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

Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

dell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 212 posts

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#151

Post by dragonwriter »

jfb wrote: post #142
tcpekin wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Hobbit [1] is the only movie I can think of that is shot at a higher frame rate, it being shot at 48 fps. [1] http://www.fastcocreate.com/1682085/will-the-hobbit-start-a-...

There are some noises about higher framerate movie production; The Hobbit was the first, and it was not well received. Motion at 30fps and higher looks very different than motion at 24fps, and part of the resistance to HFR is simply unfamiliarity; however, a lot of shots in The Hobbit were not improved by the 48fps presentation; I think that we won't get good results until film projection is dead, and directors and D…

> I think that we won't get good results until film projection is dead, and directors and DPs can present at arbitrary frame rates -- there's no reason that, given a digital projection, a movie couldn't use 48 (or 60!) for certain sequences, while retaining 24 (or 30) for others.

Even with film projection, as long as the higher rate is an integer multiple of the lower, it should be trivial to have the same effect as long as you have camera equipment that lets you shoot at the desired rates.

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#152

Post by jfb »

dragonwriter wrote: post #151
jfb wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some noises about higher framerate movie production; The Hobbit was the first, and it was not well received. Motion at 30fps and higher looks very different than motion at 24fps, and part of the resistance to HFR is simply unfamiliarity; however, a lot of shots in The Hobbit were not improved by the 48fps presentation; I think that we won't get good results until film projection is dead, and directors and D…

> I think that we won't get good results until film projection is dead, and directors and DPs can present at arbitrary frame rates -- there's no reason that, given a digital projection, a movie couldn't use 48 (or 60!) for certain sequences, while retaining 24 (or 30) for others. Even with film projection, as long as the higher rate is an integer multiple of the lower, it should be trivial to have the same effect as…

Yeah, I guess, although it makes for the possibility of broken cadences, which is everybody's least favorite thing ever. I imagine that this isn't going to happen until film is dead as a presentation medium for a variety of reasons (tooling, as you note).

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#153

Post by jfb »

jules wrote: post #126
jfb wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd drop everything for a 65" 400ppi display, of course, but I'd take a 24" 400ppi over a 65" 200ppi without even thinking about it.

Why? Just position the 65" one twice as far away and you have effectively the same pixel density with a bigger effective viewing area and less eye strain.

My office is small? Good point, though.

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#154

Post by gknoy »

GalacticDomin8r wrote: post #140
quaint- wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "your", you mean "my", don't you? Also, you seem confused by these TV-related terms and only think of videos and games here; you'd have to be half-way blind not to see the difference between 75 and 150 PPI density with typical font sizes (computer fonts are usually a tad bigger than what's necessary just because of the lousy displays we have).

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57566079-221/why-ultra-... Comment sections like this are why HN is called an echo chamber.

The original comment missed the point of the chart in the article you link: the increased pixel density is useless __at TV viewing distances__. When you go down to about 2 feet from the screen, 4k is pretty apparent on a 30 inch screen.

A clearer chart is at [1], and the Carlton Bale's original article even has a handy calculator that lets you verify this [2].

1: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html 2: http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#156

Post by brownbat »

jfb wrote: post #142
tcpekin wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Hobbit [1] is the only movie I can think of that is shot at a higher frame rate, it being shot at 48 fps. [1] http://www.fastcocreate.com/1682085/will-the-hobbit-start-a-...

There are some noises about higher framerate movie production; The Hobbit was the first, and it was not well received. Motion at 30fps and higher looks very different than motion at 24fps, and part of the resistance to HFR is simply unfamiliarity; however, a lot of shots in The Hobbit were not improved by the 48fps presentation; I think that we won't get good results until film projection is dead, and directors and D…

> a lot of shots in The Hobbit were not improved by the 48fps presentation

But a few were. Outdoor pans, landscapes, busy scenes. There's a market shot in the beginning with about 8 mini-scenes in the frame, and you can look at any part of the film and see it far more clearly / less blurring than if it were filmed with any lesser tech.

The shots that didn't work: indoor shots where you could see caked on makeup... it's because no one, literally no one, seems to understand how much less lighting and makeup to use with an HFR camera.

This is a craft problem. We probably won't get widespread HFR until it gets cheap and widespread enough that some people are growing up experimenting with it.

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#157

Post by bsimpson »

mortenjorck wrote: post #38
publicfig wrote: post #5

I'm a bit curious why both the 24" and the 32" are priced over 1k, yet they are able to get the 28" down below that mark. That's not to say that I'm not incredibly excited to see how this ends up! I've been looking for a sub-1.5k 28" monitor with high resolution for a while, and though I love my Apple Thunderbolt Display I use at work, I am hesitant that if I buy one for myself, I'll be buying right before a refresh.…

Unfortunately, the 28” is going to have the wrong pixel density to use with OS X in Retina mode. Non-Retina MacBooks start at 110 PPI. Cinema Displays have hovered around 100 PPI for about a decade, with the 27” Thunderbolt Display topping out at 109 PPI (same for its sister 27” iMac). At 28", a 3840 x 2160 panel has a PPI of 157, which, dividing by two to get the equivalent non-Retina PPI, comes to only 78.5, a redu…

There was a time when DPI and PPI were effectively the same thing (72 per inch). As monitors became more dense (but before retina) this approached 96 and then 130.

If you've got a Linux workstation handy, try manually setting your x86 DPI to match your monitor's specs. Everything will look giant because most apps are written assuming DPI is an arbitrary constant (75 or 96), but most people use monitors that are more dense than that.

When you set your DPI to be its actual value, you'll realize that people have become accustomed to screens being more dense over time, but there was certainly a time when DPIs in the 70s were considered par for the course. In fact, many older people prefer less dense pixels because it's easier for them to see bigger things.

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#158

Post by jfb »

brownbat wrote: post #156
jfb wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some noises about higher framerate movie production; The Hobbit was the first, and it was not well received. Motion at 30fps and higher looks very different than motion at 24fps, and part of the resistance to HFR is simply unfamiliarity; however, a lot of shots in The Hobbit were not improved by the 48fps presentation; I think that we won't get good results until film projection is dead, and directors and D…

> a lot of shots in The Hobbit were not improved by the 48fps presentation But a few were. Outdoor pans, landscapes, busy scenes. There's a market shot in the beginning with about 8 mini-scenes in the frame, and you can look at any part of the film and see it far more clearly / less blurring than if it were filmed with any lesser tech. The shots that didn't work: indoor shots where you could see caked on makeup... it…

Agreed on all counts.

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#159

Post by Locke1689 »

bhauer wrote: post #101
selmnoo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Inadequate" for gaming, yes. Inadequate for computing? Hardly. How about for watching movies? High framerates would obviously seem very important for gaming, but it's not clear how important they are to movies/shows. Your thoughts?

Admittedly, we've not yet watched a film on the Seiki. We have fired up a few Youtube videos at full-screen and aside from looking comical (due to the large lossy compression artifacts present even in Youtube's highest quality videos), the video seems as smooth as Youtube ever does, at least to my eye. I suspect for video from a higher-quality source, my opinion would not be so forgiving. But put briefly, for consumi…

I don't understand why you would want HDMI 2. DisplayPort is pretty much better in every single way.

Re: Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014

#160

Post by sliverstorm »

encoderer wrote: post #132
sliverstorm wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What way should it be? Dell: Manufacturer (UltraSharp): The high-end moniker XX: Size Ultra HD: The name for that resolution Monitor: What it is Maybe it's because I'm an engineer and not a normal person, but the naming scheme seems quite reasonable. Way better than the utterly indecipherable "Dell 324y5943X" crap you get with some other manufacturers. The resolution name, "Ultra HD", is stupid, but that wasn't Dell'…

UltraSharp UltraHD is awful. You're right, they have to use UltraHD. But "UltraSharp"? That's what I was getting at. Also, how about just a simplified product line like, I don't know: Dell UltraHD 24" Dell UltraHD 32" Along the lines of Cinema Display.

UltraSharp is an established Dell moniker though, been around much longer than UltraHD.

Anyway, as for unifying the product line- Dell being Dell, that would mean simply cutting the UltraSharp product line, which I would consider a loss.

Post reply on HN