Nice, in few minutes you got 34likes, imagine if Jon Ive spends 2 months what would happen.
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.
LG and Dell to Showcase Latest USB-C Displays for New MacBook Pro at CES This Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nice, in few minutes you got 34likes, imagine if Jon Ive spends 2 months what would happen.
Curious, are there any 4K 120 Hz displays? Any with 10 bits/color? Theoretically, a TB 3 connection could drive such a display at 30 Gb/sec over a single cable with the excess bandwidth supporting two USB C 3.0 ports.
I think it will be a long time for 5K 10 bits/color at 120 Hz. AFAIK, there is no TB 4 being developed right now, so that would require two TB 3 outputs and cables. Have a feeling that may be an outlier situation and not happen.
Though I don't need one, nor do I have a computer that could drive it, I am curious about the LG 5K display picture quality. My 5K iMac with P3 gamut produces a stunning image. And that's with just 8 bits/color. The LG 5K with P3 gamut and at 10 bits/color must look amazing.
Im a IT-Ingenieur and a graphic designer and this is probably the stupidest thing i ever did read.
DisplayPort 1.3 can do 4K at 120, though not aware of such a product, frankly it will not happen in a hurry cause the GPU hardware is lacking , the fastest GPU in the world is struggling to hit 60hz in all gaming titles, though in a year or two when GPUs can push higher, these monitors will come. It's gaming that pushes these high hz displays.
As a photographer i understand your interest in these monitors, myself I need a jack of all trades , though having used 144hz monitors 60hz is a backward step for me, and I can game at 4k 60 fps with my hardware. I still use my 4K 32" dell for photography purposes.
That is why I believe 2k monitors are much better these days , all purpose.
I was expecting LG to outright announce 5K DCI-P3 models with "generic" inputs since there is virtually no technical limitation barring them to do so, but guess Apple spent extra effort to keep LG from doing that too soon.
On the 4K front, there is quite a demand for HDR 10-bit for PS4 Pro users, guess this is what most of the manufacturers will focus on for now. A 32"+ 4K monitor may not be retina, but as a multimedia display at 4 feet+ distance it is quite amazing. I think it is a nicer 2nd monitor option for MBP which has a primary retina screen at face distance already.
On the 4K front, there is quite a demand for HDR 10-bit for PS4 Pro users, guess this is what most of the manufacturers will focus on for now. A 32"+ 4K monitor may not be retina, but as a multimedia display at 4 feet+ distance it is quite amazing. I think it is a nicer 2nd monitor option for MBP which has a primary retina screen at face distance already.
Seeing what Dell designed with their 'thinnest' display, that should've been what Apple delivered with their 'ultrafine' monitors, which are based on specs nice, but design-wise really not 'ultrafine'. Damn, they are so ugly.
Oh well, wouldn't buy any of them anyway, since I want beautiful 21:9 ultra wide monitors. The first 200PPI+ ultra wide monitor 32"+ that arrives on the market when my wallet allows it, I will buy for sure.
Oh well, wouldn't buy any of them anyway, since I want beautiful 21:9 ultra wide monitors. The first 200PPI+ ultra wide monitor 32"+ that arrives on the market when my wallet allows it, I will buy for sure.
Ok -- it took me half an hour to find the link that I wanted to share but I now have it. (I'll save it this time!)
What I meant is simply that Mac OS is designed to look best at about 100-110 pixels-per-inch or at twice that much 200-220 ppi, in 'retina' mode, with perfect pixel doubling. This translates to an 'ideal' resolution of either 1080p (or 4K for retina) for a monitor in the 22" range or else a resolution of 1440p (or 5K for retina). This is the "correct" mode of displaying MacOS, but of course, as you say, one could just sit closer or further from the display. That's a different topic, Apple designs based on what it understands to be typical usage.
As you can see from this chart, a 4K 27" monitor is "wrong", because OS elements appear too small if used natively as 4K, and too large if used as "retina" 1080p (which is what the OS defaults to, by the way). Many people will go into the settings and run a 27" 4K monitor scaled to 1440p because, as most people would tell you, that just "looks" like the right size for Mac OS on a panel that size. But if you do that you are wasting money: you should have just bought a 1440p monitor instead of a 4K.
This is also why Apple never released an iMac 27" 4K, but waited until they could release a 5K 27" iMac, and a 4K 21.5" iMac. Ditto for the LG UltraFine. You will never see Apple officially endorsing a 4K 27" panel because its OS just looks bad on it.
This link is very helpful, and it contains this great chart, which I think every one shopping for an external display should take note of, and that MacRumors staff should understand before they claim that higher resolution is always better.
I have become convinced that this is an industry problem: they find it easy to manufacture 27" 4K panels right now, so this is what they are pushing. But for Mac users, 22" 4K or 27" 5K are more appropriate.
I personally don't have very strong eyesight (almost wrote iSight there), so maybe I would be content with a 24" 4K and things looking a bit big. But I had a 27" 4K and had to send it back, the OS elements were so big as to be goofy.
32" 4k would be "Good for non-retina" for me, as it'd be similar dpi as my 17" 1920x1200 MBP.
Last edited:
Apple is no longer interested in the Mac, that's obvious. If they ever open source macOS or license it to third parties or sell the entire Mac business is a different question. They might just discontinue the Mac and port Xcode to iOS - or maybe even Linux.
You certainly have no taste in design if you find that Display gorgeous
May I ask which current monitor you think has great design?
24" with something like 200% scaling?
You must have amazing eyesight
That's not exactly it. Previously 21 - 24" meant 1920x1080 or 1920x1200. 4K applies pixel doubling to that.
Aware of that . Though I cannot image going back to a 24" monitor cause the resolution has doubled. You would need to scale the heck out of it to make use usable .
The way Apple acts now you'd think they were on their last legs not one of the world's biggest corporations with a huge cash mountain.
Vanity projects like that vast campus, dicking around with cars, letting the core products stagnate and become in many cases a laughing stock.
People are going to write books about the Apple implosion in a few years.
Vanity projects like that vast campus, dicking around with cars, letting the core products stagnate and become in many cases a laughing stock.
People are going to write books about the Apple implosion in a few years.
The problem is no one else is doing anything either, except the 'make the watch suck less' team and and 'make everything thin' team.
That Dell Display pretty much incorporates my ideas for the next iMac: The chips in the base and an ultraflat display only. Think of the foot as a Mac Mini, voila. Could even make the neck as a liquid cooled headsink with big, silent fans and chill the base via connected heatpipes.
Actually, MAKE that foot an MacMini and you'd have an instant winner.
But I'm sure Apple knows better.....
I don't know what you mean. 24" at 1920 x 1200 is a perfectly usable size. If you double both dimensions and apply Apple's 4 pixels as one thing, you're back to the same size.
First, I'm sure you'll be able to pay $700 for one if you try really hard, but we're talking about Dell, so that $700 will be a "Manufacturers suggested retail price" that gets widely discounted, and if it still doesn't sell they'll drop the price (Dell's 5k display was announced at $2500, dropped to below $2000 and widely available for under $1000).
Second, not everybody wants - or has a computer that can support - 4k or 5k (and 5k still requires Thunderbolt 3 or a dual DisplayPort 1.2 cable, DisplayPort 1.3 GPUs still being like hens teeth). ...and not everybody is a graphics pro: "wide gamut" is more of a liability than an asset unless you're using properly colour-calibrated pro software (or perhaps you like hideously over saturated colours?)
Third: glossy/matte is a matter of preference. Currently happily using my Cinema Display in oblique sunlight that would wipe out the picture on a matte display that scattered it, but which the glossy screen reflects cleanly away from my eyes...
