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

The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

m.thewirecutter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 89 posts

Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

#11

Post by mturmon »

geekam wrote: post #2

I'd like to know if anyone is using a 4K monitor and their experience with it. I have an Apple thunderbolt display and I am ok with it. I do not have a 4K. I use it with macbook pro 15" (retina display) and even though I do not get the same resolution, it does not look flaky at all and is decent enough for reading. Moreover, it connects with the pro using thunderbolt and thus does not require multiple connections for…

Here's an old thread that somewhat addresses your question (4K monitor + rMBP) -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7022050

I tried this configuration out a few months ago (new rMBP, Sharp 4K, OS 10.9.1) at an Apple store and it was not satisfactory; there were color fringes around some fonts. But this may have changed.

Of course, 4K + Mac Pro is a supported configuration, and in my experience, it looks great.

Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

#13

Post by mantraxB »

astrodust wrote: post #9
mantraxB wrote: post #7

"30 fps flicker" - that's not a CRT, it doesn't flicker , because unlike CRTs, a flat display doesn't have a ray refreshing the display top to bottom. And 30 fps on a CRT wouldn't be enough to produce stable image in the retina at all, which is why CRT TVs used to refresh at a minimum of 50Hz, and that still flickers (it stops "flickering" at around 75Hz). With flat displays frame rate is about display responsiveness…

Persistence of vision depends on the ambient brightness. Movies are 24FPS but they're shown in a dark room so the jitter isn't as bad. A 30FPS screen in similar conditions wouldn't be as bad, but most people use computer screens in well it rooms. The flickering on an LCD is different, but presents itself as a serious sputtering when you're moving things around.

Well ambient brightness matters, but actually analog cinema projectors use a frame rate of 48 fps (they "flick" every movie frame twice), so it's still way above 30fps.

Plus, with CRTs the problem is exacerbated, because they scan top to bottom, and need higher refresh rate to hide this effect.

Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

#14

Post by tlrobinson »

notwhyships wrote: post #4

I didn't have trouble rationalizing my pre-order of this LG Ultra QHD (3440x1440) for $999. It's not 4K, but it's very competitive. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JR6GCZA/ref=oh_details_o...

FYI, as of this morning it's available at a couple Frys Electronics locations (including Sunnyvale) http://www.frys.com/product/8069024

Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

#17

Post by dublinben »

eterm wrote: post #8

What bothers me about 4k is the switching of terms. 4k makes it sound like it has 4 times the vertical resolution of 1080p, but for pure marketing reasons, suddenly instead of the 4k referring to vertical resolution as 1080 did, it refers to horizontal resolution, so is really only twice the horizontal resolution of the 1920 that 1080p had. Overall that's 4 times the pixels because of squaring, but still!

We really ought to insist on using more correct terms like UHD (Ultra High Definition = 3840×2160 pixels) and only referring to "true" 4K cinema (4096 × 2160 pixels) content/equipment as 4K.

Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

#19

Post by devindotcom »

eterm wrote: post #8

What bothers me about 4k is the switching of terms. 4k makes it sound like it has 4 times the vertical resolution of 1080p, but for pure marketing reasons, suddenly instead of the 4k referring to vertical resolution as 1080 did, it refers to horizontal resolution, so is really only twice the horizontal resolution of the 1920 that 1080p had. Overall that's 4 times the pixels because of squaring, but still!

2160p just doesn't roll off the tongue! People will get used to it - they've managed to deal with the nebulous ideas of "SD" and "HD" and "Full HD," which I would guess are fairly well used if not the dominant terms.

I'm more worried that there's going to be a 4K/"full 4K" thing because of the aspect ratios!

But mainly I'm just pumped to have a 4K monitor. As soon as they're as good as the mid-range Dell Ultrasharps in terms of color and options I'll be making the switch.

Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

#20

Post by mortenjorck » 

  ...though you’d be foolish to buy a 24-inch 4K display, we can 
  only hope that Intel and Samsung’s ambitions can push down 
  prices on larger displays.
Unless you're a Mac user, in which case you'd be foolish to buy anything else.

Reposting from my comment last year:

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.

...

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.

Post reply on HN