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

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

#141

Post by namlem » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 4:07 PM UTC

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…

No way. Reading text on a desktop display sucks donkey balls compared to my GS4. You can't get nice crisp fonts on PCs like you can on phones these days and it's horrible. I've been saving articles from my desktop to rad on my phone ever since I got one with a hi res display. Now I won't have to.

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

#142

Post by namlem » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 4:07 PM UTC

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…

No way. Reading text on a desktop display sucks donkey balls compared to my GS4. You can't get nice crisp fonts on PCs like you can on phones these days and it's horrible. I've been saving articles from my desktop to rad on my phone ever since I got one with a hi res display. Now I won't have to.

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

#143

Post by namlem » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 4:07 PM UTC

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…

No way. Reading text on a desktop display sucks donkey balls compared to my GS4. You can't get nice crisp fonts on PCs like you can on phones these days and it's horrible. I've been saving articles from my desktop to rad on my phone ever since I got one with a hi res display. Now I won't have to.

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

#144

Post by talmand » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 4:11 PM UTC

AJ007 wrote: post #139

talmand wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For every designer out there that really cares about typography in their designs that has high end monitors that are expertly calibrated, most of your audience probably doesn't. Also check your work on a normal monitor.

If your audience is on a smartphone or tablet released within the past two years, they probably are.

Well, if your entire audience happens to be on smartphones and/or tablets in the two past years and have excellent eyesight, then sure. But those people still probably have crappy panels on their desktop and/or laptops.

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

#145

Post by barrkel » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 4:14 PM UTC

timr wrote: post #87

knightni wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A human eye with 20/20 vision can distinguish ~150ppi at 2 feet (a typical screen-to-eyeball distance). Beyond that, it's overkill. The apple thunderbolt display is at 109ppi, so there's a bit of room for improvement, but not 60% improvement. Beyond this limit, I suppose there are people with 20/1 vision or something, but they're pretty rare.

I have my monitors mounted on arms, so they can be anywhere from 1.5 meters away with me leaning back, to almost right in my face. The ability to physically "zoom" the whole monitor adds another dimension to use, and it's one where you really appreciate higher pixel density.

Aliasing is another big deal. Jaggies are very visible until you get into quite high pixel densities.

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

#146

Post by btian » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 4:34 PM UTC

bhauer wrote: post #126

Excellent. Again, a big thank you to Seiki for dropping a bomb on the display industry, whether or not Dell acknowledges it. 3840x2160 at 28 inches is quite fantastic. A step closer to 10,000+ horizontal pixels in a single ~50 inch display, which I consider an ideal for desktop computing. The burning question for me right now is who will sell me a GPU with three DisplayPorts to drive three of these? The top-end nVidi…

Mac Pro supports three 4k monitors.

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

#147

Post by Geee » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 4:36 PM UTC

300bps wrote: post #108

steveridout wrote: post #95

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?

More pixels = sharper image. Try putting a printed high-DPI magazine next to your monitor and compare text and images.

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

#148

Post by curiousAl » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 4:40 PM UTC

chx wrote: post #52

curiousAl wrote: post #24

I assume that it being an Ultrasharp means it will be an IPS. If so, pretty sweet. And it might help drive down prices for the Korean 27s (1440p) monitors on eBay, which are much easier on the eyes (especially with text) than other panels.

It's not Ultrasharp, where did you see that?

You're correct. I mixed up the first sentence with the next.

But it seems to be an IPS, of some sort:

"The P2815Q packs an IPS LED display will have a full 3840 x 2160 4K resolution. It launches globally on January 23. Dell hasn’t yet discussed things like refresh rate or range of inputs (I’m sure DisplayPort is a given), but they do promise the same “screen performance” as the new UltraSharp 32 and UltraSharp 24 Ultra HD monitors. That’s certainly encouraging since their UltraSharp line is normally a cut above when it comes to professional displays."

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

#149

Post by mortenjorck » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 4:42 PM UTC

Something to keep in mind is that this is effectively a Windows monitor, not a Mac one.

The reason for this is PPI: Most Apple displays are in the 100-110 PPI range, with Retina Display Macs doubling that to 220 PPI.

At 28", a 3840 x 2160 panel has a PPI of 157, which sits right between Retina and non-Retina densities. This means that on a Mac, you’ll have to use it one of two ways: Either at 1x, where the higher PPI means everything will be much smaller than it is on a normal monitor, or at 2x, where the lower PPI means everything will be much bigger than normal.

Windows doesn’t have anything nearly as neat and simple as OS X’s 2x mode, but it’s had a rougher 150 PPI mode for years, which will probably look just about right on this screen.

The best 4K monitor for Macs will be a 24”, which will have a PPI of 184, just about right for something sitting a bit further back from the viewer than a 220 PPI Retina Macbook Pro display.

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

#150

Post by dmm » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 4:43 PM UTC

bhauer wrote: post #137

dmm wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who will sell me a GPU with three DisplayPorts to drive three of these? Visiontek makes a couple of eyefinity cards with 6 mini-dps. I didn't see the measurements but it doesn't look too long. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814129...

I so want to believe you're right, but I don't see anything on that page that suggests those DisplayPorts can drive 3840x2160. The footnotes imply, but do not say specifically, that 2560x1600 is the maximum resolution supported by each port. Am I wrong?

I'm not sure what resolutions it supports. Looking at it again it seems like a 2560x1600 max is a safe assumption. Looks like you're stuck with full-length, double width cards for now: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814129...