http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/963987-REG/sharp_pn_k321_32_pnk321_ultra_hd.html
Under $4K for you americans!!!
Under $4K for you americans!!!
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.
Apple Offering 32-Inch 4K Sharp Displays in European Online Apple Stores [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not 4k
3840 x 2160 is Quad HD, Not 4k.
1k = 1024
4k = 4096
Even using the cheating disk drive definition of 1k = 1000, this is only a 3.8k display, not a 4k display.
3840 x 2160 is Quad HD, Not 4k.
1k = 1024
4k = 4096
Even using the cheating disk drive definition of 1k = 1000, this is only a 3.8k display, not a 4k display.
You're mistaking "not Apple" and "ugly" for "old-fashioned". Most companies still haven't figured out how to make products that aren't an eyesore yet.
If this were an Apple display with those specs and that price (and I had the money,) I'd buy it. As is it's Dell and I don't have the money, nor will I have the money before 2015.
is the dell 16x9?Some stores in Sweden are taking pre-orders for the DELL 32" for about $2435+tax and Apple is charging $4565+tax for the Sharp.
Insane price.
Actually it's just "not Apple". All professional displays look like this. Apple display do not qualify. By skimping on proper stands and some controls and circuitry they manage to produce pretty but not quite professional displays. For example, this is how NEC professional display looks like:
According to MacBook Pro's spec page, 4K output is limited to HDMI port.
Does that mean MBP would need to be hooked up to HDMI to output 4K? And only 30Hz on the Sharp monitor?
If you are referring to the actual stand of Sharp monitor then you probably got it wrong. As opposed to the stand of Apple monitors (which probably does cost about $3,40) this monitor has "Adjustable table top stand - suitable for landscape or portrait installation". The stand alone weighs 12.2 lbs.
Cinema 4K is 4096x2160
Eizo, LG, Panasonic, and Sony have announced/make actual 4K displays
Last edited:
Wrong. Ultra HD, formaly known as 4k is 2160 pixels high. Check Wikipedia.
Yeah they remind me of the horrible bulky Dell stands. Adding 9000kg steel doesn't automatically make them desirable.
Don't hate on the buttons. Samsung already got enough dollar votes to remove buttons from their TVs, and it drives me insane.
Well, like I posted earlier in one of the recent Mac Pro threads, if you're not someone who will be writing the purchase cost off your taxes as a business expense then you are probably not the target audience for these.
I concur that Apple should buy Sharp. I also wonder if this is Apple putting a 4k display out there to see how well it sells, or just selling one until they use the same panels (since they're invested in Sharp) to release their own display. They could be testing the waters and waiting to use the panels in their own future products.
No, no. That's 3,500 with a "£" in front of it. More like 5,600 bucks.
That's 3,500 British Pounds, not US Dollars. That works out to $5718.77 US Dollars (calculation as of 12-06-2013 at 5:34 PM CST).
That's not worth it in my book!
Big Whup....
Big whup. I don't plan on sitting 3 inches from my tv when I watch it. I'm sure if you sit a normal distance ( 10-15 feet ) from a 1080P tv and a new 4k tv, you wouldn't see much of a difference. So why spend that extra jack on a 4k tv!?
Big whup. I don't plan on sitting 3 inches from my tv when I watch it. I'm sure if you sit a normal distance ( 10-15 feet ) from a 1080P tv and a new 4k tv, you wouldn't see much of a difference. So why spend that extra jack on a 4k tv!?
Ultra HD, also known as Quad HD isn't called 4K any more precisely because it's NOT 4K.
No matter how many times you try multiplying 1024 (or 1000) by 4, you won't get 3840!
This isn't a 4K display because it doesn't have at least 4000 pixels across the screen. End of story.