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.
New 24-Inch 4K Monitor Detailed on Dell's Website [Update: $1399]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
$1399!!! WOWZ!!! That's CHEAP!!
Hope it won't be messed up by the hard AG coating of the U2312HM and the likes.
Hope it won't be messed up by the hard AG coating of the U2312HM and the likes.
I would be surprised if Apple goes another year updating the iMac without moving to 4k displays. They have retina displays for everything else in their lineup and now that a major OEM like Dell is shipping 4k monitors it just makes Apple look like they're falling further behind the curb on tech if the next iMac is still only 2560x1440.
Can you run me thru how 21.5" is a perfect size please.
Not 21" or 22" but I am interested how 21.5" is perfect.
Was 24" a stupid size when Apple made 24" iMacs ?
http://store.apple.com/uk/product/MB325B/A
This is stupid size no-one wanted you say.. Yes?
There's barely anything there to look at and you think it's ugly as heck. Is it supposed to be made of machined aluminum and thin enough to shave with, before you'll find it arsthetically acceptable?
EDIT: that was a typo, but considering the dumbarse comment I was replying to, I think I'll leave it that way.
Last edited:
Dell also updated the "regular" 24" model with a much slimmer bezel ("world's slimmest" at 6mm, actually), 16:9 aspect ratio (1080p instead of 1200p) and an USB 3.0 hub as the UltraSharp U2414H, for around $300.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Once again the non-graphics professional users in the peanut gallery are mistaking themselves and their needs as the baseline for all users, not realizing how they're making a joke of themselves with their commentary.
As for your tech comments... Read up on OLED. While they have a better contrast ratio, they don't have the color capability yet, and they're twice (or more) as expensive as LCD.
----------
MOST people are taller than six inches.
Unless you're near-sighted, hate the discomfort of eye correction for close-up work, and choose to sit close to your desktop displays while doing pixel-perfect editing in photoshop...
What can I say? If you want to do pixel perfect work, you'll want to be able to see all those pixels, won't you?
At the time it made sense. Not anymore. Apple correctly anticipated the market moving away from 24" as the standard "large" monitor and drove everyone to 27".
Because everyone needs a giant display for computer work? I don't know about that... I want a large display because I'm a photographer. But at the same time I hate the space on my desktop eaten by my display when I'm working with tabletop synthesizers. There's really no reason that the size of displays or TVs has to perpetually increase. What will you expect to be standard in 2025? 6' ???
----------
Apparently you cherry pick what you read here. There are constantly examples of people here choosing to knock Apple gear as inferior to pro gear. Right in this thread, even.
Try again.
----------
Exactly. I increased the dpi on my Vista machine unintentionally because I wanted larger fonts for comfortable reading. (21" CRT running at 1600x????, I'm near-sighted). The result is enlarged type that runs off label areas, AND blurry system tray icons (which I didn't ask for). Windows continuously amazes me with how unrefined and untested its glut of features continues to be. Why offer a feature if it barely works? Why not test a feature before including it?
Last edited:
My point was that they would look ugly and low quality, not that they would't work.
...if there's a need for it, there's a market.
As you so well illustrated, there's no such thing as one perfect screen for all occasions, and a happy medium will only offer a tepid experience. There are times when a 30" monitor is ideal, times when you need or want nothing more than a 9.7" iPad screen, and times when you could easily find a use for everything in between.
I myself couldn't imagine ever needing more than a 32" monitor for work. But someone, somewhere will probably feel they need more to best do their job. Who am I to say they're wrong?
Here you go:
Panasonic has announced the U.S. availability for its latest tablet hailed as the world's first 20-inch tablet with 4K resolution: the Toughpad 4K UT-MB5. It's part of the Panasonic line of professional-grade tablets designed for use in the field.
The Toughpad 4K UT-MB5 is powered by an Intel Core i5 vPro processor and runs Windows 8.1 Pro. The native resolution of the 20 screen is 3840 x 2560, has a pixel density of 230 pixels per inch, and a native aspect ratio of 15:10.
The 5.27-pound tablet has a 256GB SSD, 8 GB of RAM, and 2 GB of VRAM. It's fitted with a 1280 x 720 pixel front camera and has integrated Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, memory card slot, a memory card reader, and USB 3.0 connectivity. The battery will only last two hours per charge, so be sure to keep a charger handy.
Panasonic has announced the U.S. availability for its latest tablet hailed as the world's first 20-inch tablet with 4K resolution: the Toughpad 4K UT-MB5. It's part of the Panasonic line of professional-grade tablets designed for use in the field.
The Toughpad 4K UT-MB5 is powered by an Intel Core i5 vPro processor and runs Windows 8.1 Pro. The native resolution of the 20 screen is 3840 x 2560, has a pixel density of 230 pixels per inch, and a native aspect ratio of 15:10.
The 5.27-pound tablet has a 256GB SSD, 8 GB of RAM, and 2 GB of VRAM. It's fitted with a 1280 x 720 pixel front camera and has integrated Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, memory card slot, a memory card reader, and USB 3.0 connectivity. The battery will only last two hours per charge, so be sure to keep a charger handy.
They have, but photoshop and other applications looks pixelated up until about a couple months ago on retina displays, and even some textures in certain applications still are "pixelly".
Then Apple would have to raise the price of their Thunderbolt displays if they went 4K. They're always more expensive than Dell's.
I think it IS too low, but it's a step in the right direction. This industry needs to step forward. Visible pixels have been hanging around for too long. It's time to end it.
It's not bad. Better than their old monitors and other companies' monitors (besides Apple). They probably don't spend the kind of money Apple does on designers.
No. That's what zooming is for. Seeing pixels should be optional. But seeing fine lines and aligning things in multilayer editing requires close-up work. If it's a fuzzy line at low PPI or a sharp line at HiPPI, I still feel much better working close to the display.
Also, a display with retina-like PPI makes it more likely to see one's entire image at 100% without scrolling (depending on the screen size), which is great for art being made for presentation in print. Essentially, displays should stop getting sharper only when print resolution has been achieved. And it has been way too long in coming.