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

Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 238 posts

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#91

Post by elviejo »

kayoone wrote: post #84
timr wrote: post #77

Am I the only person for whom that many pixels in a 28" display sounds like overkill? Maybe I'm just getting old, but the resolution on a cinema display is more than sufficient to make things unreasonably small. And getting closer to my desktop screen isn't really appealing either (again, maybe I'm getting old, but to see the pixels on my current screen I have to get my nose almost right up to the display, which I'm…

In theory stuff should be the same size but alot sharper. That being said, i don't really feel alot of difference when looking at my 24" monitor and on my 5inch phone which has almost the same resolution. For me a huge 40inch 4K monitor would be more useful as the DPI would be roughly the same to my setup now (2x 1920x1200) but more vertical space and no bezels.

Look at the seiki 39" inch and 4k resolution. It is precisely what you describe.

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#92

Post by jbri »

timr wrote: post #77

Am I the only person for whom that many pixels in a 28" display sounds like overkill? Maybe I'm just getting old, but the resolution on a cinema display is more than sufficient to make things unreasonably small. And getting closer to my desktop screen isn't really appealing either (again, maybe I'm getting old, but to see the pixels on my current screen I have to get my nose almost right up to the display, which I'm…

> again, maybe I'm getting old, but to see the pixels on my current screen I have to get my nose almost right up to the display, which I'm never going to do

The point of going to higher and higher resolutions is that eventually, you don't see the pixels. Pixels are an implementation detail, what you're really wanting to see is the image they represent.

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#93

Post by chaz »

Lenovo is also launching a 28" 4K monitor this April: "Along with the resolution, we have a 5ms response time, 72% color gamut, DisplayPort, mDP, HDMI and MHL connectivity, three USB 3.0 ports and dual 3W speakers. Lenovo is promoting a true 10-bit color, and streaming capabilities via other digital devices." http://www.anandtech.com/show/7635/lenovo-at-ces-2014-thinkv...

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#94

Post by josephlord »

kayoone wrote: post #86
josephlord wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How far away will they be? How good is your eyesight? How big is your desk? I would probably go for the option (2) provided your eyesight is good and the screens close enough to get some benefit from the higher density.

about an arms length..Eyesight is pretty good, not perfect though. The thing i like most about it would be more vertical space for not so frequently used stuff and no bezels.

I would go for option (2) but I think I'm less worried about the vertical height and having separate screens on different data works for me so the bezel isn't critical.

At the cost of bezels you could go for option (2) with the screens rotated to portrait.

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#95

Post by steveridout »

jbri wrote: post #92
timr wrote: post #77

Am I the only person for whom that many pixels in a 28" display sounds like overkill? Maybe I'm just getting old, but the resolution on a cinema display is more than sufficient to make things unreasonably small. And getting closer to my desktop screen isn't really appealing either (again, maybe I'm getting old, but to see the pixels on my current screen I have to get my nose almost right up to the display, which I'm…

> again, maybe I'm getting old, but to see the pixels on my current screen I have to get my nose almost right up to the display, which I'm never going to do The point of going to higher and higher resolutions is that eventually, you don't see the pixels. Pixels are an implementation detail, what you're really wanting to see is the image they represent.

Exactly.

And for anyone who struggles to see the pixels on a typical desktop monitor, that's probably because a lot of tricks are used to disguise them. Try turning off anti-aliasing or sub-pixel font rendering and then tell me you can't see the pixels.

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#96

Post by vex »

egeozcan wrote: post #88
mgraczyk wrote: post #16

I remember shopping for large format LCD panels in 2011. I equivocated for a while between a 30" HP for around $800 and a 30" Dell, and eventually ended up buying Dell's u3011 for around $1100. I also remember thinking how unreasonably high the prices were for large LCD panels and hoping that they wouldn't stay that way forever. It was a time when my monitor cost more than my computer. I think it's safe to say that t…

I'd suggest to drop the traditional speakers altogether and start using headphones. The industry standard Sennheiser HD650 or Audio Technica M50 will bring more sound quality for the buck from any loudspeaker I can think of. Of course, this is just an uneducated suggestion. Maybe you love to share your music.

I have HD 485s, but even at the loosest setting I can't wear them for more than 30 minutes because of the way they feel on the tips of my ears.

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#97

Post by seanmcdirmid »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #85
1stop wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fly into Guangzhou (or train in from Hongkong). Flying I've never had my bag even run through a scanner (8-9 times flying in) - unless they are doing it between plane and baggage collect, in which case they are really fast!. Train, you run your bags through scanners, but no one seems to care (I've bought HEAPS of electronics in from Hong Kong ($2-4k worth at different times). Beijing and Shanghai - I would say you ar…

In Beijing, they scan bags right before you get out to meet your loved ones. They appear to select people at random, and from my observation you have 5%-10% chance of being selected. I'm not sure what they're looking for, though, as I've never seen them open a bag after it went through the scanner. I was quizzed about my road bike (which was obvious as it was packed separately) but after I explained it was old, and '…

They are scanning all bags in Beijing these days, at least when coming out of T2 customs. I'm more worried about transporting it as,baggage in the first place. I'm just not a good yellow cow.

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#98

Post by forgotmycreds »

vex wrote: post #96
egeozcan wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd suggest to drop the traditional speakers altogether and start using headphones. The industry standard Sennheiser HD650 or Audio Technica M50 will bring more sound quality for the buck from any loudspeaker I can think of. Of course, this is just an uneducated suggestion. Maybe you love to share your music.

I have HD 485s, but even at the loosest setting I can't wear them for more than 30 minutes because of the way they feel on the tips of my ears.

I have tritton 720+ and they also hurt my ears after a while. It is because they put the sliding part to low, so it minimaly adjusts the width. (probably to maximise the ear/top of head proportion) Or I have sensitive parts near my ears?

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#99

Post by radiowave »

jychang wrote: post #42
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want separate resolutions for computer monitors and televisions you are going to pay a premium for both, since different supply chains are focusing on two different kinds of panel. You want the two industries working on the same thing, and that's already happening. I've been 1080p on my workstation for a long time. I can't wait for 4K TV monitors and they will be my next upgrade for my workstation once the pri…

> My comment up-thread discusses why television shifting to 16:10 is unlikely, and it mainly has to do with lenses. It's not lenses as much as sensors. Most lenses have a circular image circle, which can cover a lot of aspect ratios. (The big exception is anamorphic, but I'm not too familiar with that.) Canon's new HD video lens system, for example, can be stuck on cameras with Super 35 sensors, or standard 3:2 photo…

Anamorphics produce a circular image as well, it's just that it represents an elliptical selection of what's in front of the the lens.

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#100

Post by randallsquared »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #17
jmillikin wrote: post #6

Note: 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.

That's not correct. The resolution you are referring to is the native running resolution of 4K projectors in cinemas established by DCI. If you were being legal about it, which your comment is a little bit, "actual" 4K is 4096x2560. A "proper" 4K film shown at DCI resolution is cropped by removing lines due to the combination of aspect ratio between film and projector. The trend in film photography, however, is towar…

"The last lens I shot on in news was $20,000 by itself, which is part of the reason the average photog will get really mad at you if you grab it, as people who don't want to be videotaped are wont to do."

Grabbing the lens is effective at dissuasion? Good to know.

Post reply on HN