Maybe because most people are scaling anyway. Larger screen just means less scaling. How many consumers realize it isn't a perfect scale ratio and just pick what looks "comfortable" to them?
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's Online Store Now Offering New 4K 23.7-Inch LG UltraFine Display
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe because most people are scaling anyway. Larger screen just means less scaling. How many consumers realize it isn't a perfect scale ratio and just pick what looks "comfortable" to them?
I think you’ve got that backwards. A larger screen means greater difference to “straight @2x”, which means a larger rendered resolution, to then be scaled down to 4K.
What pro users are you referring to? The 21.5" 4K Ultrafine was a consumer grade monitor. Sony makes professional video production monitors for people involved with making TV shows, movies, advertisements.
https://pro.sony/en_EE/products/broadcast-monitors
[doublepost=1558472992][/doublepost]
Glossy, Thunderbolt and DCI-P3.
You can daisy chain this one, it provides power and has a USB hub without an extra cable. Maybe thinner bezels I’m not sure.
I still like my P2415Qs better though. From what I can see they’re much more adjustable than the LG.
How is this an improvement over the previous offerings? Lower resolution than even the 21.5 “ display? No 5K display? The previous displays were unique, with very crisp resolution. This is just another 4K display with many better competitors.
Apple is going backwards here.
Apple is going backwards here.
There are actually not many displays at this size/resolution: a dell and another LG.
you realise this is an LG product not an Apple product right?
How hard could it be to just update the Apple Cinema Display. I mean really, Apple is missing an opportunity here.
Meh, let’s release another iPhone model instead.
Thin bezel monitors are form over function in my opinion.
I have a few thin bezel monitors and the issue is that because the backlight diffuser has to be smaller, you get a noticeable parallax effect at the edges. The LCD image basically sits off the edge of the backlight into a dark area. This is especially noticeable in multi-monitor setups where you're not viewing straight on, kind of defeating the practical benefit of thin bezels.
They also break more due to the lack of screen protection. Had one show up where handling during shipping caused the LCD to become unglued at the edge, leaving a big black region.
It’s an Apple endorsed/marketed display.
There are many 4K USB-C display, e.g., the HP envy 27-inch display. Yes, this is bigger, but anyway the 23.7” display is not retina. Once you have given up on retina, there are many options.
That’s absurd.
“Retina” is just being unable to distinguish pixels, which is related to viewing distance. A brick wall is “retina” if you stand far enough away.
The larger the screen at the same resolution the lower the PPI, the worse it will look and the more you’ll need to lean on scaled resolutions to not look like a “my first numbers” book for toddlers.
A 27” 4K display is only competition for this in the way a can of spam is competition for a leg of ham.
It is only the standard for Film or any other content conumption. There is a reason why the Macbook still has a non-standard resolution due to its 16:10 Ratio.
Does it matter? All that consumer needs to know is 4K is better than 2K or 1080P or what ever they currently have. And 1080P has always been 2K, just no one uses the term and they suddenly found 4K is a better term than Full HD or 1080P.[/QUOTE]
[doublepost=1558475056][/doublepost]Pretty much the same reason why Apple didn't have 16:10 on its iMac while keeping the 16:10 perfect Golden Ratio on Macbook. - Cost
There is simply no one else using a 4K Panel with 21", and it is very expensive to produce in small quantity. Just like there is no other player selling 16:10 panel on Desktop Monitors. Apple were forced to switch to 16:9 instead.
Someday, when JDI's printable OLED matures, may be Apple could easily decide its display in any shape or cuts without worrying about economy of scale.
This is the monitor I've been waiting for, since they released the 21,5" 4K and 27" 5K monitor, the smallest one being to small for my preference, and the 27" being to large, this is perfectly in the middle and what I've wanted.
Placed an order now, should have it delivered on thursday!
Placed an order now, should have it delivered on thursday!
My thoughts on the size:
It's big enough if you only want 1 monitor. But it is aimed at people who want 2+ monitors
I can see this being the perfect size for a 2 or 3 monitor setup.
It's big enough if you only want 1 monitor. But it is aimed at people who want 2+ monitors
I can see this being the perfect size for a 2 or 3 monitor setup.
3840 x 2160 is the standard for 4K consumer monitors. Dell, Samsung, HP, Acer, BenQ, LG, Philips, Asus, AOC, ViewSonic, and pretty much every PC monitor manufacturer makes their 4K displays with a resolution of 3840 x 2160. It is the industry standard.
It matters to me. I think the naming should have remained consistent. We've never used horizontal resolution in marketing prior to "4K". It's especially stupid to use horizontal resolution now that there are so many ultra-widescreen monitors.
I'm really tempted by this monitor, as it feels like it's almost a drop-in replacement for my trusty old 24" LED Cinema Display that I still use to this day – essentially double the PPI with a hugely bigger gamut, just with (sadly) a downgrade in vertical height/resolution.
However, I'm confused by its Mac Pro (2013) compatibility. The nMP can support 4k displays at 60Hz (as confirmed by Apple here), yet the support page for this new monitor says it will only run at 30Hz on my Mac. Anyone have a clue as to why that might be? Something to do with the TB2 -> TB3 conversion?
However, I'm confused by its Mac Pro (2013) compatibility. The nMP can support 4k displays at 60Hz (as confirmed by Apple here), yet the support page for this new monitor says it will only run at 30Hz on my Mac. Anyone have a clue as to why that might be? Something to do with the TB2 -> TB3 conversion?
Took these pictures today of my LG 4K, 5K and Dell P2415Q.
https://imgur.com/uI01yPj
https://imgur.com/IsKlrzk
https://imgur.com/wBn4J4o
https://imgur.com/VupGxg2
[doublepost=1558482663][/doublepost]All displays are set native pixel doubled resolution (2304x1152, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, MBP is default 1680x1050), set to 75% brightness and default color profiles.
https://imgur.com/uI01yPj
https://imgur.com/IsKlrzk
https://imgur.com/wBn4J4o
https://imgur.com/VupGxg2
[doublepost=1558482663][/doublepost]All displays are set native pixel doubled resolution (2304x1152, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, MBP is default 1680x1050), set to 75% brightness and default color profiles.
Last edited:
Actually the old Ultrafine 4k wasn't Thunderbolt, it was strictly USB-C. The practical implications of this is that since the DisplayPort connection required all four high-speed links in the cable, the monitor ports were limited to USB 2.0.
Would you please post a brief review to this thread after you're up and running? Thanks!
No Camera = Downgrade!
I thought the symmetrical bezels were a nice upgrade but then I realized they killed off the camera, which means users are stuck with their MacBook's pathetic 720p "Pro" quality camera. Even the 2019 MacBook Pros (introduced today) are still stuck with 720p camera so the LG UltraFine's camera is/was a huge upgrade for FaceTime, etc.
I thought the symmetrical bezels were a nice upgrade but then I realized they killed off the camera, which means users are stuck with their MacBook's pathetic 720p "Pro" quality camera. Even the 2019 MacBook Pros (introduced today) are still stuck with 720p camera so the LG UltraFine's camera is/was a huge upgrade for FaceTime, etc.
Depends on your content. If you're looking at code, odds are you are looking at the letters at a particular size. Increasing the resolution by 4x does not increase my screen real-estate, it just makes my letters a little crisper. If you increase the screen size by 4x, you increase my real estate, but my letters look less crisp.
Not everyone looks at photographs all day.
That's not entirely true. While 4096X2304 isn't a common standard, it's still a variant of DCI 4k, of which 4096X2160 and 4096X1716 are common standardized resolutions. Nothing wrong with you preferring the new resolution, which is indeed standard for tv (4k UHD), but 4096X2160 is the standard for DCI 4k and I, for one, appreciate having the full resolution for playback of DCI 4k files. (On the other hand, I can imagine DCI 4k is annoying when it forces you to upscale your UHD 4k files by a tiny bit for full screen playback. I'm not saying either resolution is inherently better, just that the old one wasn't chosen randomly.)
That said, obviously neither display is ideal for working with either variety of 4k footage (DCI or 4k UHD), except as a video playback monitor, which neither is really intended as, because you need room for the UI for everything except playback. So you'd probably really want the 5k monitor either way ideally imo if you're editing a lot of 4k video. But the old resolution is indeed a recognized variant of DCI 4k, of which 4096X2160 is by far the most common, and I suspect 4096X2304 was chosen to match that horizontal resolution with a 16:9 aspect ratio as 17:9 is uncommon for desktop displays. And for working with 4k DCI content, the higher resolution is preferable.
(The older monitor is also a much more pixel-dense monitor, but that's another argument entirely.)
Fwiw, I think the reason for the discrepancy between naming conventions is that 2k originally referred to film scans (which were typically 2048X1536 if you scanned the whole 4x3 negative), so in that case the horizontal resolution is the primary differentiating factor, as the vertical dimension could change based on aspect ratio, while the horizontal dimension wouldn't change... much, at least... 1998X1080 is also a variant of DCI 2k, but I don't believe it's a scanning resolution, just a resolution for projection. :/ I'm not sure.
I also suspect manufacturers embraced "4k" because it sounds like a lot more than 1080p despite not really looking much different. So that is kind of annoying, I agree.
Regardless, there's nothing wrong with you preferring the new resolution, but I and others have our reasons for preferring the old one.
And while, yes, it is a consumer-grade monitor, there are industries that use consumer grade monitors professionally. A 4k DCI grading monitor might cost $20k, so there will be departments (editors, assistant editors, vfx, graphics, etc.) that can benefit from the full DCI resolution without needing perfect calibration and full gamut.
Just my opinion of course, but I prefer the old resolution, and don't think my reasons are entirely trivial. Of course, for those who aren't editing video, I suspect it doesn't matter one way or the other if they're working with DCI 4k or UHD.
Last edited:
I don’t look at photographs.
I read and write code, shell commands, SQL, etc. I stand by what I said.
