" aren't 4K monitors.

"4K" is a video standard used by the movie industry that measures 4096 x 2160 (1.9:1 aspect ratio) and represents a standardized specification, including compression algorithm, bitrate, etc. These are "Ultra High Definition" monitors (UHD) that represent a display resolution of 3840 x 2160 (1.78:1 aspect ratio).

The monitor industry needs to stop referring to these as 4K monitors when they don't meet the 4K video specification.

That's true except that in the movie industry, the full 4096 x 2160 that the projectors are capable of isn't generally actually used.  In 4K projectors, 1.85:1 movies are projected at 3996x2160 and widescreen movies are projected at 4096x1716.   There is an option in the Sony 4K projector to blow up the 1716 to 2160 in the projector and then use a 1.25x anamorphic lens in projection, but almost no theatre does that because they don't want to change lenses and the Sony anamorphic lens is extremely expensive.

 

The difference between the total number of pixels (including the ones that aren't used) in a "4K" monitor and in a UHD monitor is only 6.25%.   That's not really that big a deal.   Personally, I'm surprised the monitor industry doesn't market these as 8MP monitors instead of 4K monitors, but maybe it's because people will think, "My tiny camera is 24MP.  Why does my giant monitor only have 8MP?"  

post #35 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobJohnson View Post

See, for instance, this $40,000 Canon production monitor. 

DCI cropped it to 16:9 for the sake of everyone's sanity. 

Just when I'm ready to plunk down 40k (aka $40,000) for a replacement of my 30" ACD it turns out this Canon baby is 10-bit, which OSX doesn't support. Bummer¡

Thanks for the info and link BobJohnson

post #36 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


Just when I'm ready to plunk down 40k (aka $40,000) for a replacement of my 30" ACD it turns out this Canon baby is 10-bit, which OSX doesn't support. Bummer¡


 

When you get into the real specialty markets such as broadcast displays, costs go up considerably. 10 bit isn't that new. I've owned one that supported 10-bit since 2010. You need both an OS and a gpu with the appropriate driver features unlocked. For example AMD locks such features on Radeon cards, even with comparable chips. If you want them, you pay the firepro price, although you can get a workable card for that down to the $200-300 range. Newest ones might support 4K. I would have to check.

post #37 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Just when I'm ready to plunk down 40k (aka $40,000) for a replacement of my 30" ACD it turns out this Canon baby is 10-bit, which OSX doesn't support. Bummer¡



 
When you get into the real specialty markets such as broadcast displays, costs go up considerably. 10 bit isn't that new. I've owned one that supported 10-bit since 2010. You need both an OS and a gpu with the appropriate driver features unlocked. For example AMD locks such features on Radeon cards, even with comparable chips. If you want them, you pay the firepro price, although you can get a workable card for that down to the $200-300 range. Newest ones might support 4K. I would have to check.

Didn't expect a response to my lame post, so big thanks.

Interesting. I do know that 10-bit cards and screens are available as I have been looking at them because of my photography hobby. In all honesty I stopped looking further when I found out OSX doesn't support it. There might be a workaround; I haven't dug any further due to the high costs involved.

I did see that Windows supports 10-bit. Would you know if Linux does as well? Just curious.
post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Our eyes and muscles are designed for a wider aspect ratio than taller one as displays get larger.

 

Ugh. That's twice in this thread you've used the "Intelligent Design" phrasing.  If indeed human eyes operate better with a particular aspect ratio, then it's because they evolved to do so.  But nothing about them was "designed".

post #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post

Ugh. That's twice in this thread you've used the "Intelligent Design" phrasing.  If indeed human eyes operate better with a particular aspect ratio, then it's because they evolved to do so.  But nothing about them was "designed".

I never once used any phrasing of "Intelligent Design."

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Our eyes and muscles are designed for a wider aspect ratio than taller one as displays get larger.

Through photography I came to learn if you use a camera with 35mm film (or CCD/CMOS) aspect ratio 3:2, and a 50mm lens will give you the most natural vision. Supposedly 45mm lens, to be more accurate.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Dell, Lenovo, Asus debut more affordable 4K monitors