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

81–89 of 89 posts

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

#81

Post by Terretta »

snarfy wrote: post #75
eterm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

There really needs to be an international standard for these terms. What's wrong with listing a display by its capabilities? 1920x1080 60hz 24bpp. That way we can get rid of all this HD, HD Ready, UHD, 4K nonsense. It's marketing speak only meant to confuse you into buying something you wouldn't have if you were better informed.

Listing by megapixels would make me happy. The number of diagonal inches has been the least helpful indicator of screen quality over the last decade, and the WUXGA nonsense is too hard to keep track of as well. Adopting a MP number would do more to get us high res screens than any other change.

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

#82

Post by Terretta »

dublinben wrote: post #59
wlesieutre wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

General consumers often care more about physical size than actual resolution. Why else would 1920x1080 pixel computer monitors be sold in sizes up to 27 inches? What explains the proliferation of 15 inch, 1366x768 laptops, or even 17 inch 'laptops' of any resolution?

It's not that the consumers cared more about physical size, it's that they literally didn't know any better.

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

#83

Post by tormeh »

geekam wrote: post #57
pagliara wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the Sharp 4K monitor that Apple sells in its stores and it's incredible. I run it at retina resolution at 60hz (now possible on Mac OS 10.9.3+) with a Mac Pro and it looks amazing. Very pricey, but in my experience, worth every dollar.

Is that an Apple monitor or someone else's? I am sorry, I've never seen a monitor apart from Thunderbolt display. Is that the one?

Sharp is a pretty big Japanese company. They rarely make own-brand consumer stuff for markets outside Japan though, which is why you haven't heard of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp_Corporation

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

#84

Post by borplk »

wbond wrote: post #36
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…

I run a Dell 31.5" 4k and find it a perfect fit with the rMBP running at the (effective) 1920x1200 resolution. The Dell runs around 140ppi and the effective ppi of the rMBP is around 140 also. I find it to be an excellent combination. The quality of the Dell is outstanding. A co-worker got two of the Dell 28" 4Ks and they were too small for 1:1 and just a waste for 1920x1080. Anything in between was jagged. The 30Hz…

Can you please mention the full model number of the 31.5" dell that you are talking about? Or a link?

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

#85

Post by borplk »

secure wrote: post #27
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…

I have the Dell UP2414Q, driving it with Debian Linux. Software support is still not quite there (e.g. in Chrome on Linux), but the display quality is awesome. I’d buy this monitor again in an instant. Reading/writing/programming/just using your computer does feel a lot better than on “non-retina” panels.

What software problems are you having?

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

#87

Post by qwerta »

ebiester wrote: post #76
qwerta wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess as KDE user I was foolish to buy 3x30" :-). Setting font size works just fine...

Any trouble with window border sizes? I guess you can probably find 30 setting that help with that... Are there any themes that help with that?

Most themes allow to set window border size.

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

#89

Post by wlesieutre »

dublinben wrote: post #59
wlesieutre wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

General consumers often care more about physical size than actual resolution. Why else would 1920x1080 pixel computer monitors be sold in sizes up to 27 inches? What explains the proliferation of 15 inch, 1366x768 laptops, or even 17 inch 'laptops' of any resolution?

Definitely, I was just talking in terms of resolution. Megapixels and aspect ratio gives you the same information as width and height (in pixels).

1.05 megapixels vs 2.07 megapixels is a much more obvious comparison to most consumers than 1366x768 vs 1920x1080. One has twice as many pixels as the other.

Switching to that system could even make a few more people realize that a small number of pixels with a huge screen size isn't a great idea. IMO most consumers just see "1366x768" and think "Oh those are big numbers it must be fine."

Post reply on HN