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

41–50 of 89 posts

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

#41

Post by fuzzythinker »

mortenjorck wrote: post #20

...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…

What I'm still waiting for is a 1x (~110-120 ppi) 3k (2880 to 3k horizontal pixels) monitor so I can do true dual windowing. I'm currently using a 2560x1440, and horizontal space is a little tight. I don't want to use a 4k monitor as a retina display since I want to just see more pixels w/o multiple monitors. And 4k monitor w/o retina (38"+) is too big for normal viewing. So the ideal size is 2880 to 3k horizontal pixels in 27" to 30".

The only option seems to be the Auria eq278c[1] and eq308c[2], both resolutions are 2880x1620. But since it came out less than 1-2 months, there isn't any reviews for it yet. Its cheaper eq $400 eq276wn claims to be 2880x1620, but reviews says it's actually a 2650x1600, so I'm not going to plunge $750-$1k until there's a good reliable review for it. The other alternative is the new LG 3440 x 1440 [3], but it's not as ideal as 2880x1620 since it requires a bit more head tilting since it's much wider and harder to do 2 vertical windows editing at 1440 vertical pixels.

1. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KG5LWM4 - eq278c, 27"@2880x1620 = 122ppi, $750

2. http://www.amazon.com/AURIA-EQ308C-30-2880-1620/dp/B00KG5LSB... - eq308c, 30"@2880x1620 = 110ppi, $1055

3. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JR6GCZA - LG 34UM95, 34"@3440x1440 = 110ppi, $999

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

#42

Post by mark-r »

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.

Film is projected with a shutter operating at twice the frame rate or better, to minimize flicker. It would be unwatchable otherwise. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_projector#Shutter

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

#43

Post by enos_feedler »

programminggeek wrote: post #5

4K is going to really not matter much for a while simply because the average computer doesn't have good enough graphics to make good use of it. The resolution jump is huge and so you need a lot more GPU memory and processing power to do the same things at a higher resolution. Games are now really taking good advantage of 1080p, so we are another 5-10 years away from 4k being a real thing in terms of mainstream gaming…

I think this makes it a perfect opportunity for Apple to swoop in with Retina-based iMacs. It plays right into their style of curating all the hardware components and support developers via their SDKs to create a beautiful 4k experience for end-users.

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

#44

Post by QuotedForTruth »

eterm wrote: post #29
dublinben wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Like "HD" (1080) vs "HD Ready" (720) I think we've already lost that battle, and yet again it's "buyer beware" where people will get sold inferior goods as if they're the good stuff by having the same or similar terms for different quality. (Although in this case it's not as large a difference as HD vs HD ready was)

Ive never seen "HD Ready" refer to 720. As I remember it, HD Ready meant that the TV was HD (720 or 1080), but it didnt include an ATSC or QAM tuner. It was more like a monitor than a true TV.

The distinction I've seen with 1080p is calling it True or Full HD.

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

#45

Post by erikcharlebois »

mortenjorck wrote: post #20

...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…

Second this. I picked up a Dell 2414Q (on sale in Canada for $750 CAD) a few weeks ago and it's perfect as a 2x retina 24" external Macbook Pro monitor.

Support on Windows and in games is spotty though. In particular, Windows doesn't seem to have a way to do exact pixel doubling.

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

#46

Post by dlevine »

mortenjorck wrote: post #20

...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…

Can't you run a 28" 4K panel at 2560x1440 using a HiDPI mode?

I run my 13" rMBP at 1440X900, which still looks pretty good. It actually looks pretty good at 1680x1050, except that everything is too small for comfortable work. Sure, it wouldn't be "full retina" resolution, but it would look a lot sharper than a regular 27" 1440p display. The only real constraint could be the video chip's ability to render at 2X that resolution and then downscale.

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

#47

Post by quink »

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!

Considering most HD refers to 1080i or 720p, even more so here in Australia, I don't mind this so much. Remember, anywhere really, that broadcast or cable TV is hardly ever 1080p.

With this step hopefully killing off interlacing, I support any even somewhat dishonest marketing exercise to be justified.

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

#50

Post by wlesieutre »

dman wrote: post #35
micampe wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do that for digital camera displays and it’s super confusing.

That was meant to be in jest - though i would probably chuckle if I saw a marketing banner that said "All new Monitors now with 5.02 x 10^7 pixels"

If you used megapixels it wouldn't be any worse than camera sensors. I'm honestly surprised this hasn't been done as an alternative to VGA, SVGA, DVGA, WSVGA, XGA, WXGA, SXGA, WSXGA, UXGA, WUXHA, WQSXGA, WXUSXGA, qHD, HD, FHD, QHD, UHD, FUHD, etc. (several resolutions omitted)

A number of megapixels and an aspect ratio would give all the information you need, while boiling it down to easily comparable numbers.

Post reply on HN