Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699
1–10 of 238 posts
Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699
#2Can't wait to see their pricing in Australia. If it's under $1k, I'd like a handful!
Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699
#3Any idea how new of a macbook you would need to power this? I'm guessing my 2012 13" air can't run it right?
Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699
#4Any idea how new of a macbook you would need to power this? I'm guessing my 2012 13" air can't run it right?
[deleted]
Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699
#5Any idea how new of a macbook you would need to power this? I'm guessing my 2012 13" air can't run it right?
Looking at another 4K monitor in the Apple Store (http://store.apple.com/us/product/HD971LL/A/sharp-32-pn-k321...), doesn't look like it:
"Note that 4K DisplayPort operation is only compatible with the new Mac Pro (Late 2013). 4K HDMI operation is compatible with MacBook Pro (Late 2013) and the new Mac Pro (Late 2013). HDMI input is not available in the European-market Sharp PN-K321."
Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699
#6Note: according to the article the monitor is actually UHDTV (3840x2160), not 4K (4096x2160). Content encoded at 4K will need to be either cropped or scaled down, similar to 1080p content shown on a 1240x1024 monitor.
Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699
#7Any idea how new of a macbook you would need to power this? I'm guessing my 2012 13" air can't run it right?
Even a brand-new Macbook would be unable to power this display. All currently sold Macbooks can only power displays up to 2560 by 1600; the Macbook Air can power one external display at this resolution, and the Macbook Pro can power two. (Edit: The iMac can also only power one additional display at the same resolution.)
If you want to use a Mac with a 4K display, consider getting a Mac Pro, which can power up to three of them.
Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699
#8Note: according to the article the monitor is actually UHDTV (3840x2160), not 4K (4096x2160). Content encoded at 4K will need to be either cropped or scaled down, similar to 1080p content shown on a 1240x1024 monitor.
While I agree the term is being used wrong and UHD would be better, I don't think enough people would be confused as the term 4k is being used almost exclusively for UHD at the minute.
So I think your comment would be better phrased as a complaint against misuse of the term rather than as a note of explanation is what I'm trying to say.
Apologies if there are a large number of people who would be confused and this is a useful note though.
Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699
#9Note: according to the article the monitor is actually UHDTV (3840x2160), not 4K (4096x2160). Content encoded at 4K will need to be either cropped or scaled down, similar to 1080p content shown on a 1240x1024 monitor.
The marketing droids won, you'll just have to get over it. Even the $3,600 Sharp monitor Apple sells that's labeled "4K" has the same resolution:
With its 32-inch class (31.5-inch diagonal) screen size, 3840 by 2160 Ultra-HD resolution...
You and I can be bitter about it all we want, but there's no point.
Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699
#10Note: according to the article the monitor is actually UHDTV (3840x2160), not 4K (4096x2160). Content encoded at 4K will need to be either cropped or scaled down, similar to 1080p content shown on a 1240x1024 monitor.
Damn. At least it's 1920 times 2.