Sidebar Sidebar
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

keysofanxiety said:
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 :()
Click to expand...

I dunno. If I got to talk to a drunk Scotsman, I probably would've found my experience a lot more entertaining. Being from the US, that doesn't happen to me all that much.

But yeah, my experience was about the same otherwise. The one plus is that the one time I had to get ahold of them because my old Geforce 7900GTX from way back in the day started acting weird, so I RMAed it back to them. When they finally got back to me like two freaking weeks later, they said it was a manufacturing defect that was causing the problems, and since they don't make them anymore, they sent me an 8800GTS 512 in its place.

I kinda liked them after that.
 
ArtOfWarfare said:
Are you seriously implying that the aspect ratio of the programming has anything to do with whether it's worth watching?

Anyways, I like that ultra wide screen, but the numbers don't add up.

4096:2160 = 17:9, not 21:9. 17x9 wouldn't be all that different from 16x9, but that screen looks really wide compared to a 16x9, so I don't doubt the claim that it's 21:9.

Either the pixels are stretched (Ew, why the heck would you do that?) or the resolution dimensions are wrong… maybe it's actually 5040 x 2160?
Click to expand...

The article is wrong.

LG have launched a 31-inch monitor with a 4,096 x 2,160 IPS panel with a 19:10 ratio but it's not the one shown in the photo.

They are LG's new 34-inch and 29-inch monitors which are not 4K displays but have 3,440 x 1,440 resolution with a 21:9 ratio.

From the link in the first post.
 
Renzatic said:
I dunno. If I got to talk to a drunk Scotsman, I probably would've found my experience a lot more entertaining. Being from the US, that doesn't happen to me all that much.

But yeah, my experience was about the same otherwise. The one plus is that the one time I had to get ahold of them because my old Geforce 7900GTX from way back in the day started acting weird, so I RMAed it back to them. When they finally got back to me like two freaking weeks later, they said it was a manufacturing defect that was causing the problems, and since they don't make them anymore, they sent me an 8800GTS 512 in its place.

I kinda liked them after that.
Click to expand...

Ah, I definitely would like them after that as well! Haha.

Well I'm pleased somebody got a good experience from ASUS. :)
 
OllyW said:
The article is wrong.

LG have launched a 31-inch monitor with a 4,096 x 2,160 IPS panel with a 19:10 ratio but it's not the one shown in the photo.

They are LG's new 34-inch and 29-inch monitors which are not 4K displays but have 3,440 x 1,440 resolution with a 21:9 ratio.

From the link in the first post.
Click to expand...

Thanks -- will clarify that in the article :)
 
Spinnetti said:
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)
Click to expand...
So you had the last 16:10 24" iMac (Early 2009, 5th Gen., Rev. C).
And you can't feel a speed difference to the current iMac?
That can only mean one thing: You didn't order the Fusion Drive! :eek:

My three golden rules of iMac purchase:
• Never order top of the line
• Always choose an SSD
• Wait for the screen update (You made that mistake twice.)
 
daneoni said:
Aren't these just UHD displays rather than true 4K (4096x2160)?
Click to expand...

You can call them UHD, but the world won't. 4K is a marketing term in full-effect. There are 6 resolutions using the term 4K so it's lost hope of being used for one specific resolution.
 
I *just* upgraded to the new iMac 27" with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 775M 2048 MB...

Will that be enough to run these displays??
 
nagromme said:
28"+ is awkward for 3840x2160. By rights it's mainly a niche option for videographers previewing video at that native size. Because:

- At 1x, everything looks super tiny. Menus etc. would be much smaller than on the 27" 2560x1440 units we're used to.

- At 2x (which Apple could easily add support for) everything would be super big! Not "retina" exactly--more like retina enlarged: you still see the pixels, and the fonts are too big!

But at around 24", 3840x2160 would make a great 2x retina display. THAT is what I expect Apple will do. Yes, it will have less equivalent workspace (and less physical area) than a 27" TB display, and so Apple will probably keep the non-retina TB display in the lineup too. But as a retina option, a 24" 3840x2160 screen would be great. Remember: retina MacBook pros have less equivalent workspace than the previous MB Pros. It's a compromise made necessary by reality. [CORRECTION: greater workspace on MB Pros was optional.]

And that's just native res; at 2/3 scaling (like the retina MBPs offer) a 3840x2160 screen would offer a scaled (and still fairly sharp) equivalent to 2880x1620. Greater than the 27" displays' workspace, if you wish to use that mode and don't mind things being a little small. Again--exactly the compromise offered in the retina MacBook Pros.

Since 5120x2880 27"+ screens don't seem practical any time soon, I expect a 3840x2160 compromise from Apple for now. Sooner rather than later, please! Otherwise I may go Dell: portrait rotation is nice, but the speaker and camera situation is awkward at best, and Dell displays are super ugly. That matters: the monitor is the single biggest object in my living room/office! If the style of furniture matters to people... this thing is like furniture.

I'd love to have Apple's styling, speakers, and camera to go with my Pro.

(P.S. Don't forget that retina is defined in part by viewing distance: a much lower PPI than an iPad would still meet the goal since you sit farther away.)
Click to expand...

So, I really shouldn't wait for the 28" Dell UHD monitor coming out this quarter and go ahead with the 24" UHD now available? So in order to get a similar experience of my MBPr, I need a 24" UHD rather?

I didn't think it would make that much difference, but so be it, the ease of the retina display is great, well worth any price difference to get a similar effect on a large screen, as I do a lot of typing all day long.

Also hoping of course Apple will support soon Display Port 1.2 MST and get 60hz, or some other dual TB workaround.
 
The Doctor11 said:
Apple good luck selling a 4k screen for $3,595
Click to expand...

The color range, pixel viewing angles , and features aren't all the same.

More than likely most of these "super discount" 4K panels will have one or more of the following.

a. limited to 30Hz 4K ( no display port v1.2 or HDMI 2.0 support )

b. lower viewing angles. TN panel like versus IPS like ( OK straight on but color shirts as view at angles over 80 degrees )

c. less capable backlighting. ( lower color gamut, less uniformity , etc. )

d. driver/software support

e. fewer ports/inputs

----------
daneoni said:
Aren't these just UHD displays rather than true 4K (4096x2160)?
Click to expand...

Umbongo said:
You can call them UHD, but the world won't. 4K is a marketing term in full-effect. There are 6 resolutions using the term 4K so it's lost hope of being used for one specific resolution.
Click to expand...

If the vast majority of the context gets delivered in the UHD flavor/varient then 4K and UHD will pragmatically merge.

Folks may go watch "real 4K" in the movie theater (without ever dealing with that 4k by name ) but if 900 million folks buy 4K (UHD) TVs and content then that is 4K.
 
OllyW said:
The article is wrong.

LG have launched a 31-inch monitor with a 4,096 x 2,160 IPS panel with a 19:10 ratio but it's not the one shown in the photo.

They are LG's new 34-inch and 29-inch monitors which are not 4K displays but have 3,440 x 1,440 resolution with a 21:9 ratio.

From the link in the first post.
Click to expand...

Sorry, off topic but that 21:9 ratio is awesome. Phillips makes one with a lower resolution (2560x1080) and Toshiba made a laptop at the same ratio (1792x768) that were really cool. Hopefully they will become more popular with time and content.
 
I won't want to spend the money to buy one until I have a computer that can game at medium settings at 4k. I can't even get my rMBP to do that.


I MIGHT however, if I can find movie downloads in 4k instead of 1080p.

----------
tf2ttt said:
Exactly! These aren't 4k. 3840 x 2160 is Ultra HD, 4096 x 2560 is 4k.
Click to expand...

Also just assuming that referring to these "retina resolutions" as 4k is easier.
 
tf2ttt said:
Am I the only one that noticed these aren't 4k TVs? These are Ultra HD resolutions not 4k resolutions.
Click to expand...
SHHHH!!! Don't you realize the TV industry wants you only to understand vague buzzwords instead of know the actual resolution of your content? Don't you realize knowledge is ignorance!?
 
I believe the industry should backtrack and call UHD what it really is. I think a solution would be to market UHD as 2160p. It makes sense to consumers who are used to seeing 1080p as a spec on their TVs and monitors.

4K is 4K ... at least it is to the DCI.

If things are not changed now during the early stages, 4K will be a meaningless descriptor, that will have the potential to confuse consumers even further, and may lead to other 'dubious names/conventions' such as 'Full 4K', '4K Ultra', 'Real 4K', etc. (you get my point).
 
shabbasuraj said:
I believe the industry should backtrack and call UHD what it really is. I think a solution would be to market UHD as 2160p. It makes sense to consumers who are used to seeing 1080p as a spec on their TVs and monitors.

4K is 4K ... at least it is to the DCI.

If things are not changed now during the early stages, 4K will be a meaningless descriptor, that will have the potential to confuse consumers even further, and may lead to other 'dubious names/conventions' such as 'Full 4K', '4K Ultra', 'Real 4K', etc. (you get my point).
Click to expand...

It already is and has been meaningless. Consumers will want 3840x2160. People doing direct-to-consumer video will want 3840x2160. Editors for real studioto-theater movies will want >= 4096x2160. Those movies will be trimmed to 3840x2160 and/or filtered down to 1920x1080 for consumer use.

I'm just happy that it is finally being done. Only a few months ago it looked like it could be a long wait for low-cost higher-res, because the naysayers were insisting that there was just no market for any lower-cost 4K of in any format. Now, the floodgates have opened.
 
I second that! Love my 16:10

tevion5 said:
23" Apple Cinema Display Late 2005 is my display, and IMO, the best display of all time :cool:
Click to expand...

I am about to try soldering in some new CFLs in mine to give it some fresh life! Had to have the bulbs custom made for it.

I hope the new displays come in black to match the nMP and a keyboard to go with it! Really surprised that they were not released at the same time as the nMP. I really like to have the display covered by apple care at the same time as buying a new mac pro.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6873_25.jpg
    IMG_6873_25.jpg
    316 KB · Views: 90
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back