Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

SirHaakon said:
The UHD standard is 3840x2160... what other resolution are you speaking of?
The monitor's aspect ratio is 16:9... that's the only UHD standard, as well as the standard aspect for HD content as well... how is that "weird?"
Click to expand...

Indeed, he is speaking of 4K, which is 4096 x 2160. Ultra HD is defined as being 3840 x 2160.
 
iisdan said:
Holy ****, I just realized, 4k is not 4k at all.... 720p is 720 pixels up... 1080p is 1080 pixels up.... but 4k is only 2000 up? WHAT?! This is 2k. We have been lied to. Thanks but I'll wait for 4k.
Click to expand...
The difference is video standards vs. digital cinema standards. SD and HD are video standards and are measured vertically. Digital cinema standards are measured horizontally because there are different aspect ratios in cinema that all have a common width. 2K is actually very similar to 1080p as you pointed out (2048 × 1080), but 4K is 3840 pixels × 2160 - four times the number of pixels as "full" HD. It's a significant improvement.

----------
Pressure said:
Indeed, he is speaking of 4K, which is 4096 x 2160. Ultra HD is defined as being 3840 x 2160.
Click to expand...
That's the digital cinema standard vs. the home video standard (which I just outlined), which is essentially just a difference in aspect ratios. They both have the same number of vertical pixels.
 
skysurfer said:
Make it 27" or even 30" and maybe then it would be worth looking at
Click to expand...

Actually, 24" @ 3840x2160 might be more sensible if you're going to use it in 'Best for retina' - i.e. pixel-doubled/HiDPI mode - think in terms of replacing the 21.5" iMac wit a "retina" version rather than the 27". It would give you the same physical font/icon size as a 24" 1920x1080 monitor but with double the definition. 3840x2400 in a 16:10 format would be better still.

At 27"-30", though, "1080p equivalent" font/icon sizes will start looking a bit too big if you're used to a 1440p screen. You ideally need a 5120x2880 display for a pixel-doubled mode with the same physical font/icon sizes as the current 1440p models.

…that and the fact that I really don't see people looking at their ATD/ACS/Dell 2713 and saying "gosh this needs better resolution". Once you allow for viewing distance, these displays are already near-as-damint retina.

3840x2160 UHDTV is designed for 60" Home Cinema TVs and projectors, not computer displays - although there may be a niche if you're actually editing UHDTV material. I guess if UHDTV catches on and gets cheap we'll be stuck with UHDTV for computers just like we got stuck with 1080p.
 
Two of the most important words in this rumor: "anti" and "glare"!!

Now if only Apple would follow the same path, at least as an option, I would indeed include the new "4K thunderbolt/cinema" display on my x-mas wish list. ;)
 
AlterZgo said:
The 32" version is selling for $3500 now on the Dell website. However, I see prices falling rapidly in the near future. Dell cannot compete at that high price point when the Chinese begin flooding the market with cheap displays such as this under $500 4K Seiki 39" monitor.

FWIW, the 50" 4K Seiki is less than $800.

Granted these monitors have virtually no features, but they do have a 4K panel and they seem to be working well per the reviews.
Click to expand...

The Seiki are TVs. There are HUGE differences between a TV and a professional display. Dell will be fine making a nice profit on a lower number of quality displays backed by 3 year warranties. People are still buying Dell's 1440p displays despite them being twice the price of the cheap Asian ones.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
SirHaakon said:
The difference is video standards vs. digital cinema standards. SD and HD are video standards and are measured vertically. Digital cinema standards are measured horizontally because there are different aspect ratios in cinema that all have a common width. 2K is actually very similar to 1080p as you pointed out (2048 × 1080), but 4K is 3840 pixels × 2160 - four times the number of pixels as "full" HD. It's a significant improvement.

----------


That's the digital cinema standard vs. the home video standard (which I just outlined), which is essentially just a difference in aspect ratios. They both have the same number of vertical pixels.
Click to expand...
They are two different resolutions anyway. There are going to be displays of two different kind, hence two standards, two different aspect ratios.
 
Macman45 said:
Now all we really need is 4K content. Sure that looks like a great monitor, and Dell's tend to be competitively priced too, but without a lot more 4K Ultra HD son tent, it's not going to make a great deal of difference...except for looking better than my iMac :)
Click to expand...

Except this product is for people creating the content. ;)
 
I thought 4k res was something official, like 4096 px by something, used in the film industry. 38xx pix is not that, so... anyone know any more on what is officially 4k?
 
NewbieCanada said:
It's a Dell.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Dells have actually been really great monitors for a lot of years. They're not as pretty as the ACDs, but they're definitely not horrid looking and offer more bang for your buck. I had two 20"s for a very long time and before buying my 30" ACD, I seriously considered Dells. I ended up paying twice as much for twice as less but I was definitely paying for the look, nothing more.


It's a very nice display. I am not sure I have a need for a 4K display, but it sure is pretty.
 
RobinHood5 said:
It's ugly as heck too.
Click to expand...

While I agree that it's not looking as nice as a Thunderbolt display, I'd prefer it any time because...
  • it's non-glossy
  • it's adjustable (up/down, rotation, tilt)
  • it has far more interfaces
  • it has far better t&c (on-site support included in the price)
  • Dell's displays are 1/3 cheaper than Apple's
 
Kudos to Dell for the matte screen

While I would prefer to buy an Apple product over a Dell product, I must say that, if the color gamut on both monitors is the same, I will buy the Dell monitor because it has a matte (aka "anti-glare") screen. Apple's display is, by far, the most reflective monitor in computing history due to the glossy glass cover.

However, if the color gamut is the way it is now, i.e., Apple using standard gamut (around 72% NTSC) while Dell is offering wide gamut, I will easily choose Apple. It is horrible to use wide gamut displays for everyday apps (browsers, Office, Quicktime, jpeg viewers, Skype, etc.), because they over-saturate the colors, and all standard gamut emulation modes on wide gamut monitors are awful. I'd rather have a true standard gamut monitor.
 
sohelpme said:
At least they are slightly adjustable up and down, unlike Apple monitors. If you are over 6", you need to put it on a book or buy a booster stand for it, or throw the stand away and buy a complete VESA desktop mount for it.
Click to expand...

LOL.. This is MacRumors. How well a product performs or functions is unimportant. The big selling point is how "gorgeous, sexy, and elegant" a product LOOKS. And of course if, "Jony designed it" it's a buy!
 
wxman2003 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they still need work. What I like is the work space a higher resolution allows for and a monitor is close enough to notice such a increase in resolution, a tv depending on size may be too far away for that.
 
Damnit Apple, I have been waiting for an upgraded Thunderbolt display for ages now. At first only for USB 3, but as it took this long I'm expecting Thunderbolt 2, 4k resolution and hopefully an HDMI-port as well. I would have thought they would be launched with the Mac Pro, but if it was we should have heard about it by now I think. Let's just hope it's one of the things that they managed to keep secret. I'm guessing a lot of people will get this or similar displays from competitors if no TB-display is released very soon.
 
Curious, would this work with my 2012 Mac mini and get full 4K resolution from the HDMI/DVI/ThunderBolt ports?
 
What OS is this monitor intended for? Unlike OSX, Windows has terrible support for HiDPI. Take your pick: Tiny unreadable text or overflowing clipped labels.
 
I think they're going to rationalise their computer lines next year with all new designs as follows:

New 12" Retina MBA to replace current 11" & 13" models
New 14" & 16" Retina MBPs to replace current 13" & 15" models

New 20" iMac to replace Mac Mini
New 24" & 28" Retina iMac to replace current models

New 24" & 28" Cinema displays to replace the current 27" model

That effectively reduces their computer line up to 2 laptop and 2 desktop brands with 3 size/spec options for each brand
 
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