Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

dell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 212 posts

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#131

Post by dragonwriter »

topbanana wrote: post #127
bhauer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very well. I'm only describing the people I know first-hand whom have said they are perfectly happy with small monitors. They are the same people who previously told me that TN LCDs were perfectly fine, and were content with convex CRTs before that. They didn't understand why I would complain about the low density iPad 2 LCD and didn't appreciate the appeal of high-DPI until they had a iPad 3 (or similar) in their ha…

I'm not a fan of alt-tabbing either. I use 4 20" displays currently because I like the convenience of maximizing something on one display. Don't you miss that with one big desktop?

> I'm not a fan of alt-tabbing either. I use 4 20" displays currently because I like the convenience of maximizing something on one display. Don't you miss that with one big desktop?

There's no fundamental reason you would have to -- if you have a window manager that extends the "drag to the side to half-maximize" behavior that Windows 7 has to, say, include dragging to the corner to "quarter-maximize" (ideally, with four appropriate keyboard shortcuts, one per corner, so you could do it without dragging, as well.)

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#132

Post by encoderer »

sliverstorm wrote: post #78
encoderer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even so, The difference between the high-end and entry-level models is the former are "Dell UltraSharp XX Ultra HD Monitor" and "Dell XX Ultra HD Monitor". It doesn't have to be this way.

What way should it be? Dell: Manufacturer (UltraSharp): The high-end moniker XX: Size Ultra HD: The name for that resolution Monitor: What it is Maybe it's because I'm an engineer and not a normal person, but the naming scheme seems quite reasonable. Way better than the utterly indecipherable "Dell 324y5943X" crap you get with some other manufacturers. The resolution name, "Ultra HD", is stupid, but that wasn't Dell'…

UltraSharp UltraHD is awful. You're right, they have to use UltraHD. But "UltraSharp"? That's what I was getting at.

Also, how about just a simplified product line like, I don't know:

Dell UltraHD 24" Dell UltraHD 32"

Along the lines of Cinema Display.

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#133

Post by selmnoo »

potatolicious wrote: post #125
tcpekin wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Hobbit [1] is the only movie I can think of that is shot at a higher frame rate, it being shot at 48 fps. [1] http://www.fastcocreate.com/1682085/will-the-hobbit-start-a-...

Very cool. I don't think it'll be distributable at 48fps though, at least not via blu-ray, which seems capped at 30fps by spec.

Current direction of cinema trends raises lots of interesting technological questions.

I'm especially intrigued by those concerning media discs. The next FIFA World Cup is set to broadcast in 8K, so I think one can reasonably predict there'll be movies recorded in 8K by 2018. Now, imagine, something the length of the LoTR trilogy, in 60fps, 3D, and 8K. You're looking at a lot of data right there... that's asking for discs to contain half a petabyte worth of data by around that time. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#134

Post by usefulcat »

crassus wrote: post #116
majormajor wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Displaying 24fps content on a 60fps screen repeats frames. If you repeat half the frames of the 25fps stream twice, and alternating half of the frames three times, then you get 60 frames per second, with a stream looking like: AABBBCCDDDEEFFF... This isn't perfect, since really each frame should be on the screen for exactly the same amount of time, which is why 120hz TVs came about -- 120 is evenly divisible by each…

Is this also the source of the ultra-real "soap opera" effect that ruins movies on new televisions?

That effect can often be turned off. I know it can on my 2008-era samsung tv.

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#135

Post by wmf »

bhauer wrote: post #121
robomartin wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that the guts in all of these monitors are either Korean or Chinese, right? All display manufacturers feed off of just a handful --quite literally a handful-- of OEM panel manufacturers. There is no real special sauce except in cases where an OEM, like Apple, pays for a run on a certain spec panel in exchange for exclusivity for a period of time and a guaranteed purchase of an agreed-upon volume of pan…

Fine, replace "manufacturer" in my original message with "brand." 1080 displays are commoditized, and have been for some time now. 2560x1600 displays were not commoditized for 8 years. The process has very recently started. The incumbent brands did not want Ultra HD commoditized so quickly, as evidenced by the $4,000+ prices. Seiki dropped a small bomb on them with the $700 (now $500) 4K televisions. With luck, Ultra…

Of course, without those $4,000 TVs it's likely that Seiki would have no cheap reject panels to sell.

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#136

Post by danbee »

rodgerd wrote: post #128
eigenvector wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh. This is why true DPI independence in the OS is so important. There should be no such thing as a "wrong" pixel density.

Indeed. Acorn's RiscOS had resolution independence in the 80s with scalable fonts and icons being shipped as vector graphics; it's a pity everyone else is 30 years behind.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. RiscOS certainly had scalable vector fonts (anti-aliased too!), but the icons and interface elements were all bitmaps and the OS was not resolution independent.

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#137

Post by zokier »

quaint- wrote: post #55
alexgaribay wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's much cheaper to produce smaller displays than larger ones. There's a higher chance for defects as display size goes up.

It should be offset to an extent by the larger cell (or pixel) size. The only reason it's "not", is that manufacturers have invested huge sums of money on production lines incapable of producing larger products while at the same time complaining that their ancient subpar desktop offerings don't sell well.

Are you really knowledgeable about the internals of LCD manufacturing processes to make such sweeping claims, or are you just asserting your general corporations are evil narrative?

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#138

Post by Macha »

seiji wrote: post #13
pyrocat wrote: post #4

Can anyone explain why monitor and TV prices are so vastly different for the same size? Could you not substitute a small flat screen in place of a monitor and save a few hundred?

Because http://xkcd.com/732/

For a 2013 update, that is the resolution of his cell phone.

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#139

Post by shurcooL »

mortenjorck wrote: post #38
publicfig wrote: post #5

I'm a bit curious why both the 24" and the 32" are priced over 1k, yet they are able to get the 28" down below that mark. That's not to say that I'm not incredibly excited to see how this ends up! I've been looking for a sub-1.5k 28" monitor with high resolution for a while, and though I love my Apple Thunderbolt Display I use at work, I am hesitant that if I buy one for myself, I'll be buying right before a refresh.…

Unfortunately, the 28” is going to have the wrong pixel density to use with OS X in Retina mode. Non-Retina MacBooks start at 110 PPI. Cinema Displays have hovered around 100 PPI for about a decade, with the 27” Thunderbolt Display topping out at 109 PPI (same for its sister 27” iMac). At 28", a 3840 x 2160 panel has a PPI of 157, which, dividing by two to get the equivalent non-Retina PPI, comes to only 78.5, a redu…

> At 28", a 3840 x 2160

Will look exactly like 1080p in "Retina mode" (more accurately, HiDPI). A 28" 1080p monitor isn't that far-fetched.

You're talking about DPI but not how close one sits to a monitor. People sit a lot closer to 13" MacBooks than to 28" 1080p monitors.

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#140

Post by GalacticDomin8r »

quaint- wrote: post #102
veritas20 wrote: post #67

Your eyes can't tell the difference b/t 1080p and 4k on a 28" screen

When you say "your", you mean "my", don't you? Also, you seem confused by these TV-related terms and only think of videos and games here; you'd have to be half-way blind not to see the difference between 75 and 150 PPI density with typical font sizes (computer fonts are usually a tad bigger than what's necessary just because of the lousy displays we have).

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57566079-221/why-ultra-...

Comment sections like this are why HN is called an echo chamber.

Post reply on HN