What do you have against Seinfeld? Oh, I suppose modern shows like Honey Boo Boo and Dancing With the Stars are SO much better, right?
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.
More Affordable 4K Displays Introduced at CES 2014
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
28"+ is awkward for 3840x2160. By rights it's mainly a niche option for videographers previewing video at that native size. Because:
- At 1x, everything looks super tiny. Menus etc. would be much smaller than on the 27" 2560x1440 units we're used to.
- At 2x (which Apple could easily add support for) everything would be super big! Not "retina" exactly--more like retina enlarged: you still see the pixels, and the fonts are too big!
But at around 24", 3840x2160 would make a great 2x retina display. THAT is what I expect Apple will do. Yes, it will have less equivalent workspace (and less physical area) than a 27" TB display, and so Apple will probably keep the non-retina TB display in the lineup too. But as a retina option, a 24" 3840x2160 screen would be great. Remember: retina MacBook pros have less equivalent workspace than the previous MB Pros. It's a compromise made necessary by reality. [CORRECTION: greater workspace on MB Pros was optional.]
And that's just native res; at 2/3 scaling (like the retina MBPs offer) a 3840x2160 screen would offer a scaled (and still fairly sharp) equivalent to 2880x1620. Greater than the 27" displays' workspace, if you wish to use that mode and don't mind things being a little small. Again--exactly the compromise offered in the retina MacBook Pros.
Since 5120x2880 27"+ screens don't seem practical any time soon, I expect a 3840x2160 compromise from Apple for now. Sooner rather than later, please! Otherwise I may go Dell: portrait rotation is nice, but the speaker and camera situation is awkward at best, and Dell displays are super ugly. That matters: the monitor is the single biggest object in my living room/office! If the style of furniture matters to people... this thing is like furniture.
I'd love to have Apple's styling, speakers, and camera to go with my Pro.
(P.S. Don't forget that retina is defined in part by viewing distance: a much lower PPI than an iPad would still meet the goal since you sit farther away.)
- At 1x, everything looks super tiny. Menus etc. would be much smaller than on the 27" 2560x1440 units we're used to.
- At 2x (which Apple could easily add support for) everything would be super big! Not "retina" exactly--more like retina enlarged: you still see the pixels, and the fonts are too big!
But at around 24", 3840x2160 would make a great 2x retina display. THAT is what I expect Apple will do. Yes, it will have less equivalent workspace (and less physical area) than a 27" TB display, and so Apple will probably keep the non-retina TB display in the lineup too. But as a retina option, a 24" 3840x2160 screen would be great. Remember: retina MacBook pros have less equivalent workspace than the previous MB Pros. It's a compromise made necessary by reality. [CORRECTION: greater workspace on MB Pros was optional.]
And that's just native res; at 2/3 scaling (like the retina MBPs offer) a 3840x2160 screen would offer a scaled (and still fairly sharp) equivalent to 2880x1620. Greater than the 27" displays' workspace, if you wish to use that mode and don't mind things being a little small. Again--exactly the compromise offered in the retina MacBook Pros.
Since 5120x2880 27"+ screens don't seem practical any time soon, I expect a 3840x2160 compromise from Apple for now. Sooner rather than later, please! Otherwise I may go Dell: portrait rotation is nice, but the speaker and camera situation is awkward at best, and Dell displays are super ugly. That matters: the monitor is the single biggest object in my living room/office! If the style of furniture matters to people... this thing is like furniture.
I'd love to have Apple's styling, speakers, and camera to go with my Pro.
(P.S. Don't forget that retina is defined in part by viewing distance: a much lower PPI than an iPad would still meet the goal since you sit farther away.)
Last edited:
I know, right?! These displays have been shown HOURS ago and Apple still has nothing!
Why does Apple always have to do things right? Sometimes it would be nice to just shove something out the door.
Not on my Samsung SyncMaster 2232BW. They are imprinted onto the finish. Not coming off without lots of serious scratching i'm afraid.
Shame too, the contrast ratio and colors are pretty good for the price!
Great to see these coming down, and that LG monitor looks pretty sweet. Any ideas which of these are likely to work with the new Mac Pro?
I currently use an HDTV as my main screen since I don't sit very close so it gives a comfortable resolution in terms of size of the UI, and is great for watching movies, but I'd love to go up to 4k eventually. However, that may have to wait till Apple gets the support in OS X improved, as it sounds like 4k displays don't get the same HiDPI options that Retina branded Macs do, so 4k potentially means tiny everything.
I currently use an HDTV as my main screen since I don't sit very close so it gives a comfortable resolution in terms of size of the UI, and is great for watching movies, but I'd love to go up to 4k eventually. However, that may have to wait till Apple gets the support in OS X improved, as it sounds like 4k displays don't get the same HiDPI options that Retina branded Macs do, so 4k potentially means tiny everything.
23" Apple Cinema Display Late 2005 is my display, and IMO, the best display of all time
It's going to be 2020+ before one of these have enough content to justify buying. Hell, I don't think any cable companies even broadcast 1080p yet.
Don't know what the Blu-Ray adoption will look like.
Don't know what the Blu-Ray adoption will look like.
My imac 27 from 2011 is still working flawlessly.
HOwever, these monster screen size(I am looking for +30 inch) 4k monitor is going to be very tempting when price becomes reasonable.
Hackintosh here I come.. Just little bit longer wait... almost there.
very exciting.
HOwever, these monster screen size(I am looking for +30 inch) 4k monitor is going to be very tempting when price becomes reasonable.
Hackintosh here I come.. Just little bit longer wait... almost there.
very exciting.
Yes, I would be very interested in this kind of display. This HiDPI thing is also where I think Windows is a little better, at least more clear: There are options for 100, 125, 150 and 200% enlarging for the UI and apps, whereas Apple basically only has the 200% (Retina) option. Then there are some scaling options for making the screen look like 1920x1200 etc., but they are not supported in current 4K displays.
23" Apple Cinema Display Late 2005 is my display, and IMO, the best display of all time
I'm with you there. For photography especially a decent matte display is unbeatable. The new (glossy) displays just have 'too much' colour, if you get me?
Are you seriously implying that the aspect ratio of the programming has anything to do with whether it's worth watching?
Anyways, I like that ultra wide screen, but the numbers don't add up.
4096:2160 = 17:9, not 21:9. 17x9 wouldn't be all that different from 16x9, but that screen looks really wide compared to a 16x9, so I don't doubt the claim that it's 21:9.
Either the pixels are stretched (Ew, why the heck would you do that?) or the resolution dimensions are wrong maybe it's actually 5040 x 2160?
Because 3,8K is harder to say ^^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
As you can see, there are many standardized 4K resolutions, even if their horizontal resolution might not even reach 4,000 the naming convention is there. I guess the truly correct term is UHD, Ultra High Defition for what most companies will sell as "4K".
I didn't even think about that. But yeah your right. I don't think apple will drop the price.
----------
Because they are cheap. You can't have good stuff thats cheap and have it look good too
No!
The 13" went from 1280x800 to 2560x1600
The 15" went from 1440x900* to 2880x1800
*There was an optional 1680x1050 model but it was not the standard config.