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.
Dell Introduces World's First 49-Inch Curved Ultra-Wide Monitor With 5120x1440 Resolution
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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?
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?
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.
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.
Is it glossy or matte?
Guessing matte since no one seems to make glossy displays above 1080p except Apple (in the iMac only for now) plus those pieces of junk LGs.
I know glossy isn’t everyone’s preference. It’s a trade off - amazing crispness but sometimes reflection issues in glossy vs fuzziness in matte. I can usually adjust positioning to minimize reflection issues which makes glossy my preference.
[doublepost=1539664232][/doublepost]
You’ve got to be kidding. This is innovative? It’s 109 ppi or something. That’s downright blurry by today’s satandards.
Make one that’s less wide and more pixels and we can be impressed. This is likely a great product for its intended market but innovation it isn’t.
350 nits isn’t that bright either.
Guessing matte since no one seems to make glossy displays above 1080p except Apple (in the iMac only for now) plus those pieces of junk LGs.
I know glossy isn’t everyone’s preference. It’s a trade off - amazing crispness but sometimes reflection issues in glossy vs fuzziness in matte. I can usually adjust positioning to minimize reflection issues which makes glossy my preference.
[doublepost=1539664232][/doublepost]
You’ve got to be kidding. This is innovative? It’s 109 ppi or something. That’s downright blurry by today’s satandards.
Make one that’s less wide and more pixels and we can be impressed. This is likely a great product for its intended market but innovation it isn’t.
350 nits isn’t that bright either.
Except at 110 ppi it’s terrible resolution compared to today’s retina displays. I could never go back. LG has a 34” wide 5K x 2160p coming I believe that’s not quite retina but would be a much better experience than this.
I’ve tried even the 38” wide ones and the strain of moving your head back and forth all the time gets wearing after a while. There’s a limit to how wide is useful before it becomes a strain. I don’t understand these super wide monitors from that perspective, no pun intended.
Smaller size (than this) with higher resolution makes a lot more sense to me. I think the 34” wide ones are a good balance.
[doublepost=1539664705][/doublepost]
Exactly.
5K iMac = twice the resolution of this display. And half the head strain. Lol.
[doublepost=1539665681][/doublepost]
Your thinking is correct. It’s half the ppi of the retina displays. Same ppi as the old thinderbolt display and basically all desktop pre-retina displays.
This monitor is not for people who want a “retina” experience.
Goldilocks, I feel the 4K is similar to the HD (720p) and Full HD (1080p) market introduction. I skipped 720p and went 1080p, next jump 8K. Awaiting a well balanced price/value: performance ratio for a 8K solution. 2020 cannot come soon enough.
I think you’ve missed the point of retina? The whole point is the crispness because macOS now draws four pixels for everything it used to draw one pixel.
So sure the 5K iMac is to be used at 1440p but the 2880 physical pixels in that 1440p makes everything a whole lot crisper, sharper, clearer.
That’s not possible with this Dell.
Anyone who doesn’t get this, go walk into any Apple store today and compare the display on the 13” MacBook Pro with the 13” MacBook Air. Look closely at some text in particular or even the Apple I’m the menu bar. You can’t miss it.
This Dell is like he MBA. The 5K iMac is like the MBP.
If you are considering this product, may I suggest that Dell usually has sales for Black Friday to purchase at a decent discount.
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.
Last edited:
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/
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. I have never seen an operating system handle window positioning as STUPIDLY as Mac OS.
What does any of that have to do with Retina? It’s not about screen estate; it’s about pixel density.
[doublepost=1539672512][/doublepost]
I do that constantly and have no idea what you mean.
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, it's time Apple released some non-Retina screens again. That Retina thing is getting old.
Great analysis. Although it would be the equivalent of two 4K (7680 x 2160) screens wouldn’t it? Which Thunderbolt 3 can handle through one cable.
What I’d love to see is the equivalent of two 5K screens (so 10240 x 2880) which would require 2 thunderbolt 3 connections but should still work perfectly well for machines that support it (not all would but some do).
[doublepost=1539700318][/doublepost]
iMac Pro meets those requirements I believe.
But yes Mac Pro situation is pretty lame. But I’m sure you’ve heard 2019 is supposedly bringing a new modular one right?
Last edited:
Ok, that's all very fine and dandy but your 1920 x 1200 (which is actually a taller than avg 16:10 ratio) would be an objectively superior display at 3840 x 2400, which is a resolution I would expect if the monitor costed over $1k. I'm not sure how it being "a business monitor for people who'd use it to do business" requires it to be a low resolution: do business people prefer blurrier text?
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...?
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.
Well... a few things come together here for me.
I come from a 17" MBP and really loved the 1920x1200 resolution. I did not want to upgrade because of many reasons (16GB RAM max, Quad Core max... things I already had!), including me wanting a 17" machine or something with native 1920x1200@2x points aka 3840x2400 pixels.
I now got a new 15" MBP and use it basically exclusively in this scaled resolution. While it still looks sharper than my old 17" machine... I can tell the difference between the native 2x and scaled resolutions. That Apple now uses a non-linear scaling factor as the default still baffles me.
On top of that... If you KNOW it's there and you KNOW what to look for... you cannot unsee it.
Which is also why I tell people that 4k 24" displays are perfect... and 27" 4k is already not ideal... as 1080p at 27" is also not good. But that is a whole different story. I'm kinda passionate and almost dogmatic when it comes to tech stuff
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.
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.
