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

71–80 of 89 posts

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

#71

Post by berberous »

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?

It is made by Sharp, not Apple. Apple only pairs it with the Mac Pro; otherwise they only sell their own monitors.

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

#72

Post by alexeisadeski3 »

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…

Retina means one thing when using a display 12" from you face and another thing entirely when using a display 24" from your face.

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

#74

Post by snorrah »

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…

24" is the perfect size for me. It's a drop-in replacement for a 1080p display, so literally a 'retina' upgrade.

Now to wait until all my core windows apps are either 4k native, or scaling compatible.

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

#75

Post by snarfy »

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)

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.

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

#76

Post by ebiester »

qwerta wrote: post #70
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 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?

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

#77

Post by xur17 »

rdl wrote: post #39

I gave in and bought one of the Seiki 4K 39" displays for $330 over the weekend -- it's far from ideal, but it's $330. I'm sure I can resell it for >$200 when I get something better in a few months or a year, but it's an entirely serviceable monitor. (The $330 deal was a $399 TigerDirect with a $70 MIR, free shipping, no CA tax. Ended Monday, but I'm sure it will return.)

I have one of those too, and for the price I've been very happy with it. My only real objection is the amount lag, but it's only really noticeable when web browsing, and even then it's just a little annoying at first.

In case you haven't already, make sure to turn the sharpness and noise cancellation down. It'll make it look a lot better. Also, if you look online, there are other firmware versions you can flash to speed it up.

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

#78

Post by bnolsen »

xur17 wrote: post #77
rdl wrote: post #39

I gave in and bought one of the Seiki 4K 39" displays for $330 over the weekend -- it's far from ideal, but it's $330. I'm sure I can resell it for >$200 when I get something better in a few months or a year, but it's an entirely serviceable monitor. (The $330 deal was a $399 TigerDirect with a $70 MIR, free shipping, no CA tax. Ended Monday, but I'm sure it will return.)

I have one of those too, and for the price I've been very happy with it. My only real objection is the amount lag, but it's only really noticeable when web browsing, and even then it's just a little annoying at first. In case you haven't already, make sure to turn the sharpness and noise cancellation down. It'll make it look a lot better. Also, if you look online, there are other firmware versions you can flash to sp…

i have one too. The problem I have with it is that its just too much screen real estate, horz and vertical together. I would have preferred one of those ultra wide monitors instead.

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

#79

Post by m_mueller »

erikcharlebois wrote: post #45
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.

Windows basically moves this responsibility to the developer. Apple's approach for this matter has been proven much more pragmatic - at worst you'll see a few assets pixelated but at the correct size, and to ensure retina compatibility, developers only need to define their assets twice.

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

#80

Post by andy_ppp »

I hate staring at a blurry/pixelated monitor more than I dislike the viewing angle of this TN panel. The white balance and viewing angle are the problem here - the colours are pretty good, almost as rich as this Retina Macbook. I have the Samsung UD590.

For coding it's perfect really and I've had no problems using display port at 60hz.

Post reply on HN