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
I Want the 29" LG @ 3440x1440
On my desk to hook up my rMBP to.
4K will too much to handle for my Irix graphics. If I had the nMP things wuld be different...
/P
On my desk to hook up my rMBP to.
4K will too much to handle for my Irix graphics. If I had the nMP things wuld be different...
/P
So you don't recommend watching 4:3 shows based on what assumption? How about B&W? Don't watch them either?
Iirc, they will support 60 hz after a software update, because they already work at 60 hz in Windows with the latest nvidia drivers. TB2 does have the capability.
I was referring to media but yeah, I mistakenly read it was as TV. 4K monitors would be great.
Agreed. Unless your doing some sort of classic movie/show night thing.
Just my preference, but I really don't watch anything unless it is in HD, and in 16:9 format. But that is easy since most boardcast are in HD now.
I find it hard ot watch anything that is in 'low definition'
----------
I don't have anything against Seinfeld, I seen enought of that when they where originally on.
Now there are some better shows on (I wouldn't count Honey Boo Boo or Dancing with the Stars as better - but to be fair I have never watched thoses shows). I just don't like watching low def and shows in 4:3 format.
These are NOT TVs!!!
These are MONITORS for COMPUTERS not TELEVISIONS!
They are aimed at film/video/graphic/photo professionals (like myself). The pixels on a TV are way less dense than a monitor and cannot be used in a true professional setup. They have to be as accurate as possible in image and color reproduction to be able to meet broadcast/projection quality requirements.
Please know your terminology and technology before posting your ignorant opinions.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/19/ask-engadgethd-what-is-the-difference-between-a-hdtv-and-a-moni/
These are MONITORS for COMPUTERS not TELEVISIONS!
They are aimed at film/video/graphic/photo professionals (like myself). The pixels on a TV are way less dense than a monitor and cannot be used in a true professional setup. They have to be as accurate as possible in image and color reproduction to be able to meet broadcast/projection quality requirements.
Please know your terminology and technology before posting your ignorant opinions.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/19/ask-engadgethd-what-is-the-difference-between-a-hdtv-and-a-moni/
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!
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.)
I got fusion drive, 3.5proc, 4gig 780m. "old" one is late 2009, 27" 2.8 i7 4850 upgrade GPU. from the front they look identical to me
I don't use it looking at the edge, so it looks like same as my old one, feels the same on the desktop, but does allow me to run games I couldn't before - but that's not enough to justify the upgrade... we are so acculturated to get the latest and greatest, my advice people now is to save a ton of money and get a used iMac... my late 2009 2.8i7 4850 graphics did everything well but play the latest games on high res. Was even fast on solidworks under bootcamp at full res, and render speed was ok.. no complaints really. if I had known how little difference there would be, I wouldn't do it over, I'd have kept my "old" one for a few more years. The days when every year brought exponential computer improvements are over. my iPad does 90% of what I need a computer for.... now if it ran solidworks I wouldn't need a desktop at all!
Last edited:
As long as there's still plenty of height of course, I'm a 16:10 guy
***
Agreed. Most of the monitors shown here are Sub-4k (3,840 x 2,160 pixels at 16:9). What we really prefer is the superior Real-4k Digital-Cinema (4,096 x 2,160 ratio). Such as the LG 31MU95. Apple have respected the value of DCI in the past, let's hope they do so in the future. It will be a shame if the inferior 3840x becomes standard.
My apologies... I just assumed that they were close enough that a 4K monitor for a 10th of the price of a 4K TV was showing a significant drop in technology prices. I mean, I understand that TV vs monitor is different, but I thought that 4K was the same amount of pixels in either case. I mean, the DPI is different sure, but wouldn't a 4K 28" TV have the same DPI as a 4K 28" Monitor? Also wouldn't a denser screen usually mean a more expensive panel inside the unit?
Sorry for my ignorance, but I just assumed the tech was close enough that the price difference was showing a tech price drop in general.
So, you don't want to watch The Lady Vanishes or Casablanca or The Hidden Fortress because they are B&W 4:3? You are, simply put, depriving yourself of access to a large number of cinematic classics. Your loss.
Here, you are confusing 4:3 with the typical low-res DVD format of the past. Some of the classics have been re-scanned into full HD. Many of the higher-end B&W classics benefit greatly from full HD. Casablanca, for example, is available on high-res BD. Some 4:3 B&W films are analog high-res and would even benefit from 4K rescanning when it is available.
I'm wondering this also? Which, if any, existing Macs can support 4K (or, 3840x2160) at 60 Hz?
Well our home tv's have an aspect ratio of 1.78:1, which is why our 4K has a resolution of 3840x2160. In order to achieve a 4096x2160 resolution, our displays would have to be 1.90:1.
Also, they call this resolution as 4K because now it is the buzzword and they are focusing on the horizontal resolution instead of the vertical resolution, just like 1920x1080 would have been called 2K if they would have focused on the horizontal resolution. Just have to think that 2K and 4K will differ a bit depending on the aspect ratio. Heck, if you were watching a 1.33:1 4K movie on a 4K display, the horizontal resolution would fall really short of 4,096 or 3,840, but you can safely call it 4k/2160p. It would be too confusing if they would really detail the actual resolution of different aspect ratios.
Just imagine all the confusion that would have happened if films that are wider than 1.78:1 would have been given the proper vertical resolution during the 1080p marketing. The public would be like "Wait, this movie is 1080p while this other movie is 858p. That means that the 1080p movie looks better."
lol the public wouldn't take the time to see that the reason it's 858p is because it has an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 compared to the 1.78:1 aspect ratio of 1080p. So leaving 3840x2160 as 4K is just fine lol----------
Even the 4k remastered version of Casablanca on Blu-ray looks wonderful. Can't wait to see how it will look on a 4K display once they finalize the 4K BD format. Word is that 4K BD movies will come out by the end of the year. They have a lot of 4K masters already set, so it hopefully won't take too long.
Only because of the aspect ratio. 720p was completely different as it wasn't dependent on the aspect ratio, but on the resolution. Also, HD starts at 720 and not at 1080.
There will also be slight variations on 4K depending on the aspect ratio just like with 2K.
Sure do. Forbes has an update to their original story.
"UPDATE: I now have confirmation of the P2815Qs full specs, and have listed them below. Unfortunately, it tops out at 30Hz 3840 x 2160 and 60Hz for 1920 x 1080. This should prove a deal breaker for gamers, but the monitor still has a solid feature set for the asking price and represents an attractive option for creative professionals not focused on gaming."
I hope ultra-widescreen DOESN'T become a big thing. The phones would be impractically tall. Smaller notebooks would have less room for the trackpad. And conventional widescreen is already less than ideal for tablets.
Doesn't any of you watch/read Mac news? The Apple document Using 4K displays and TVs with Mac computers came out when the 2013 Mac Pros came out.
It's not a matter of "getting hung up" on anything. Some cameras I use in my profession actually have a censor with 4,000 pixels. Things like this don't need to be explained to somebody who doesn't understand 720 or 1080 because thats not who these products are made for. I'm just tired of the market misleading people. 160 pixels is 160 pixels. It's like a cashier charging you $10 for something thats $9.37 because 10 is easier to say.
You probably have to accept that for the home market, 3,840 will fall under 4K. They aren't marketing this as 4K DCI. Even a lot of the 1080p content wasn't even 1080p because the vertical resolution was lower for wider films. So films that are 2.40:1 were called 1080p even though they weren't. There will be a lot of 4K content played on a 4K display that won't even have 4,000 horizontal lines because the aspect ratio is completely different, yet it will still be labeled as such.
We have a certain aspect ratio for our displays that isn't fit for 4K DCI, but that's not to say they are wrong in calling it 4K, just as a general standard. Just like 1920x1080 could be called 2k, just not 2k DCI