mini paired with Hauwei's new 4.5K 3:2 monitor = iMac killer?

[jamesjingyi]

Real question for me is whether it's glossy (like the iMac), slightly matte (like the Ultrafines) or horribly matte like virtually every single other monitor, which leads to that rain bowing

Been on the hunt for a monitor but the Ultrafines have been discontinued in the UK, so I'm hoping Apple's one comes along soon and isn't horribly expensive

 

[jamesjingyi]

An English language review: https://www.t3.com/reviews/huawei-mateview-review

not v detailed, but matte coating confirmed.

Agh shucks

 

[nicho]

This doesn‘t change the fact that a mac mini + MateView setup is inherently more cluttered than an iMac, which is why most of the iMac customers wouldn‘t even consider this alternative. Which is why the title of this thread is misguided (and click-baity).

It depends (very much) on your desk. For me, it'd be the difference between one cable up through the hole to the iMac or two cables up through the hole to the display (since I have a place for a mini underneath the desk). Hardly a huge mess.

 

[the future]

It depends (very much) on your desk. For me, it'd be the difference between one cable up through the hole to the iMac or two cables up through the hole to the display (since I have a place for a mini underneath the desk). Hardly a huge mess.

You keep ignoring the „most iMac customers“ part.

If you can make a desktop + display setup work, good for you.

 

[ignatius345]

Not exactly.

View attachment 1807105

Ah, I'd overlooked this! That changes things quite a bit if the mics and speakers are comparable.

 

[tornado99]

Real question for me is whether it's glossy (like the iMac), slightly matte (like the Ultrafines) or horribly matte like virtually every single other monitor, which leads to that rain bowing

Been on the hunt for a monitor but the Ultrafines have been discontinued in the UK, so I'm hoping Apple's one comes along soon and isn't horribly expensive

The ultra-grainy matte displays were more common about 5-10 years ago. Most matte monitors now seem to have a very smooth surface, and it looks like the Mateview is similar. The Ultrafines are not slightly matte at all, they have a glossy plastic film on top!

I'm amazed that some people would prioritise fewer cables over a 3:2 display! When I said "iMac Killer" I meant in terms of productivity, not in terms of being the world's best All-in-one computer, as clearly the mini is not an AIO to start with.

Here are the $30 speakers (ok probably $40 now) that would beat either an iMac or the Mateview. Creative T20. Just the fact that you can place them a metre apart will give you more of a stereo effect, and their mass will give you better mid-range and bass.

 

[Amethyst1]

When I look up scaling for 4K screens on an M1 mac, I notice that with DP, people can get the funny HiDPI resolution of 3008x1692. Now, that's 16:9. The Huawei being 3:2, would the M1 be capable of rendering 3008x2005 HiDPI and to transmit it to the Huawei?

If there's indeed a hard limit to framebuffer resolution at 6016×3384 (which translates to 3008×1692 HiDPI), then no. However, that limit might only affect width or height individually.

I'm finding 2560x1440 (2560x1920 Huawei) to be too big for applications like Logic Pro X that require a lot of screen real estate.

The Huawei's equivalent to 2560×1440 would be e.g. 2562×1708. Or, if you want a height of 1920 pixels, 2880×1920.

I wonder how discernible it is once you get into that PPI range?

I have 186, 204 and 219 ppi stand-alone monitors. No discernible difference in sharpness at the pixel-perfect "best for Retina" setting. To me at least.

 

[InuNacho]

While browsing around, I did find the monitor through Hauwei's official youtube channel which linked me to a Shopee page. I'm super interested in buying this monitor, or maybe 2 if I squeeze it on my desk.
I'm just curious if anyone has used a freight forwarder from Malaysia where this is located at to have it shipped to the States.

Shopee 3:2 Monitor

 

[Khedron]

Where is the computer in this picture? Where is the webcam? …

It’s wirelessly streaming from the phone on the left. If you need a webcam prop up the phone so it sees you.

 

[tornado99]

Real question for me is whether it's glossy (like the iMac), slightly matte (like the Ultrafines) or horribly matte like virtually every single other monitor, which leads to that rain bowing

Been on the hunt for a monitor but the Ultrafines have been discontinued in the UK, so I'm hoping Apple's one comes along soon and isn't horribly expensive

If you're in the UK there's also this monitor. It's what I have right now. Ignore the random brand, the panel itself is top notch. A 10 bit IPS (not VA) panel with excellent colour accuracy. 24 inch 185 dpi. I reviewed it earlier on these forums. Still 16:9 though.

electriQ 24" 4K UHD Gaming Monitor - Laptops Direct

Buy electriQ 24" 4K UHD Gaming Monitor from LaptopsDirect

www.laptopsdirect.co.uk

 

[LFO8]

It’s wirelessly streaming from the phone on the left. If you need a webcam prop up the phone so it sees you.

Only works with certain Huawei phones.

 

[tornado99]

If you get past Apple's marketing, the webcam on the iMac suffers the same limitations of all other integrated webcams: small sensor size with inherent poor low light performance. I've noticed a whole new crop of standalone webcams released recently using Sony Stravis CMOS sensors from Dell, Elgato, etc. that are far superior.

AIOs are always a compromise on standalone peripherals as you don't have the space for stereo separation, speaker woofers, large lenses etc.

I have 186, 204 and 219 ppi stand-alone monitors. No discernible difference in sharpness at the pixel-perfect "best for Retina" setting. To me at least.

I have a 186 ppi monitor and a 227 ppi laptop. I can't tell the difference between the two in sharpness. My 122 dpi work monitor is not quite sharp enough. So, for me, retina starts somewhere between 122dpi-186dpi. I suspect 160dpi will be just fine.

 

[PeterJP]

If you're in the UK there's also this monitor. It's what I have right now. Ignore the random brand, the panel itself is top notch. A 10 bit IPS (not VA) panel with excellent colour accuracy. 24 inch 185 dpi. I reviewed it earlier on these forums. Still 16:9 though.

electriQ 24" 4K UHD Gaming Monitor - Laptops Direct

Buy electriQ 24" 4K UHD Gaming Monitor from LaptopsDirect

www.laptopsdirect.co.uk

I'm actually considering 2 of these stacked on top of each other. It becomes a 16:18 at 3840x4320, which is lots more vertical space that the Huawei. Or one of these with a 24" imac. In both cases, I'll need a dock to connect all my stuff. With the imac, it can be a single hdmi/dp one, which is cheaper but not as much as the imac surplus over a mac mini + 24" 4k + better keyboard and mouse. In both cases, I'd mount them on a VESA pole for two screens. And if I go imac+24" over DP, I can put the DP screen in 3008 Hidpi, just like with one screen on the mini. So very similar setups, really, except the imac has a webcam and speaker/mic built in.

 

[Khedron]

Only works with certain Huawei phones.

Apple’s handoff features only work with Apple products

 

[turbineseaplane]

I hope this might be the start of seeing some more 3:2 or even just 16:10 panels again.

On my desktop computer, I'm not interested in losing vertical real estate to match up with "movies in 16:9".

It's nonsensical to optimize for such a wide and short format for desktop computer usages.

 

[LFO8]

Apple’s handoff features only work with Apple products

Clearly ..as everyone here knows. I thought it might be useful of pointing out that it only works with (only certain) Huawei phones since we are on MacRumors en the likelihood of most not owning a Huawei phone but an iPhone instead is quite high.

 

[LFO8]

I hope this might be the start of seeing some more 3:2 or even just 16:10 panels again.

On my desktop computer, I'm not interested in losing vertical real estate to match up with "movies in 16:9".

It's nonsensical to optimize for such a wide and short format for desktop computer usages.

I actually can agree. Apart from the occasional YouTube video, I never watch movies on my desktop rig.

 

[tornado99]

This was my first thought when I saw the new 4.5K iMac in an Apple store. A beautiful computer but when I open a New York Times article, or BBC news, I have to do nearly as many page scrolls as a $100 1080p monitor. Just with everything very sharp!

There were a hundreds of glowing reviews of the iMac on youtube but not a single person ever mentioned the aspect ratio.

 

[sublunar]

I hope this might be the start of seeing some more 3:2 or even just 16:10 panels again.

On my desktop computer, I'm not interested in losing vertical real estate to match up with "movies in 16:9".

It's nonsensical to optimize for such a wide and short format for desktop computer usages.

Actually, I’d have said that the 5k monitors were there partly so people editing 4k video could see all the pixels 1:1 with no scaling plus a set of editing tools. even the 4k 4096x2304 21.5” iMac sort of allowed for this too (Possibly with some playback gadgets)

Apple are currently the only people asking for a 4.5k 23” screen and the likes of LG haven’t seen fit to make a Thunderbolt Display of the same size (or even a USB-C version with power delivery) yet.

a lot of display makers supply their monitors on stands that allow portrait use which is great for writers or coders. isn’t it telling that that iMac can’t do this unless you buy the VESA mount version?

Going back to a more square aspect ratio for their pro apps would be something that Apple might have in mind if they were thinking of releasing Final Cut or Logic for iPad. They would have to design tool layouts to suit the iPad aspect ratios and 4:3 like the 12.9” iPad Pro Is just a likely target.

what if Apple were in fact considering a 4:3 aspect ratio for the bigger iMac but they were going for 5120 wide in pixels but 3840 pixels deep In a 29” display diagonal?

sounds like a good way to keep the Pro Display XDR that bit more exclusive as well.

 

[nicho]

what if Apple were in fact considering a 4:3 aspect ratio for the bigger iMac but they were going for 5120 wide in pixels but 3840 pixels deep In a 29” display diagonal?

4:3 displays are basically impossible to find now, period (above 19” or something silly, 1990s specs with VGA input) which suggests that there’s not really a market for them and people want widescreen displays to watch widescreen content.

I want to believe though. And mini LED or the like, and the ability to fully dim the black bars above and below widescreen content, could make it happen.

 

[the future]

There were a hundreds of glowing reviews of the iMac on youtube but not a single person ever mentioned the aspect ratio.

And why would they? The iMac has the same aspect ratio as >90% of all other displays on the market.

 

[sublunar]

4:3 displays are basically impossible to find now, period (above 19” or something silly, 1990s specs with VGA input) which suggests that there’s not really a market for them and people want widescreen displays to watch widescreen content.

I want to believe though. And mini LED or the like, and the ability to fully dim the black bars above and below widescreen content, could make it happen.

I would suggest that Apple think that iMac Pro users would like the extra screen real estate, and rather than going ultrawide the opposite would be to take a more square cut. It’s a risky move though.

16:9 is the commodity aspect ratio for sure, and the Pro Display XDR strongly suggests that a 5.5k 30” 16:9 display would be the logical choice for most buyers looking for a big M1 iMac. Obviously that’s the path of least resistance there.

marketing wise, a 29” 4:3 retina display would still be 5k - not a great sell there and reviews would quickly point out the non 16:9 nature of the display. It would become a headline.

would serious coders and writers like more screen depth without having to resort to a second portrait display?

 

[Moonjumper]

would serious coders and writers like more screen depth without having to resort to a second portrait display?

A second portrait display at 16:9 is too narrow. It is just swapping a constraint from one axis to another. It is something I have tried.

 

[tornado99]

Sony Betamax was always technically superior to VHS, but people bought VHS as that was cheapily and readily available.

16:9 has never been the choice of consumers, it's just what is currently available. And actually, for small businesses, such as my place of work, Dell heavily pushes 16:10. Our standard office computer includes a 16:10 24 inch 1080p monitor which shows that professionals do desire more height.

 

[Moonjumper]

Sony Betamax was always technically superior to VHS, but people bought VHS as that was cheapily and readily available.

16:9 has never been the choice of consumers, it's just what is currently available. And actually, for small businesses, such as my place of work, Dell heavily pushes 16:10. Our standard office computer includes a 16:10 24 inch 1080p monitor which shows that professionals do desire more height.

And Apple are probably in the best position of anyone to make it happen. The iMac 24" is a non-standard resolution, there doesn't seem any reason why a non-standard resolution could also be a non-standard aspect ratio. They already see the value of 16:10 laptops when most others are 16:9, and Apple went for 4:3 on the iPad when the opposition had 16:9. I'd love a 27" iPad type of screen for a computer.

16:9 may be good for viewing movies, but not so much for creating them as space is needed for tools as well as the image. The printed page is nearer the 4:3 of an iPad, so would be better for word processing. Look at the average content. Many websites are far higher than they are wide, just an estimate on this page I am writing on and it is currently about 1:7. That means lots and lots of scrolling with 16:9. Some people say with ultrawides you can get two windows side-by-side, but you can do that with 2 screens. A narrow aspect ratio cannot be solved with multiple screens.