Sharp PN-K321 32in 4K monitor debuts IGZO display technology

Nice especially the moth eye filter which they will also introduce later.

But, two but's

It also uses up to 90% less power when displaying still images, leading to significant energy savings over regular displays.

Click to expand...

A TV is mostly for moving content isn't it.

And, the price is not yet known, probably a lot.

Also, the pixel density is still not as high as what is needed for an iMac retina upgrade, using Apple's resolution-doubling scheme.

Sometimes I have the feeling that this iMac new version is in the middle of big change...

Dont have Wifi AC, no Retina, etc.

I am bit afraid of getting obsolete sonner than usual.

guillemn said:

Sometimes I have the feeling that this iMac new version is in the middle of big change...

Dont have Wifi AC, no Retina, etc.

I am bit afraid of getting obsolete sonner than usual.

Click to expand...

I think a 27" retina is a year or two away. As for 802.11ac, I'm hoping Apple will make a thunderbolt adapter to add this functionality to older macs. If not, you could always buy an Airport Express (with 802.11ac) to use as a bridge (iMac->ethernet->airport express->802.11ac->airport extreme->cable modem)

washburn said:

looks like the technology will pick up in the next few years so we can expect a Retina iMac, plus that new nvidia chip in 2014 with a massive performance increase

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/tvs/1296886/sharp-pn-k321-32in-4k-monitor-debuts-igzo-display-technology

Click to expand...

I want this! I don't care about Retina but I do want resolution. I'm running a 15" rMBP at 1920x1200 + two Dell u2711 27"/2560x1440. Replacing the Dells with the Sharp would cost me a bit of screen area and resolution, but it would be worth it to not have to deal with multiple monitor and all the issues that implies: multiple stands, gap between the screens, and Lion/Mountain-Lion's horrible support for multiple monitors - especially when you throw it FullScreen.

A 34/36" 16:8 4,320x2,160 would be even better but at that size or larger we're going to need the curved screens possible with OLED or, when sitting a couple of feet away from the screen, the sides start getting relatively too far away from your eyes. Yes - within 5 years, I hope there are (relatively) affordable 8k x 4k 36" curved OLED monitors!

Question, though, for now: can a new rMBP drive the Sharp properly via its two DP connectors? I know the total resolution isn't a problem since I'm running higher than that now. I just don't know if OSX and the hardware can deal with the quad-HD resolution on a single display. Anyone know? What was Sharp using to demo this at CES?

Should be able the res, doesn't the retina MacBook calculate a 5k res when doing the scaling for non retina display resolutions

Edit: a bit more reading seems to suggest that some 4k stuff can be driven via 2 display port connections , so 2x thunderbolt to dp connectors may do the job ?

washburn said:

you mean resolution not as high?

explain what you mean by pixel density

Click to expand...

"Retina" is about pixel density and distance from the screen. 1080P on a 5" phone display is very high pixel density and probably falls into the 'retina' category.

1080p on a 32" TV across the room is also probably 'retina' because it is a lower pixel density but it is viewed from further away.

1080p on a 27" iMac two feet away on your desk would be pretty low density, even though it's the same 'resolution' as the above two scenarios.

Here are the pixel densities of a few devices:
Current 27" iMac: 108ppi (pixels per inch)
Original iPhone: 163ppi
iPhone retina: 326ppi
iPad retina: 264ppi
Macbook Pro retina: 220ppi

You can see as you get to screens which you use farther from your face, the density required to seem 'retina' drops.

The display you linked to, although it has a high resolution of 3840x2160, only has a pixel density of about 163ppi because those pixels are stretched across a 32" display.

That's the same pixel density of the original iPhone display, and still pretty far away from the density of the retina Macbook Pros.

4K resolution (3840x2160) would provide about 210ppi if it were squeezed into the 21.5" iMac, so that might be a possibility in a year or two. The 27" model would need something closer to 5000x2800 to reach the same pixel density.

fisha said:

Should be able the res, doesn't the retina MacBook calculate a 5k res when doing the scaling for non retina display resolutions

Edit: a bit more reading seems to suggest that some 4k stuff can be driven via 2 display port connections , so 2x thunderbolt to dp connectors may do the job ?

Click to expand...

Yes - based on total pixels driven, it should be no problem. Again, I'm driving 2 2560x1440 (total 7,372,800 pixels) displays plus the internal Retina display (raw 2880x1800) with no problems. The Sharp / quad-HD is 3,840x2,160 = 8,294,400 which is 12 1/2 % more.

FYI, if you have really good eyes, grab the app ResolutionTab from the app store. It let's you select some resolutions not normally listed including raw 2880x1800!

Mac32 said:

Also, the pixel density is still not as high as what is needed for an iMac retina upgrade, using Apple's resolution-doubling scheme.

Click to expand...

Pixel doubling is ideal for devices like the iPad, iPhone and iPod.

But for things like a Mac... anything high res enough is considered a Retina Display.

This is being offered for a reported $5,500. I find it expensive as a computer display but relatively reasonable for a TV.

And an iMac larger than 27" isn't that bad. I could live with a 32" 4K iMac.

washburn said:

but you still need the extra pixels to draw more detail, high resolutions alone wont cut it

Click to expand...

Of course but with desktops you have the luxury of desk space and moving the display further away from you so a larger screen at 4K resolution like the 32" from Sharp is acceptable.

For displays found on phones, tablets, music players and notebooks you have limited arm length (length of a person's arm) and portability issues so the screen size remains more inflexible than a desktop.

For the above mentioned devices excluding desktops the screen sizes remain the same but the PPI increases until it satisfy the Retina Display requirements.

I hope Apple does adopt 4K in the next iMac. It may cost an extra $500 like the MBPros but I see it as worth it. I do not mind it increasing itself to 32" from the current 27" on the iMac I am using to this on.

My interest in it stems from my work with high megapixel images so a 8+MP display would be great! Hopefully in the future 4K work as well.