Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
28-Inch '4K' Display from Dell Priced at $699, Launches January 23
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is an awesome post which really summarizes my concerns with these new 4k monitors perfectly. I agree 100% with all your points (and the poster you quoted). I want as much real estate as possible so I want to run native, but at 28" that sounds like it might be too small. Hard to say without testing though. I'm not as interested in pixel doubling unless I can still have tons of real estate. I run both my retina macbooks at their biggest scaled resolution, not the pixel doubled default resolutions because of this.
Also, YES to 16x10. God I hate 16x9 for a work machine. However, at a certain point, I don't mind 16x9 so much once there is enough real estate. For instance, I don't quite hate it so much on my 27" 1440p display at home.
For me, I think the sweet spot is an IPS 4k display somewhere 32" and 40" with reasonable color representation for under $1000. When that happens, I'm soooo there! Probably will be at least another year though.
Yes, ACD 30" here too, and exactly the same reasoning. 2560 x 1600 is great, but it starts to feel cramped when working on a 1080p project in After Effects. I'd love to go to 3840 x 2160 on a bigger screen with the same DPI as my ACD 30".
Exactly. I'm 16:10 through and through but give me a 34" 16:9 4K and I'm not going to be complaining about vertical real estate. In part because I'll be drooling that the screen size I've wanted since the mid-90's is finally here!
Suddenly, for those using their desktops for more than just e-mail and browsing the internet, a MacPro with one of these 28" Dell monitors, is becoming an attractive and more realistic alternative to a 27" iMac. The price gap has narrowed considerably.
Last edited:
Difference between 30 and 60 Hz?
Hello,
can anyone explain to me what the difference between 30 and 60 Hz - what I read a couple of times here - means? I've understood that Hz is the rate at what the monitor refreshes the image shown. And I understood that 30 Hz is enough for normal use (surfing, writing, etc.) but not for gaming. How is it about watching videos?
Thank you.
Hello,
can anyone explain to me what the difference between 30 and 60 Hz - what I read a couple of times here - means? I've understood that Hz is the rate at what the monitor refreshes the image shown. And I understood that 30 Hz is enough for normal use (surfing, writing, etc.) but not for gaming. How is it about watching videos?
Thank you.
Hi, for video you actually wont 24 pics/s and 30 is a bad multiplier. You will get jitter as every few pictures, one will have to be shown double. 60 is better but what you really want is 120 (exactly 5 of each frame) or a screen that can do some other multiple of 24 such as 48, 72 or 96. 60 gives 2-3-2-3-2-3.. so it is not so noticeable but the even multipliers are better. Since some video is 30 frames/s (29.97, please explain... someone?) and others in 24 frames/s 120 is ideal as it can do 5-5-5-5 for 24fps material and 4-4-4-4 for 30fps material. 25 is close enough to 24 to get acceptable quality anyhow. 600 as you see some plasmas touting can get perfect ratios for 24, 25 and 30 fps material...
Examples of various formats (common not rule) in use:
24 fps cinema movies
30 fps american TV
25 fps european TV
I am not 100% certain but I think the 25 and 30 fps had something to do with early electronics (TV childhood) using the AC frequency from their electrical grid to determine the update frequency.
Gaming could be fine with 30 Hz but since modern games pushes the GPUs so far, the frame rate can go down and when it does and gets off sync from the screen you can get jitter and perceived lag. Most turn of vertical sync to increase performance. Lets say one pixel is drawn exactly when the graphics is updated. GPU is sweating so the frame rate of the game goes down to 29 frames /s meaning it is the old frame that gets drawn again. effectively giving you 15 frames per second. Not appreciated in intense games...
Resolution Yes, but Quality?
As it seems, the new Dell comes cheap for "good" reasons: The panel is a lower grade TN typ and not one of the better IPS sort, at least I read this elsewhere. Expecially viewing angles would not be perfect, especially as this one is a really big one.
As it seems, the new Dell comes cheap for "good" reasons: The panel is a lower grade TN typ and not one of the better IPS sort, at least I read this elsewhere. Expecially viewing angles would not be perfect, especially as this one is a really big one.
I am getting a bit confused with all these 4k stuff. Maybe you can help me with some misunderstandings.
What i need are two 27" (or 28") displays with a resolution of 2560 x 1440.
My opinion is that with 4k i get the same resolution but with sharper text etc. (like on a iphone 5 for example)
Is this possible with this displays?
Sorry for my stupid questions.
What i need are two 27" (or 28") displays with a resolution of 2560 x 1440.
My opinion is that with 4k i get the same resolution but with sharper text etc. (like on a iphone 5 for example)
Is this possible with this displays?
Sorry for my stupid questions.
I am getting a bit confused with all these 4k stuff. Maybe you can help me with some misunderstandings.
What i need are two 27" (or 28") displays with a resolution of 2560 x 1440.
My opinion is that with 4k i get the same resolution but with sharper text etc. (like on a iphone 5 for example)
Is this possible with this displays?
Sorry for my stupid questions.
It has been answers multiple times now!
What buoy want is exactly what most of us want but nits not so easy since for that we would need a 5k screen which then can be divided by factor 2 down scaled and the. You'd have the 1440 resolution in retina mode.
Since that's not gonna happen, apple needs to come up with some mode in osx that allows the ui elements of all the software to just scale up, while using the native resolution of 4k. Otherwise you'll end up having tiny text.
OR they need to bring those scaling modes of the rmbp to osx. It's a mess right now. Don't buy one of those monitors!
We need 60hz and osx support.
Soooo i need to install **** Windows to get 4K on my rMBP? That is NOT awesome Apple.
Apple waiting on updating
Don't expect Apple to update their displays until all of their computers are able to drive 4k. Imagine going in and buying the newest Apple display and not being able to connect it to the newest Macbook Air; or imagine having a non-4k performance off their 4k display. Much better to say their entire lineup can drive it. Having two lines of displays would not fit into their ethos.
Don't expect Apple to update their displays until all of their computers are able to drive 4k. Imagine going in and buying the newest Apple display and not being able to connect it to the newest Macbook Air; or imagine having a non-4k performance off their 4k display. Much better to say their entire lineup can drive it. Having two lines of displays would not fit into their ethos.
I logged in just to give your comment a +1!
Thanks for the "state of the art" overview!
Dude, I think most people on this forum were alive from 2000-2003. At least I hope so.
To elaborate on that, when marketing people babble about "4K TV", then what they actually mean is indeed the 3840 x 2160 resolution, which happens to be exactly 4 times the HDTV (1920 x 1080) resolution. Hence it is also (more precisely) called 4K UHD (= "Ultra HD").
Given that, there is indeed also a "real 4K" resolution in use, notably in cinemas, which has a resolution of 4096 x 2160 (sic! 4096 ~= 4K).
But when it comes to "4K" TVs or computer monitors then (mostly) the "almost 4K" resolution of 3840 x 2160 is actually meant (= UHD).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high_definition_television
I think you're on the right track of thought. A 4K monitor at 1x (no retina doubling) is probably best around 40" so that screen objects appear reasonably sized. A 4K retina monitor would need to be near 21". A 27" or 28" retina monitor needs to go over 5K.
These are probably the reasons why Apple hasn't yet come out with its own 4K+ monitors yet. These 28" and 32" 4K monitors from Dell, Sharp etc. are just interim solutions for Apple.