New 24-Inch 4K Monitor Detailed on Dell's Website [Update: $1399]

[thekev]

We need 200 PPI or higher to achieve retina with large screen desktop monitor.

4K is destined for 21.5-inch iMac (205 PPI and 17" retina viewing distance) and 27-inch iMac and 27-inch Thunderbolt 2 Display will wait for 5120x2880 resolution panel (218 PPI and 16" retina viewing distance).

There is no defined retina standard. Even their original math made assumption on vision and viewing distance. Apple has been consistent in one area. They have used resolutions that were a factor of 2 over some lower resolution. I am curious what sizes they'll use. They have stuck with 21 and 27" for a few years at this point, but I don't expect to see 5120x2880 catch on in the near future. In either case it would look clean if implemented properly. Right now a 24" display is either 1920x1200 or 1920 x 1080. They both work, but it's a noticeable when compared against recent notebook displays.

 

[MacAddict1978]

4K is nothing but a marketing gimmick (maybe in 10 years when wall sized displays are sub $20K), and glad to see for the marketers it's working on so many people....

You don't need a 4k display... your living room wall perhaps, a screen that small no.... and nothing on the market or in the pipeline is true 4k anyway.

But when you do slam dunk for these, just know you're only paying for current gen tech and until the bionic eyeball comes out...

 

[newyorkguy]

what about this strange 30 hz cr4p via hdmi?

 

[phrehdd]

I can see 4K monitors being used by graphic artists, photo work and perhaps for playback of 4K media.

So where are we with Apple - oh yeah, OSX/EFI refuses to play HD audio content, many units with integrated graphics that wont really lend themselves to 4K work and certainly even at regular rez, games lag behind their PC counterparts and more.

In short, other than the Mac Pro coming out, Apple has done NOTHING with respect to cutting edge technology and completely turns a blind eye to all things good that relate to higher resolution monitors.

I am sure some will be upset with my statement but take the time to think about it - Apple really comes up shy on computers for gaming, certainly media playback (whether its HD audio or playing natively something as universal as flac files and more) and then tells us all the greatness of a computer that starts at a price of 3000 dollars to get 'some' of these features.

Perhaps this is the great void that Dell and others will fill while Apple continues with more hype than product to prove they are cutting edge usable.

 

[xraydoc]

Hopefully Apple enables a way to activate "retina" 2x resolution graphics and fonts - instead of everything just getting smaller.

While OS X knows to do this on retina MacBooks, I don't know that it'll do it on a 4K desktop monitor without a software mod.

 

[winterspan]

Make it 27" or even 30" and maybe then it would be worth looking at

Larger 4K desktop monitors already exist in the marketplace, here is one of Dell's (http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/23/dell-ultrasharp-32/)
This is UNIQUE for being so small and desired by many who don't want a TV on their desk.

 

[TouchMint.com]

Larger 4K desktop monitors already exist in the marketplace, here is one of Dell's (http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/23/dell-ultrasharp-32/)
This is UNIQUE for being so small and desired by many who don't want a TV on their desk.

I can understand that for people who dont have the space for larger tvs but they better price this < $250 because you can get a 40inch 4k monitor for about $450

 

[ellsworth]

Assuming this is a decent price, I'll likely be buying one. After upgrading to a retina MacBook Pro, using a regular monitor is like sand in the eyes.

3840x2160 "4K" Ultra HD resolution at 185 pixels per inch isn't in the retina spectrum. The current 27" Apple Thunderbolt Displays sport a 108 ppi.

I just recently got a retina ipad mini and it's a bit difficult switching back and forth onto my 2011 Macbook Pro

 

[StephenCampbell]

I don't get it. 24"? Hey, here's a 9" display that's 16K. Anyone interested??

Who's going to use a 24" 4K display? A 24" display at 2560x1440 would be all anyone would ever need in a display that small.

 

[Cougarcat]

Well, I'm glad to see that smaller retina displays will be available, as it means I'll be able to afford one this decade. I'll buy one of these when it hits $300 or less. Hopefully my current 20.5" Dell will last that long.

When Apple comes out with one, though,
it'll probably be 27" at the resolution of the 4K wallpaper found in Mavericks, 5160 x 2880.

 

[SirHaakon]

27" requires sitting 21" or closer, 30" requires sitting 23" or closer.

Human eyesight varies wildly and there is no definitive rule as you would like to declare. Also, even when you can't detect individual pixels at a given distance, you can still perceive more sharpness on a more dense screen. There are eventual limits, obviously, but they're way more relaxed than what most of the "charts" people like to post on the internet show.

----------

I don't get it. 24"? Hey, here's a 9" display that's 16K. Anyone interested??

That's essentially what they did with the new iPad Mini. And yes, lots of people want them.

This new Dell monitor is 185ppi; that's just slightly better than what the original iPad Mini offered. We're not talking ridiculous resolution here, but it will certainly help to make things much sharper than before. I have a pair of 24" 1920x1200 panels that I work with and I feel like I'm just counting pixels all day.

 

[Pressure]

I can understand that for people who dont have the space for larger tvs but they better price this < $250 because you can get a 40inch 4k monitor for about $450

Which fairytale world are you living in?

An Apple 4K display for $250? That 39" Seiki you mention is a complete piece of ****, it only supports HDMI at up to 30 Hz at 4K.

Your eyes will be bleeding in no time looking at that.

 

[michelepri]

Gresat job Dell. Glad to see someone is innovating and producing quality equipment. I remember when Apple used to have good and innovative stuff.

 

[Explicitic]

what about this strange 30 hz cr4p via hdmi?

People still use HDMI with computers?

 

[michelepri]

People still use HDMI with computers?

Yes they are excellent

 

[appahappa]

Great... And the current applications on my computer just caught up to supporting the resolution on my current retina mac.

I don't think you will have to adjust applications to support this resolution. Retina apps will work just fine.

 

[mdelvecchio]

With the forthcoming lousy Intel graphics chips in pretty much all macbooks and imacs, gaming will be rendered completely USELESS in OS X.

weird - my iMac is great at gaming. 2011 or 2012 (don't remember) with a 3.4ghz, 2GB gpu, SSD, etc...I just finished a Bioshock Infinite with details on -- tho I did have to lower the res from native to less than native. but it looked beautiful and I never bought twice about it.

 

[rmwebs]

Seems pretty pointless at 24" I mean, I use 2x 24" screens myself, but if I was going to go any higher than 1920x1080 you'd not want that on a 24". Even a 27" would be better, but ideally a 32".

Price wise there will be no benefit of buying these for a few years yet. The only people that *need* these are graphic professionals (and even then its more of a help than a need). The average joe at his/her desk wont be needing that kind of resolution for browsing facebook and playing games.

The 'sharpness' and HiDPI certainly aren't going to be enough to warrant a sensible person spending thousands on it.

 

[Manderby]

4K is a buzzword for a technology way too soon to be introduced to the masses. Remember Apple talking about 2003 being clearly the year of HD? That was about the same thing. Too much hype about something purely being on the presentation layer. Content is key.

 

[Umbongo]

Since when have people used computer monitors 8ft away from them? I'd like a resolution like this in a 22" monitor even.

You have been able to get one of those for 12 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

 

[TMay]

4K is a buzzword for a technology way too soon to be introduced to the masses. Remember Apple talking about 2003 being clearly the year of HD? That was about the same thing. Too much hype about something purely being on the presentation layer. Content is key.

Yes, content is the key. Hence, Apple is delivering the Mac Pro this month and I'm guessing a 4K capable Final Cut X that will drive the requirement of said 4K monitors for content creators.

There are many applications that are not creating 4K content that will benefit from higher resolution. Apple certainly won't stand in your way if you want to purchase a 4K TB2 display. The question is what will be the sizes and prices.

 

[H2SO4]

It doesn't look that bad. I've seen worse from Dell.

I think some people are a little too focus on looks here. I care more about the inner stuff, looks come second. Course that's how Apple markets their products as of late. Sex sells.

The vast majority of people focus on looks and don't realise it. Could be computing, cars, clothes all of which have a more important primary function. In theory.

 

[AppleMark]

4K is a buzzword for a technology way too soon to be introduced to the masses. Remember Apple talking about 2003 being clearly the year of HD? That was about the same thing. Too much hype about something purely being on the presentation layer. Content is key.

Indeed.

Remember all the proud owners who rushed out and bought 720 set's to watch standard definition broadcasts and 1080 Blu-rays?

Then the same people went out and bought 1080 set's to watch SD freeview TV and 720 broadcasts from both SKY Tv and iTunes.

Now you have some proud owners with 4K TV's, who's technology will be arguably outdated by the time there is any viable content.

However, I assumed that the '4K' monitor Tech was aimed at Pro designers etc and not somebody who wanted to watch a movie in '4K'.

P.s. Retina is not a Standard either, just another marketing buzz word.

 

[Quu]

Now just make a 17" version with the same resolution for a 17" Retina MacBook Pro! (Hey a guy can dream.)

 

[Jensend]

Once again the industry trying to sell something useless. 4K monitors are a joke. Unless you sit 1 foot away, you won't notice any difference between a 1080p and a 4K monitor. You want real quality, with the best colors and the ultimate black levels, wait for OLED to come down in price. Give it 2 to 3 years. The 4K monitors will have the same problems that current LED monitors have. Clouding, motion blur, and of course, poor blacks and colors.

Yes, 4k monitors are a joke... we should have 8k monitors. I'm running at a resolution of 3760*1600 across two monitors. If I were using this setup with 2x/Retina assets, that would be nearly 8k. (It would probably need to be a curved screen for the best experience)

If you open up a magazine printed at 300DPI, you're basically looking at a 5100x3300 image. That means even a 4k monitor wouldn't be big enough for someone designing a magazine at actual resolution without scrolling.

OLEDs often have just as much "motion blur" as LCDs. The problem can be solved for LCDs by using a scrolling or strobing backlight.