Watch out for problems with the monitor. New ultra-high-def monitors often have problems such as lag or poor color accuracy.
Before buying this, you need to wait until a professional with a colorimeter and a lagmeter evaluates this monitor if you remotely care about color accuracy or gaming. Resolution isn't the only consideration when buying a new monitor.
> Resolution isn't the only consideration when buying a new monitor.
Sure it is! Reading on a monitor is pure torture ever since I bought a Retina MBP. If this is anywhere close to being affordable (realistically: no) I'd buy it for that reason alone.
True, but resolution so massively outweighs every other consideration (for me) that it might as well be the only.
In this new high-res world, virtually all desktop monitors are just broken. Ugh, I am typing these very words right now on a 30" Dell 3008FWP, and I want to gouge out my eyes...
With the 39" Seiki 4K "tv" at less than $500 shipped, the $3,500 pricing level on the Dells seems excessive. I'm certain the Dells are better monitors, but are they 700% better? If Seiki revs their model line-up to include display-port, all these official monitors will really be in trouble.
I was a little floored by the Seiki price drop. When it happened, I Tweeted at Seiki to ask if this is a precursor to a replacement unit that functions more as a monitor (60Hz, HDMI 2, no splash screen, DPMI on, no speakers, matte surface). That's wishful thinking, of course. The tweet was mostly just to put the demand in front of them. :)
4K at 24" is really interesting, however. Not necessarily because I want to use a small monitor again, but rather because it's a sign that we are slowly inching toward high-DPI large form-factor displays. And I've been waiting for that to happen for a decade.
Next would be extending that pixel density to 30" (~6K) and larger (~8K). Then I will celebrate a bit.
There's some price discrimination going on here, yes, but keep in mind that a) the PQ on that Seiki will be horrible; 2) at 39" it's way too large; and iii) as you note, it does not have a useful way to get a signal into it.
The win with a ~200dpi 24" 4k will be OS X-style Retina upscaling, not simply screen real estate.
Seiki is still HDMI/1.x and doesn't support 60FPS. Nor will it help gaming at it's limit refresh rate. The good is that they're putting pressure on the big brands. If it was HDMI/2.0, I'd be all over it.
I really wish companies would stop selling monitors with their logo placed obnoxiously on the front. I don't care if they put the logo on any other part of the display, but why do they have to ruin the front of it? I really love looking at plain black slabs, with nothing to distract me from the content within.
I want to buy a couple of monitors and mount them. But there's just one small thing stopping me. I don't know if it's just me, but something feels wrong about rotating a monitor with such a prominent logo.
I think this is a problem too. I can understand the manufacturers wanting their logo on the bottom though.
If I was a screen manufacturer I would have a speaker bar on the bottom that has the logo and a few easy brightness controls on it - total Fisher Price usability.
I would then add in a feature for the pros - have it so the speaker/controls bar can be folded up under the screen.
In that way people that like their bling logos could have the logo on view, those that just want a panel can have no distractions.
If engineered nicely you could have USB and video inputs on the drop-down bar made accessible from the front.
Just paint the logo black. Or as close as you can get to the rest of the front's color. I'm doing this on all my Dells (using a paint marker), including a dot over the light of the power button.
When selling in retail how will people know whose monitor they are looking at? Logos serve many purposes, but in the wild they are a good source of marketing. Should we ask them to not brand even the box the CPU comes in?
At most they could make the logo easily removable, too me that would be a fair compromise.
I have recently gotten a taste of ultra high resolution monitors.
My coworker got the new Dell XPS 15, which has a QHD+ 3200x1800 screen. Just a heads up to coders, unless you plan to hunch your back or get new glasses, very few of you will enjoy the screen as much as you think you would.
Why's that? I picked up a QHD+ Samsung a few weeks ago and have been loving it for development work. All of the development tools I've needed so far have respected Windows' DPI scaling (which came set at 200% on the Samsung, making it easy to spot when a program failed to scale correctly).
The only major culprit so far has been Dropbox, which is infuriatingly frustrating to use at HiDPI. So bad it makes me want to move everything to SkyDrive or Google Drive.
I've been living on a Retina MBP, which has a comparably 4x resolution, and I've come to exactly the opposite conclusion: if you work with text, you need a super-dense screen ASAP. I don't know how Windows handles it, but in OS X, "Retina" support means that e.g. my Emacs windows look amazing -- even as Java-garbage like Intelli-J look like some sort of Motif abomination.
The intent with these kinds of high DPI screens is usually to use scaling and keep interface elements roughly the same physical size (like Apple does with the RMBP), not to make everything tiny and still pixelated. If you spend all day looking at text it looks fantastic on a high density display.
Support on Windows isn't perfect, but most programs handle it well by now.
Set DPI scaling to get it to 2560x1440 "equivalent"? Not a general solution since so many apps misbehave, but if you're coding and spending most of the time in the editor, you get the extra real estate, plus the extra crispness in font rendering.
With a Titan card from nVidia, maxing out at 20 FPS on Unigine, it's pretty depressing. We need to see a 2 to 3x fold performance increase in graphics cards for gaming to be realistic on 4k screens.
And to think I thought the Thunderbolt display was pricey at $1k. I love it, but I don't think I could possible realize (or notice) the increase in capability unless working heavily in graphics and video, and that's assuming that the machine attached to it has a card that takes advantage of it.
I'd be very happy with an 8-bit colour 2560x1600 24" monitor. It would be more affordable and way easier for graphics cards to run, why is no-one making one of these!?
The whole idea behind 4k is that you can feed it 1080p content and it will be displayed no worse than it would be on native 1080p display. In other words it allows easily swap between having conventional 24" 1080p performance or full 4k resolution, and this swapping can be relatively easily be done on a per-application basis, or possibly even more granually. Imagine eg having a WebGL context being pixel-doubled while the text on the same page being rendered at full resolution.
In comparison, in a 2560x1600 24" monitor you'd get either quite big/ugly double-pixels, or scaling artifacts of non-integer multiple scaling.
Dude. Sweet! If the price is reasonable, I'll buy 2-4 for my desktop. I'd love to have the knock-off cheap dead pixels Korean version even more, actually.
At $3,500 for the 32", the 24" will probably be $2,500-3,000. So, whether or not you will be getting 2-4 I guess depends on whether you'd rather have these monitors, or a car.
I've been looking at a higher resolution monitor than my 30" Dell and found that there are these things called "TVs" that apparently have 4K resolution but in 55" format.
I'm after screen real estate and want to see a lot of code at the same time. Does anyone have any thoughts about replacing my 30" work monitor with a 55" TV with a lot more resolution?
[+] [-] sillysaurus2|12 years ago|reply
Before buying this, you need to wait until a professional with a colorimeter and a lagmeter evaluates this monitor if you remotely care about color accuracy or gaming. Resolution isn't the only consideration when buying a new monitor.
[+] [-] ajasmin|12 years ago|reply
Lots of hackers only care about having enough pixels to legibly represent characters in their tiny coding font.
[+] [-] hyperbovine|12 years ago|reply
Sure it is! Reading on a monitor is pure torture ever since I bought a Retina MBP. If this is anywhere close to being affordable (realistically: no) I'd buy it for that reason alone.
[+] [-] veidr|12 years ago|reply
In this new high-res world, virtually all desktop monitors are just broken. Ugh, I am typing these very words right now on a 30" Dell 3008FWP, and I want to gouge out my eyes...
[+] [-] kbar13|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Amadou|12 years ago|reply
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DOPGO2G
[+] [-] bhauer|12 years ago|reply
Incidentally, my review of my wife's Seiki: http://tiamat.tsotech.com/seiki-4k
4K at 24" is really interesting, however. Not necessarily because I want to use a small monitor again, but rather because it's a sign that we are slowly inching toward high-DPI large form-factor displays. And I've been waiting for that to happen for a decade.
Next would be extending that pixel density to 30" (~6K) and larger (~8K). Then I will celebrate a bit.
[+] [-] jfb|12 years ago|reply
The win with a ~200dpi 24" 4k will be OS X-style Retina upscaling, not simply screen real estate.
[+] [-] 1qaz2wsx3edc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] seanmcdirmid|12 years ago|reply
This isn't about real estate; it is easy to buy a big monitor, but about pixel density.
[+] [-] shitlord|12 years ago|reply
I want to buy a couple of monitors and mount them. But there's just one small thing stopping me. I don't know if it's just me, but something feels wrong about rotating a monitor with such a prominent logo.
[+] [-] Theodores|12 years ago|reply
If I was a screen manufacturer I would have a speaker bar on the bottom that has the logo and a few easy brightness controls on it - total Fisher Price usability.
I would then add in a feature for the pros - have it so the speaker/controls bar can be folded up under the screen.
In that way people that like their bling logos could have the logo on view, those that just want a panel can have no distractions.
If engineered nicely you could have USB and video inputs on the drop-down bar made accessible from the front.
[+] [-] stinos|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|12 years ago|reply
At most they could make the logo easily removable, too me that would be a fair compromise.
[+] [-] solox3|12 years ago|reply
My coworker got the new Dell XPS 15, which has a QHD+ 3200x1800 screen. Just a heads up to coders, unless you plan to hunch your back or get new glasses, very few of you will enjoy the screen as much as you think you would.
[+] [-] Encosia|12 years ago|reply
The only major culprit so far has been Dropbox, which is infuriatingly frustrating to use at HiDPI. So bad it makes me want to move everything to SkyDrive or Google Drive.
[+] [-] jfb|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wlesieutre|12 years ago|reply
Support on Windows isn't perfect, but most programs handle it well by now.
[+] [-] MichaelGG|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dangrossman|12 years ago|reply
I code all day in Sublime on a 2560x1440 13" laptop at 1.5x scaling (Asus UX301LA-DH71T).
[+] [-] masklinn|12 years ago|reply
We're almost back to 10 years ago, yay.
[+] [-] venomsnake|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chucknelson|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kllrnohj|12 years ago|reply
For the majority of games 4K won't pose an issue whatsoever with a modern high end video card.
[+] [-] ekianjo|12 years ago|reply
With a Titan card from nVidia, maxing out at 20 FPS on Unigine, it's pretty depressing. We need to see a 2 to 3x fold performance increase in graphics cards for gaming to be realistic on 4k screens.
[+] [-] kayoone|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kevin818|12 years ago|reply
my how far we've come from the good ol' days of CRT
[+] [-] jfb|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leoc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaredstenquist|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seiji|12 years ago|reply
I have one beside the same size thunderbolt display and I like the monoprice one better (it seems to have a more effective anti-reflective coating).
[+] [-] steveridout|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zokier|12 years ago|reply
In comparison, in a 2560x1600 24" monitor you'd get either quite big/ugly double-pixels, or scaling artifacts of non-integer multiple scaling.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cpks|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sliverstorm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mortyseinfeld|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icecreampain|12 years ago|reply
I'm after screen real estate and want to see a lot of code at the same time. Does anyone have any thoughts about replacing my 30" work monitor with a 55" TV with a lot more resolution?
[+] [-] agilebyte|12 years ago|reply
It seems like if you do not do gaming, you should be fine.