How do you even go from one corner of the screen to the other?
Yeah, what I just said is basically 10K wide by 3K tall at 49”. I think that’s a slightly higher PPI than the 5K iMac but haven’t done the math. But yeah, 8K is going to only be useful for big displays or TVs the size of an entire wall. Most people don’t get any benefit from their 4K TV if it’s under 65 inches and even more don’t get much benefit from that size if they sit too far away. I’m still waiting to get a 4K TV so I can get something good enough to make it worth it, but I have a 27” 4K LG display as my primary monitor for my MBP and Xbox One X because I sit close to it. I loved my 5K iMac at my last job and will be eligible to upgrade at work in a year. I think 5K is about perfect for 27” and probably won’t move to 8K on anything smaller than 36”. I kind of wonder if we’ll see an iMac Pro 6K 32” at some point in the next year.8K is where it’s at, when is it being announced.
The higher the resolution the closer you want to sit to appreciate all those details. Seems fitting for a monitor.
Never going to see any innovation like this from Apple. Too bad.
To me the opposite. I’d love having such a monitor for coding and browser testing side by side.
And I can easily think of a hundred of workflows where this would rock.
Nah. This is low-res and decidedly NOT retina aka @2x resolution. For that much money you are way better of with a 5k iMac!
Can I ask a question?
Why is the resolution so low? After iPad and IPhone I‘ve been wanting to switch to HighRes on my desktop. So this monitor is just big but low res. Is my thinking wrong?
Yeah, what I just said is basically 10K wide by 3K tall at 49”. I think that’s a slightly higher PPI than the 5K iMac but haven’t done the math. But yeah, 8K is going to only be useful for big displays or TVs the size of an entire wall. Most people don’t get any benefit from their 4K TV if it’s under 65 inches and even more don’t get much benefit from that size if they sit too far away. I’m still waiting to get a 4K TV so I can get something good enough to make it worth it, but I have a 27” 4K LG display as my primary monitor for my MBP and Xbox One X because I sit close to it. I loved my 5K iMac at my last job and will be eligible to upgrade at work in a year. I think 5K is about perfect for 27” and probably won’t move to 8K on anything smaller than 36”. I kind of wonder if we’ll see an iMac Pro 6K 32” at some point in the next year.
They idea is to try to make the focal distance the same, to reduce eye strain from constantly refocusing as you look around the display. Mine is the older, slightly less-curved radius. I like it.
[doublepost=1539628890][/doublepost]
1440p is a really comfortable resolution to use a monitor that tall. Most folks don't use a Retina display without the scaling that's built into Mac OS. Text and objects would be far too tiny.
Nice... Way to go Dell, but the price. Ouch!
Which still doesn't do you any good at 163dpi.
You need around 110 for standard resolution and 220 for hidpi retina @2x. Otherwise you end up with ugly mom native scaling and flickering lines. Or Ginormous content.
Actually that’s not true. It used to be, for sure, but now at retina resolutions (ie high enough dpi that your eye can’t see the pixels) it’s effectively resolution independence. This is evidenced by setting the 5K iMac or the 15” MBP to any of he five scaled resolutions it offers. No ugly mom or flickering lines.
So how do you get retina resolution out of a 163ppi display? Sit far enough away from it. And for a desktop display at that ppi it’s about where most people sit anyway. Maybe a little further back than might be normal.
I ran the numbers once but can’t remember the exact result I cane up with. I think 12” from a 165ppi display gives you similar experience as 8” from the MacBook Pro displays or something like that. But that’s only from memory.
So yeah 163 isn’t quite there but it’s darn close and is there if you don’t mind sitting back a bit.
Not sure what you’re asking. My two displays give me 5,000x1,400 res at a very comfortable text size. I don’t think too many of the folks talking about Retina actually know the monitor market or what most non-Apple monitors run at (think professional vs enthusiast). With a few spreadsheets and a database or two open, I easily max out my screen space. For productivity work, these things are awesome.
Now Mac OS will look even more ridiculous when it keeps throwing application windows into the bottom left corner of the screen. Laptop users who frequently switch between using the laptop screen alone and with external monitor should know what I mean.
cant even display a 4K video
Can I ask a question?
Why is the resolution so low? After iPad and IPhone I‘ve been wanting to switch to HighRes on my desktop. So this monitor is just big but low res. Is my thinking wrong?
Serious question: what's a use case for this? I can sort of see video timelines, but struggling to see the value.
This will be cool when I programming spreadsheets!
Would rather have retina anything vs this. But as soon as retina ultrawide happens I’ll be all over it. Otherwise all I see here is a huge 5K iMac cut in half.
Yeah, it's time Apple released some non-Retina screens again. That Retina thing is getting old.Never going to see any innovation like this from Apple. Too bad.
I see it as having the best use cases where you are actually looking a sequence of things, like the video editing mentioned before, or a sequence of photos, or even for music composition. My specialized use case is that I work with panoramic photos a lot, and they are always too small on a normal screen. In general I think a curved wider screen is better than multiple regular screens, both for continuity of the image, and for preventing issues with the illumination or color when you end up viewing the edges of a flat monitor at an acute angle, since they are so far away from you.
2160 pixel height would be nice, but that would then be the equivalent of 2 5K screens through one video connection (10240 x 2160) -- is that supported on the existing video standards and available video cards?
dogslobber has it right of all of you. When I do business I have charts, spreadsheets, research, and more on multiple screens at a time. This handles that role perfectly. It is a business monitor for people who'd use it to do business. I have often used Dell displays with my macs since the beautiful-for-the-time 2407WFP with its nice 1920x1200 resolution with convenient USB hub and SD card reader. It worked great with my G4 on the floor and camera, external DVD, keyboard and mouse on the desk.
I currently have 2 external 27 inch displays and would like to upgrade to a new Mac Pro but Apple doesn't seem to want to update that any time soon. I guess what takes 5 years to make a new Mac Pro is finding a way to give it zero expandability or upgradability and yet still be able to market it to professionals. Even the G4 Cube was upgradable enough. It only got bad press for an overly visible plastic moulding seam that WSJ called cracks.
I don't need anything insanely fast but I want a desktop CPU in a desktop profile so it doesn't throttle down or scream 100 dB at the wrong time so the iMacs are out, the Mac Mini is out, and the current Mac Pro resembles something that holds itself, a piece of fancy trash.
dogslobber has it right of all of you. When I do business I have charts, spreadsheets, research, and more on multiple screens at a time. This handles that role perfectly. It is a business monitor for people who'd use it to do business. I have often used Dell displays with my macs since the beautiful-for-the-time 2407WFP with its nice 1920x1200 resolution with convenient USB hub and SD card reader. It worked great with my G4 on the floor and camera, external DVD, keyboard and mouse on the desk.
I currently have 2 external 27 inch displays and would like to upgrade to a new Mac Pro but Apple doesn't seem to want to update that any time soon. I guess what takes 5 years to make a new Mac Pro is finding a way to give it zero expandability or upgradability and yet still be able to market it to professionals. Even the G4 Cube was upgradable enough. It only got bad press for an overly visible plastic moulding seam that WSJ called cracks.
I don't need anything insanely fast but I want a desktop CPU in a desktop profile so it doesn't throttle down or scream 100 dB at the wrong time so the iMacs are out, the Mac Mini is out, and the current Mac Pro resembles something that holds itself, a piece of fancy trash.
Yeah, what I just said is basically 10K wide by 3K tall at 49”. I think that’s a slightly higher PPI than the 5K iMac but haven’t done the math. But yeah, 8K is going to only be useful for big displays or TVs the size of an entire wall. Most people don’t get any benefit from their 4K TV if it’s under 65 inches and even more don’t get much benefit from that size if they sit too far away. I’m still waiting to get a 4K TV so I can get something good enough to make it worth it, but I have a 27” 4K LG display as my primary monitor for my MBP and Xbox One X because I sit close to it. I loved my 5K iMac at my last job and will be eligible to upgrade at work in a year. I think 5K is about perfect for 27” and probably won’t move to 8K on anything smaller than 36”. I kind of wonder if we’ll see an iMac Pro 6K 32” at some point in the next year.
Again sorry or autocorrect... ugly NON standard. And yes... you still have flickering lines and content that is NOT tack sharp if you use a non-linear scaling factor... aka 200% or native 2x.
If you have a line that is one point thick this will have 2 pixels at true retina level. If you use a scaling of say... 150% the same line will have sometimes 2... sometimes 1 pixel. It's very real. And I am personally dealing with it on my MBP, which should have a 4k display for that reason... but doesn't.
You may find this article helpful and explain it better than I do:
https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/
Business monitors are $1500 IPS displays nowadays? I don't see any large company buying these in bulk for business. Maybe one-off users like you but compared to the larger business and creative industries, this doesn't fit in very well for either.dogslobber has it right of all of you. When I do business I have charts, spreadsheets, research, and more on multiple screens at a time. This handles that role perfectly. It is a business monitor for people who'd use it to do business.
Yeah I’m really hoping this next Apple monitor expected with the 2019 MP will be 6K or 8K or a choice of either.
Even 8K at 32 inches isn’t wasted in my opinion. Consider the Dell one of exactly that. It’s all about how close you look at it. Sometimes I set my iMac Pro (27” 5K of course) to 8K resolution (4K pixel doubled) and as long as I sit close enough the smaller size of everything isn’t an issue and everything is still amazingly clear. It’s not ideal with everything being smaller. True 8K at 32” or maybe a little bigger would be awesome. Sadly that Dell 8K 32” isn’t compatible in any way with Mac. I’d buy it if it was.
[doublepost=1539702548][/doublepost]
Interesting.
I’ve used my MBP and my iMP at all kinds of different resolutions.
I definitely understand the Physics you’ve described. I remember experiencing it on the 1920x1080 17” MBP when setting that to non-native resolutions. Everything very fuzzy. And based on all that I would expect the result you’ve described albeit less noticeably even on these retina displays. But my practical experience has been that I’ve never noticed any of it. And sometimes I sit pretty close.
Even my 5K iMac displaying 8K (4K pixel doubled) I can’t notice any lack of sharpness in it. It’s actually pretty amazing in my opinion.
That’s not to deny your experience. You must have amazing eyes or something...?
Would rather have retina anything vs this. But as soon as retina ultrawide happens I’ll be all over it. Otherwise all I see here is a huge 5K iMac cut in half.
But that's why these are curved so you can sit closer and see them better when you turn. People do the same sort of thing with multiple monitors but don't sit back any further. I feel like if you have a panoramic monitor you can sit closer because it's just a matter of looking back and forth, but if it was extended the same amount in the vertical direction you would need to sit further back due to neck strain from looking up and down. Besides, if this was 8K wide, it would be half as tall as actual 8K resolution, so double 4K instead of quad 4K, which would be easier to run. It's like having two 4K monitors without a thick seam down the middle, and that would be really appealing.As the name suggests, retina meets the point where the human eye can no longer see the difference. Of course, this has as a direct relation with both the pixel density as well as the distance to the screen. Since you can't sit as close to a 40 or 43 inch screen as you can to a 27" iMac Pro screen, the 'retina' standard is met with a lower number of points per inch on a 40 inch screen. Just like you need a lot more pixels on a smart phone because you look at it from up close.
That's why a 40 inch retina screen won't be happening any time soon, because you'd need an 8K resolution or something similar to pull it off, thus a hefty expensive videocard, while you won't even see the difference anyway, because you're too far from the screen to see it.
No, I will not. Because the reason is astoundingly obvious.Would you please explain why?
Because they are non-retina. Aka. no hidpi.Would you please explain why?
[doublepost=1539624884][/doublepost]
TVs are worse than this. Cramped with stupid smart features.