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.
More Affordable 4K Displays Introduced at CES 2014
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
All they seem to be talking about is size - what about color accuracy? I don't care how good the resolution is if I'm not getting good color.
I love the comments about a 24" version of a new Apple display, but I'm afraid all those bigger is better people will win. I gave up on a 27" when I realized it had the same resolution as a 24".
I love the comments about a 24" version of a new Apple display, but I'm afraid all those bigger is better people will win. I gave up on a 27" when I realized it had the same resolution as a 24".
Yes I am to your first question.
And I also would be interested to see how 16x9 would look on that extra wide TV.
Last edited:
I know what you mean. In the right environment they are nice for consuming media, but they make poor workstation monitors.
I think Apple will enable the missing scaling mode for new displays as appropriate. Not sure how simple it is (it SOUNDS simple) but I expect it will happen.
You're right! I had forgotten that the MB Pros were lower res than the MB Airs!
The 13" MB Air (non-retina of course) is 1440x900.
Still, as of today, 1440x900 is a little low for a pro 15" laptop's workspace. (Not that I object to larger type automatically--sometimes that's a nice thing, and a personal call to make.)
The primary display in my office is going out and I really want a 4K display as I'm used to using my retina screen. Unfortunately my 2012 rMBP can't run 4K because it has the ancient, outdated Thunderbolt 1.0. But the cycle for upgrading my monitor and Mac aren't aligned. The new machines are barely faster than my 2012 model, which is already pretty decked out with 16GB of ram and 512GB SSD. But it's hard to see the 15" screen when it's docked at my desk.
I've thought about getting an iMac, but I really want that retina screen. Is it likely we'll get a Retina iMac this autumn? My work iMac (the newer thin 27") also has some problems with image retention that can get annoying (but not as bad as my rMBP before Apple replaced the display). So I'm hesitant to go that route and play the display lottery. Especially since Apple just barely accepted my rMBP as being faulty. I'm a designer so yes it matters.
I might just sell my rMBP later this year when Apple comes out with their own 4K display and pair it with a low-end Mac Pro that I can upgrade at my leisure. Then get a MBA or rMBA for when I need a mac on the go, which for me is increasingly less. I just need to do some research to see how far the base model Mac Pro can be upgraded to see if it's worth the initial cost. And if I upgrade parts does that void Applecare? Man this is going to be expensive. Maybe I should just get a refurb Thunderbolt Display and bypass the first gen 4K stuff for a couple years. Let them iron out the bugs and such. I'm so undecided!
I've thought about getting an iMac, but I really want that retina screen. Is it likely we'll get a Retina iMac this autumn? My work iMac (the newer thin 27") also has some problems with image retention that can get annoying (but not as bad as my rMBP before Apple replaced the display). So I'm hesitant to go that route and play the display lottery. Especially since Apple just barely accepted my rMBP as being faulty. I'm a designer so yes it matters.
I might just sell my rMBP later this year when Apple comes out with their own 4K display and pair it with a low-end Mac Pro that I can upgrade at my leisure. Then get a MBA or rMBA for when I need a mac on the go, which for me is increasingly less. I just need to do some research to see how far the base model Mac Pro can be upgraded to see if it's worth the initial cost. And if I upgrade parts does that void Applecare? Man this is going to be expensive. Maybe I should just get a refurb Thunderbolt Display and bypass the first gen 4K stuff for a couple years. Let them iron out the bugs and such. I'm so undecided!
and 99.9% of the world care nothing for color accuracy close enough is good enough.
It's all a marketing scheme. I'm a video editor who will at times (rarely) work with 4k footage. I'd hate to spend money on a monitor that can't cant let me take FULL advantage of it.
It's like 4G...just a marketing name, it didn't actually exist when they "rolled it out"
No real reason for expensive 4k monitors
The pixel density of phones and tablets are considerably higher and a much greater engineering challenge then trying to fit 4k pixels on a 27" screen (and then significantly less of a challenge for an 80" screen), yet phone and tablet screens average about $100 per unit, 4K computer monitors about $500, and 4K TV's about $20k.
Why do larger pixels cost more?
The pixel density of phones and tablets are considerably higher and a much greater engineering challenge then trying to fit 4k pixels on a 27" screen (and then significantly less of a challenge for an 80" screen), yet phone and tablet screens average about $100 per unit, 4K computer monitors about $500, and 4K TV's about $20k.
Why do larger pixels cost more?
* waits to see Apple monitors using the same panels for 2,499, because thunderbolt interfaces cost 1000+ dollars *
Same. It would be nice to have just one monitor instead of two now.
Was thinking of canceling my Mac Pro to get the iMac, but now this is getting interesting so I'm rethinking everything... Yet once again
Yes, I believe you are. 1080p/i at 16:9 works out at 3840x2160 if you double the number of pixels in both directions. People need to stop getting hung up on this - they call it 4k because it sounds a lot better than 3.84k and depending on your aspect ratio the monitor will be there or thereabouts. The point of the standard was to double pixels in both directions - why, because its a lot easier to scale your content if you say "let's double everything in both directions" than "let's use a scale factor of 2.1 in both directions" because pixels don't come in .1 denominations and that's just awkward. Personally I think it should have been marketed as 2k and we keep to the standard of quoting vertical pixels but apparently the marketing boys got to it before common sense did.
Can you imagine explaining to someone who barely understands 720 or 1080 the concept of 4k? its confusing and stupid.
At any rate, tl;dr get over it. If it bothers you that much then wait for someone to bring out a non 16:9 monitor, but with all tech companies moving towards full screen apps and therefore no control bar to squeeze in at the top or bottom you won't see those aspect ratios in anything but the truly professional 4k monitors, all video content is 16:9 so most users don't need anything else.
That'd make me cry.. just upgraded my 5 year "old" top of the line iMac to a new one (that doesn't feel a bit faster, AND has no cd drive)
1) Yield - if you want to produce an 80" piece of anything with no flaws in it, your yield is going to be lower because probability is against you. The larger the item the larger the probability of at least one flaw. A 4" screen you will find most of your panels escape the probability of a flaw, and even if you get one the pixel is often so small its invisible to the human eye so why bother.
2) Size of machinery - if you want to build larger continuous panels you need larger machines to do it => more upfront cost etc.
3) Economies of scale - look at how many smartphones are sold each year, then how many 4k monitors are. This bit really isn't hard to figure out.
4) Stable circuitry - smaller doesn't mean easier; Intel probably finds it similarly difficult to make their current gen chips as previous ones now that they have figured out how to reduce the size of the die. Stable power supply to a large monitor is not easy, changes in the brightness of the display introduce much larger swings in voltage because you are projecting more light.
5) Because they can - the average consumer doesn't want/need 4k right now so why not price discriminate and inflate your profits? With the TV market taking a dive you don't want to be too quick to give up the great new thing to everyone who wants it, otherwise you won't have anything new to sell in 3 years time.
You assume that all the owner of such a screen would want to do is consume existing media. If you're looking to edit an IMAX film, for example, even on these 4K screens you still have to scale it down to ¼ size just to see everything on the screen at once.
Alternatively, the user may want to display more on their screen than just a single HD clip. Frequently, when editing a movie you'll use 2-Up, where you have two clips side by side (each in HD) with your time bar below it where you do the actual editing.
Or maybe you're just looking to display multiple documents side by side by side. As a programmer, I often like having a source file or two, my UI, a debugger, my documentation, and maybe an instance or two of my app running all at once. That takes up a lot more screen space than an HD video.
But yes, iPads won't need a 4K screen until 2020 at least.
I've had to RMA a couple of things back to Asus before. They're pretty good as far as actually getting something back to you that work, but damn they're slow.
What I hate is that you speak to one of their drunken Scottish representatives, explain exactly what's gone wrong ... They take a problem description, your details, favourite colour ... then give you an RMA number and tell you to go to a website to submit the RMA.
Then you end up inputting the same damn details into that website, and wait up to 48 hours for them to process it and get it collected from you?!
Every other manufacturer will just organise collection there and then on the phone, once they've authorised an RMA. I don't know what the call people are there for at ASUS, they're utterly useless.
Sorry for the rant, but Lenovo, ASUS, HP and ACER (in the UK at least) are amongst some of the most incompetent repair/customer care people I've ever had the displeasure to deal with (sadly, nearly on a daily basis
)
What video card do I need to run a 4K monitor at full resolution and higher than 30 htz on my 2009 Mac Pro?
Currently have an ATI 5770.
Currently have an ATI 5770.
