Live data from Hacker News

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

forbes.com

111–120 of 238 posts

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

#111
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So the point of higher pixels is so you can't see the pixels and to prove this point, you tell people to turn off other (cheaper) technologies that already hide the pixels. There seems to be some faulty logic here. What is the point of the higher resolution displays if the pixels are already hidden with other technologies?

The tricks aren't perfect--antialiasing is blurry for example. A properly high DPI monitor is a thing of beauty--crisp images and text.

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

#112
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So the point of higher pixels is so you can't see the pixels and to prove this point, you tell people to turn off other (cheaper) technologies that already hide the pixels. There seems to be some faulty logic here. What is the point of the higher resolution displays if the pixels are already hidden with other technologies?

Actually in video/ photography these tricks don't work. So BIG DEAL :)

It's like mixing music with $5 ear buds.

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

#113
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

yep, thats looks about right but its not sold in europe and only has 30hz afaik, other than that its a pretty good deal.

This[1] one is 500 US dollars and is 120. I don't have access to non U.S sites here at work apparently so I can't be certain they have it over there or not.

[1]- http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra/d...

Edit: Sorry, didn't catch that it only does 30hz through HDMI on the specs, and didn't realize it until I read the limitation downstream. Dang...

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

#114
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear in mind that higher resolution display != smaller UI elements. It gives you that option of course, but for most people the benefit is that fonts, icons and images look so much crisper and more readable. You're definitely not the only one who thinks it's overkill. I've shown my retina iPad and MacBook to a few people who don't get the fuss at all. I guess this reaction could be due to a) not caring much about aes…

I've shown my retina iPad and MacBook to a few people who don't get the fuss at all...Myself, I think the screens are amazing Over a decade ago, I bought one of those Sharper Image ion air purifiers. I told all my friends how great it was - totally silent but really cleaned the air and left it with a fresh scent. About a year later I started reading scientific assessments and reviews of it. It in fact did nothing to…

The air purifiers were misleading. Better resolution is not. That said, applications/OS should be able to use the resolution. UI elements should become crisper not smaller.

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

#115
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…

Bear in mind that higher resolution display != smaller UI elements. It gives you that option of course, but for most people the benefit is that fonts, icons and images look so much crisper and more readable. You're definitely not the only one who thinks it's overkill. I've shown my retina iPad and MacBook to a few people who don't get the fuss at all. I guess this reaction could be due to a) not caring much about aes…

Completely agree, we should remember that resolution is one thing and definition another, although they are clearly related.

I think that anybody should be able to tell the difference between Retina and a non-Retina device side by side. At home I have a set-up with a Macbook Retina and an external 1080p monitor as you do, and the difference is quite noticeable when I visually switch between the two.

I agree that there is a physical limit to improving the definition of monitors, but I don't think we have quite reached it yet.

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

#116
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…

I think there's two really great things about retina screens on desktops/laptops: - Firstly, I definitely notice the difference. The higher res screen is noticeably nicer to read. Sure, you don't need to go to the crazy extremes of some newer high res phones, but standard desktop monitors are noticeably ugly by comparison. - Secondly, the res is high enough that you can finally change (apparent) resolution. My parent…

Windows 8.1 does: http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/extremewindows/archive/20...

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

#117

I have a 39in 4k monitor that I bought for $500. The only problem is that 4k monitors through HDMI can only run at 30Hz, which is extremely noticeable. There might be a way to run at 60Hz but I haven't got it to work yet. Here's the monitor: http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra/d...

Ah, I have this TV on my wishlist just for this use, I wasn't aware of the HDMI limitation. Is this an HDMI =< 1.4 issue and would it be better with HDMI 2.0?

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

#118
Such high resolution displays may sound like overkill for many people, but improved resolution is a big deal to those who care about screen typography—specifically, in layman's terms, about how fonts look on screen.

When displaying letters in small sizes, the pixel grid becomes increasingly coarse and the result often becomes ugly and less readable. To prevent this, "hinting" instructions need to be built into the fonts to help the type rendering, by fitting the horizontal and vertical strokes to the pixel grid, aligning heights, and so forth.

System fonts provided with Windows are professionally hinted, as are many professional webfonts. On the type rendering environments on Windows, hinting makes a huge difference.

The problem is, TrueType hinting—indispensable for TrueType fonts on Windows—is a complex, tedious process that only a very few specialists are able to do. I heard a few years ago that there was only one person who had the expertise to perform TrueType hinting on hangul (Korean alphabet) fonts.

The result is that many if not most fonts are either unhinted or more or less automatically hinted (which is recognizably below the quality of manually hinted fonts) as many typeface designers find the prospect of TrueType hinting daunting. Manually hinted fonts are more expensive.

If screen resolution improved so that unhinted fonts would still look good enough, that would vastly increase the choice of fonts that we can use for the screen. It would also free typeface designers of having to devote a significant chunk of font development on hinting.

These types of issues are even more important for some other writing systems. Chinese characters, for example, can be very dense with dozens of strokes packed into a single glyph, and would be illegible at a modest size on the screen if the resolution was not high enough.

Apple's approach to type rendering is less dependent on hinting, and it is not a coincidence that Apple has been leading the pack on high resolution displays as a way around the problems of rasterization.

Further reading: http://www.rastertragedy.com/

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

#119
post #42

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…

It's more to do with director taste than sensors. My camera shoots 16:9 onto a 3:2 sensor, so it could easily go up to 16:10, but 16:10 looks worse than 16:9. Some directors shoot even tighter.

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

#120

Such high resolution displays may sound like overkill for many people, but improved resolution is a big deal to those who care about screen typography—specifically, in layman's terms, about how fonts look on screen. When displaying letters in small sizes, the pixel grid becomes increasingly coarse and the result often becomes ugly and less readable. To prevent this, "hinting" instructions need to be built into the fo…

I think everybody cares about high DPG typography, they just rarely have a choice in the matter. If you ask Joe bloggs on the street to choose the more readable text that they'd prefer between a display from 2001 and 2010 they'll choose the 2010 one every time. Nobody sells a cutting edge laptop with a lower screen resolution, so it's never a choice somebody has to make, so nobody really knows it's a thing, explicitly.
Post reply on HN