28-Inch '4K' Display from Dell Priced at $699, Launches January 23

[jclardy]

You need to get above 55 inches to even notice the pixelation in a 4K display. At 28 inches it is a distinction without a difference.

That is if you are talking televisions. Computer monitors aren't placed 15 feet away from your face unless you are using binoculars.

 

[acearchie]

4K 28 Inch monitor at that price? Pretty cheap is their a catch to this?

Yes. It’s a TN panel and only hits 30Hz for 4k...

I now have confirmation of the P2815Q’s full specs, and have listed them below. Unfortunately, it tops out at 30Hz 3840 x 2160 and 60Hz for 1920 x 1080. This should prove a deal breaker for gamers, but the monitor still has a solid feature set for the asking price.

Panel tech: Anti-glare TN (not IPS which was previously rumored)
Connections: DisplayPort (v 1.21)/Mini-DisplayPort, HDMI 1.4 (MHL 2.0), DispayPort out (MST), 1 USB upstream, 4 x USB 3.02 downstream (including 1 USB charging port with BC1.2 compliance devices on back)
Color Depth: 1.073 billion colors
Viewing angle: 170 degrees
Response time: 5ms
Brightness: 300 cd/m2
Power Consumption: 75W

Source: [URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/01/07/dell-wasnt-joking-about-that-28-inch-sub-1000-4k-monitor-its-only-699/“]Forbes[/URL]

 

[mw360]

Why does MR keep putting "4K" in quotes? Aren't these 4K monitors? Not "4k" monitors? Reading the article it seemed like scare quotes, like the companies were calling them 4k but they weren't really.

They're not. They're only 3.84K.

 

[ckeck]

I'm kinda worried about that, too. But considering Dell usually doesn't cut corners with their Ultrasharp line, I'm gonna be cautiously optimistic assume it's gonna be a quality display.

Except it doesn't appear to be an UltraSharp model, it looks like it's part of their "Professional" lineup which is one step down from UltraSharp.

What this means in terms of specs/performance we don't yet know, but it didn't make the U cut so something is sacrificed somewhere.

 

[Renzatic]

Except it doesn't appear to be an UltraSharp model, it looks like it's part of their "Professional" lineup which is one step down from UltraSharp.

What this means in terms of specs/performance we don't yet know, but it didn't make the U cut so something is sacrificed somewhere.

Ahh. I thought it was.

Going by AceArchie's post above, it's using a TN panel. That'll be the major reason why it's so much cheaper.

That isn't necessarily a terrible thing, going by the relatively wide viewing angles and color specs. But...eh, I think I'd pass on it. If I'm gonna spend $700+ on a monitor, I wont settle for anything less than an IPS.

 

[jimsowden]

They're not. They're only 3.84K.

I don't think anyone will be confusing it with 4K cinema spec, something completely unavailable to any consumer. For the general public, 4K almost always refers to a resolution of 3840x2160, or 4K UHD.

 

[elchorizo]

And on a display that small, you won't even notice the difference for a movie.

Just like 1080 was useless on sub 50" screens, 4K isn't truly realized until you're going above 70" and is more a tech for whole wall displays.

But no one ever bothers to learn these details. 4k, oh wow. its so much better i have to have it now!

The only people who actually need this in a monitor are video pros who will be editing and working with 4K content....

But this is marketing at its finest.... and I think they've managed to create a market that everyone said wouldn't hit for at least a decade beacuse no one needs this until tv's hit wall size, 100" plus screens....


*And disclaimer.... those who argue the 1080/720 the components in most 720p tvs were crap which the only reason you saw differences in images not the resolution itself

At first I thought you were just talking about watching movies and other TV content and I was ready to agree with you. Then you went on to indicate you think this is just "marketing at its finest" even for computer users by saying only video pros who are editing 4k content need it. I'm disagree.

I am a developer and I always ALWAYS want more screen real estate. That is why I always use 2 or more monitors. I want 4k monitors to hit mainstream (ie. affordable prices) badly so I can have tons of screen real estate. Lots of code can be visible on screen at once. Additionally, lots more room for other things on screen too, like browsers open, music player, chat windows, etc... I feel like I can never have enough screen real estate so 4k will be an AWESOME step in the right direction. You're wrong to say its just marketing, and that nobody needs it except video professionals.

There is so much of this on the forum. Just because you don't need or want it doesn't mean everyone doesn't need it. And even if I don't NEED it, I still WANT it, as do lots of others. And I want it for the reasons I said, not just because some marketing drone told me to want it. /sigh

 

[Digital Skunk]

Ahh. I thought it was.

Going by AceArchie's post above, it's using a TN panel. That'll be the major reason why it's so much cheaper.

That isn't necessarily a terrible thing, going by the relatively wide viewing angles and color specs. But...eh, I think I'd pass on it. If I'm gonna spend $700+ on a monitor, I wont settle for anything less than an IPS.

Agreed and that's really some disheartening news. I was hoping for a nice set of these to line my desk in the coming months.

I can always use one or two of them for displaying information, and pick up an Ultrasharp for the color critical stuff. Still . . . . . I am there with you on dropping $700 for a display. At that price I really need it to be top notch at least in regards to the panel.

 

[elchorizo]

Yes. It’s a TN panel and only hits 30Hz for 4k...



Source: [URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/01/07/dell-wasnt-joking-about-that-28-inch-sub-1000-4k-monitor-its-only-699/“]Forbes[/URL]

Wow, that is disappointing

I've seen some good TN panels, like that on my Thinkpad w520, but they're rare. I'd only consider this now if I could see it in real life and verify that the discoloration when viewed at off angles isn't severe. I have one ****** TN panel that is so bad that the top is discolored even when viewing it at a normal angle, ugh!

But even if it is a "good" TN panel, 30Hz still hurts.

So close, yet still not quite there!

 

[ActionableMango]

This pricing raises huge questions

How can they sell their 27" 1440P monitors for $650-$1000 when there is a 28" 4K monitor for $700?

Either something about this 4K monitor is total crap, or they are going to have to drastically lower their prices on their existing line of Ultrasharps.

 

[N64]

Not bad. EDIT: Actually, only 30Hz… ew.

It's about time someone invented a good marketing name for something higher-res than 1920x1080 that will get people to switch over. I was beginning to think everyone would stick with 1080p forever. Not only is that not enough pixels, but it's a bad aspect ratio.

 

[Renzatic]

I can always use one or two of them for displaying information, and pick up an Ultrasharp for the color critical stuff. Still . . . . . I am there with you on dropping $700 for a display. At that price I really need it to be top notch at least in regards to the panel.

Though on the plus side, for $100 more, you can get one of the up and coming Asus/Lenovo displays that were talked about in the other 4k thread. They use IPS screens, and I'm pretty sure they also run at 60hz at full resolution.

Considering the small price difference, it almost makes this Dell entirely worthless in comparison.

 

[milo]

They're not. They're only 3.84K.

So why is MR the only one using quotes like that when nobody else is. The term seems to be 4k and not "4k" regardless of whether it is literally four thousand pixels.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Though on the plus side, for $100 more, you can get one of the up and coming Asus/Lenovo displays that were talked about in the other 4k thread. They use IPS screens, and I'm pretty sure they also run at 60hz at full resolution.

Considering the small price difference, it almost makes this Dell entirely worthless in comparison.

I used to doubt Asus, until I got one of their displays and now I am sold. That $100 is a tiny drop after the initial $700 so yeah . . . . I agree and I have to question Dell's motives and strategy with this one.

 

[theluggage]

I need to buy a screen for my Mac Pro before it arrives In February and don't know what to do!

Simples.

Get a decent, third party 2560x1440 27" screen, or a pair of 24" 1920x1200 displays. If you can see the pixels, sit further away.

The early bird may get the worm - but the early worm gets eaten. Forget about 4k for a year or two until it matures

 

[maxwelltech]

I am seriously considering one of these at this price. I guess my new custom PC with GTX 760 should be able to drive it

 

[mw360]

I don't think anyone will be confusing it with 4K cinema spec, something completely unavailable to any consumer. For the general public, 4K almost always refers to a resolution of 3840x2160, or 4K UHD.

So why is MR the only one using quotes like that when nobody else is. The term seems to be 4k and not "4k" regardless of whether it is literally four thousand pixels.

Jeez, don't shoot the messenger. The guy asked why, and I gave him the reason. So called "4K" is a little less than 4000. No big deal. Perhaps its payback for us getting an extra 24 in our K's for all these years.

 

[flux73]

Perhaps its payback for us getting an extra 24 in our K's for all these years.

LOL!

Seriously, people take a chill pill. No biggie. We're all big enough geeks to know what it is. And the people who don't know, don't care.

Still, if I were naming it, I'd call it "Ultra HD" or something like that.

EDIT: Actually, it looks like someone already did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high_definition_television

 

[TalkAboutApple]

Interesting how my expectations have changed and what I actually want is, in all seriousness, 8K! I do appreciate and want higher-rez, but with 4K to play with I'll cash it in for screen real estate instead of ppi - something in the 32-37" range is ideal. Going to grab the first affordable one that has 60Hz.

 

[tjwaido]

Color Gamut?

$699.00 might be great for the average consumer, but what about it's color reproduction for the professional graphic designer, photographer, and video editor? What would be the price point for a 4K monitor that can produce true colors?

 

[chfilm]

Ok now I really want to see what those 30hz everyone's been trolling about looks like plus how small the UI elements in lets say after effects really get on native res.
I can never have enough screen real estate in my comp work and would loooooove to have more than the current 1440 resolution an offer me. Just picture how awesome a timeline with 60 open layers would be on a 4k display...you could just see everything without scrolling!

----------

Simples.

Get a decent, third party 2560x1440 27" screen, or a pair of 24" 1920x1200 displays. If you can see the pixels, sit further away.

The early bird may get the worm - but the early worm gets eaten. Forget about 4k for a year or two until it matures

Well yes. I guess waiting is the only think that makes sense right now and getting an intermediate solutions or the meantime. Even though it frustrates me! Knowing I will lose money on this.
I'm mores driven towards two 1440 displays actually since I've had the 1440 iMac and a 1080 CD and I never have enough space..

 

[69650]

Would be feeling sick right now if I'd bought the $3600 Sharp display that Apple recommended when you can get them for a fraction of that cost just a few weeks later.

 

[chfilm]

Would be feeling sick right now if I'd bought the $3600 Sharp display that Apple recommended when you can get them for a fraction of that cost just a few weeks later.

The sharp can do 60 hz can't it?

 

[rjbenson83]

$699.00 might be great for the average consumer, but what about it's color reproduction for the professional graphic designer, photographer, and video editor? What would be the price point for a 4K monitor that can produce true colors?

1 billion colors is 100% srgb, which is better than a Thunderbolt display so colors should be fine.

 

[therockyroad]

Screen Real Estate is King

but I'm not quite convinced that 28" QuadHD is a sweet spot for a computer monitor. The pixels are going to be uncomfortably small at 1x, and at 2x there's not enough screen real estate for my liking. If there was a 1.5x mode in OSX (or arbitrary scaling), then I'd be a lot more happy.

This.

For me also (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) it is about preserving (or increasing) usable screen real estate (seeing more on the screen without scrolling). My ACD 30" shows 2560 x 1600 and these 4K monitors are 3800 x 2160. So at 2x (retina) I lose 660 "pixels" worth of width and 520 "pixels" worth of height. That's a big step backward.

And if I run it as 1x (native) I think it would be too small to read. So it would need to be 5120 x 3200 to maintain everything I already have and add retina. What is that - "5K"?

I do have a 1680 x 1050 version of the 15" MBP however and the smaller pixel size on that is acceptable, so I could take some reduction on pixel size compared to the 30" and still be happy. Maybe a 36" monitor running 4K would be usable at 1x.

I know that the Retina 15" MBP can scale at two intermediate resolutions (1680x1050 and 1920x1200), so if that same ability gets carried over to external displays there may be promise for preserving screen real estate until even higher resolutions of 5K+ become available to allow true retina for 30"

I also want to keep the 16:10 aspect ratio. I do work on this thing - it is not my home theatre screen. And if I do watch a movie, some letterboxing is fine.