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
That's understandable.
Like I said previously, having access to 200+ PPI displays would be great, but I don't believe they're absolutely 100% necessary, nor will they make anyone's job particularly easier. There comes a point where higher resolution goes from being an advantage to being cosmetic. As much as I'd like retina quality on everything, I'm not gonna scoff at a 27" 4k monitor just because I can discern a few pixels here and there.
This is true depending on what you're doing. If you were blowing a picture up to a huge poster size, you'll want to be able to see every tiny detail while looking at the picture as a whole. A high density display would allow you to do that.
...though you do get diminishing returns after a certain point. It's like looking at a 2048x2048 picture on my iPad vs. my 1920x1080 monitor. The iPad certainly looks sharper overall, but not so much I'd only be able to get a true example of what it'd look like blown up from there. Once you reach a certain point, the screen size itself plays against you. Even if you're able to see more detail with your face closer to the screen, from a certain distance, they'd both look almost exactly the same.
When it comes to pixels, more is always nicer, but more isn't always necessary after you reach a certain threshold.
Fair point but I think I'm right in saying that Apple has removed all the options for matte screens so I don't think they are all that concerned about that.
They could also maybe introduce a cheaper version of the Mac Pro next year to target non-pro users who prefer not to have an all in one machine.
mid-2012 rMBP & DisplayPort 1.2
According to this Tech Republic teardown, the June 2012 rMBP Thunderbolt chip supports DisplayPort 1.2...
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/cr...y-impossible-to-upgrade-difficult-to-work-on/
...does that information seem correct? If so, doesn't it suggest that at the least the mid-2012 MBPR has the correct hardware to drive the 4K display at 60Hz (even if the current OS X software doesn't properly support it)?
According to this Tech Republic teardown, the June 2012 rMBP Thunderbolt chip supports DisplayPort 1.2...
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/cr...y-impossible-to-upgrade-difficult-to-work-on/
...does that information seem correct? If so, doesn't it suggest that at the least the mid-2012 MBPR has the correct hardware to drive the 4K display at 60Hz (even if the current OS X software doesn't properly support it)?
It doesn't even have to be a huge poster size. If you're designing magazines or catalogs for print, even a 4k display won't allow you to see a 2 page spread at 100% (assuming the standard 300dpi print resolution for bitmap images). It would be a huge benefit to work at 100%. Vector elements in print require an even higher DPI.
A 4k monitor in portrait wouldn't even allow you to display a single 8.5" x 11" page at 100%!
Last edited:
Yep. I bought one of the Dell monitors to go with my Mac Pro.
The cheap Korean ones didn't make me feel good.
What about support, etc.
With Dell, I have a 3 year advance replacement warranty that includes dead pixels. They warrant against any dead or bright pixel for 3 years.
The extra $250 was worth the warranty and service.
Also, for pricing, the panels will be 3840x2160.
If you want a true 4K panel it will cost more.
The sweet spot will be TV panel resolutions just like now.
If you want a 27" 1080p panel, $349 from Dell right now.
If you want a 1440 monitor, ~$800.
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 $349.
Thanks for the head's up! That looks like a nice deal.
Really? I didn't know that. I always thought print was around 160 DPI for some reason.
Well hell, I stand corrected then.
Eh I think it was more a case of LG pushing something new in a slightly stale market and Apple getting on board first. Probably over a "hey look at this new panel", "we want it for the same price as the old and first" conversation.
Yep it's a better form factor for those who want a slightly smaller display. 24" is nonsensical - a bridge to nowhere.
LG followed Apple's lead into the 27" space. As usual Apple created the mass market and the competition all followed like sheep.
Strange. I seem to remember a LOT of complaints on Apple forums, when Apple dropped the 24" size.
You had to drop to a smaller than you wished form factor, or pay a large amount more to jump to 27"
yeah - more mac for the working people - yeah
Actually, I am a working person on the mac. I do graphic design, video and web. A better graphics card would be nice.
More 4K rambling!
I'm glad to hear you opine for an pre-ThunderBolt 2 solution as well (see my above post), and I was unaware that the Apple 30" Cinema Display may have supported the use of a couple of (presumably single-link?) DVI ports, though a quick search couldn't find any additional information on this. Is this in fact the case and where can I find out more?
A few more points about 4K video on the Mac:
I've encountered a couple or a few times on-line calculations in forums where the poster claims that ThunderBolt 1 should have sufficient bandwidth to drive a 4K display, but there's a big difference between "should" and "can". If you plug it in and it doesn't work and third party solutions like SwitchRes X are no help, the theoretical possibility of it working is irrelevant. "Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." And given that some MacBook Pros apparently have DisplayPort 1.2 enabled ThunderBolt chips, we may depressingly be left with it being technically possible for Apple to enable 4K over ThunderBolt 1, but not going to the effort to do so.
Another obscure capability of 4K displays is the first ability run full HD in portrait mode. This means FCP users could have three Full HD videos stacked up on top of each other with some room to spare, which, while I confess total ignorance of high end video editing, sounds like it might be promising for comparing three stages of editing.
The PPI of 4K displays has been a concern of mine, but I've found 2048 x 1536 on a 17" CRT capable of that res. to be tight but usable, and some use of very high PPI displays (Retina Mac Books) in non-Retina mode has alleviated those concerns. Pump up the fonts sizes and enlarge the icons and it works without too many problems. The experience of using 3840x2160 on your current display size can be simulated by finding desktop images of that resolution on-line and viewing them full screen (either with Quick Look or Preview). It's not a perfect simulation, but see what you think.
A lot of posters here are claiming that only high-end users can benefit from 4K and that for casual photo viewing and some rare high res. video its is only a minor upgrade. Possibly, but check out vgmaps.com's ginormous images which demand pixel-perfect viewing to look right before you write off higher res. Another major benefit for me would be higher res. in PDF's, which often benefit more from high resolution than most photos.
One final note. Could I make the vain and futile attempt to get people to stop insisting that "Retina" (which has always been a gimmicky marketing term) absolutely must mean quadruple the current resolution? Apple has thus far done that, but the company is consistent right up until they are not. Holding out for 5120x2880 res. in Apple's next ThunderBolt display and highest-end iMac is insane and with the touting of the 4K capability of the upcoming Mac Pro, its pretty clear that 4k is the next jump in resolution. When we can expect the hardware from Apple is anyone's guess, but I know 5120x2880 is a step too far too soon.
Ranting desire satiated, for the time being.
I'm glad to hear you opine for an pre-ThunderBolt 2 solution as well (see my above post), and I was unaware that the Apple 30" Cinema Display may have supported the use of a couple of (presumably single-link?) DVI ports, though a quick search couldn't find any additional information on this. Is this in fact the case and where can I find out more?
A few more points about 4K video on the Mac:
I've encountered a couple or a few times on-line calculations in forums where the poster claims that ThunderBolt 1 should have sufficient bandwidth to drive a 4K display, but there's a big difference between "should" and "can". If you plug it in and it doesn't work and third party solutions like SwitchRes X are no help, the theoretical possibility of it working is irrelevant. "Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." And given that some MacBook Pros apparently have DisplayPort 1.2 enabled ThunderBolt chips, we may depressingly be left with it being technically possible for Apple to enable 4K over ThunderBolt 1, but not going to the effort to do so.
Another obscure capability of 4K displays is the first ability run full HD in portrait mode. This means FCP users could have three Full HD videos stacked up on top of each other with some room to spare, which, while I confess total ignorance of high end video editing, sounds like it might be promising for comparing three stages of editing.
The PPI of 4K displays has been a concern of mine, but I've found 2048 x 1536 on a 17" CRT capable of that res. to be tight but usable, and some use of very high PPI displays (Retina Mac Books) in non-Retina mode has alleviated those concerns. Pump up the fonts sizes and enlarge the icons and it works without too many problems. The experience of using 3840x2160 on your current display size can be simulated by finding desktop images of that resolution on-line and viewing them full screen (either with Quick Look or Preview). It's not a perfect simulation, but see what you think.
A lot of posters here are claiming that only high-end users can benefit from 4K and that for casual photo viewing and some rare high res. video its is only a minor upgrade. Possibly, but check out vgmaps.com's ginormous images which demand pixel-perfect viewing to look right before you write off higher res. Another major benefit for me would be higher res. in PDF's, which often benefit more from high resolution than most photos.
One final note. Could I make the vain and futile attempt to get people to stop insisting that "Retina" (which has always been a gimmicky marketing term) absolutely must mean quadruple the current resolution? Apple has thus far done that, but the company is consistent right up until they are not. Holding out for 5120x2880 res. in Apple's next ThunderBolt display and highest-end iMac is insane and with the touting of the 4K capability of the upcoming Mac Pro, its pretty clear that 4k is the next jump in resolution. When we can expect the hardware from Apple is anyone's guess, but I know 5120x2880 is a step too far too soon.
Ranting desire satiated, for the time being.
Apple does what they know is right for consumers. I'm proud of the aggressive stance they take in moving technology forward. It makes me smile when they introduce slimmer connectors that enable them to build thinner, lighter, sexier devices that consumers appreciate. It's this paying attention to the smallest detail that makes Apple the greatest technology company in the history of our industry.
Without Apple there would be no ipod market, no legal digital music market, no smartphone market, no tablet market, no high-end computing platform with sophisticated technologies that blow Microsoft Windows away.
I just realized the above was frased kinda phunny. I meant portrait mode for the 4K resolution, hence the "stacking" of HD video, though the other way works too as 4K is the resolution with enough vertical pixels to finally allow viewing of Portrait mode Full HD videos. Currently that appears to not work so well in QuickTime since you can't "lift" the player to view what's on the bottom at native resolution, and with cell phone video having created tons of portrait mode HD, this can come in handy. Wanna view portrait mode Full HD? 4K res. lets you open three videos at once!
I've also been cagey regarding what "4K" specifically means. Is it 3840x2160, 3840x2400, 4096x2160, or maybe even 4096x2400? I'm a bit idealogical (or maybe stubborn is more like it), preferring 3840x2160 over the others, mostly because I hate the fact that literal 4K, 4096 pixels wide, being a holdover from the film industry, is just incompatible enough with the HD standard width of 3840 to cause problems/headaches. It can mean images are slightly scaled from 4096 to 3840 or stretched to 4096 from 3840, or worse yet, get cropped. But then there is the contradiction that when content is viewed but not resized to full screen, control elements (the menubar and dock) can take away screen space. This can result in users viewing images at slightly less than native resolution. Then the extra pixels of 4096x2160 and 4096x2400 might come in handy. Despite all that, I'll still root for Apple to adopt 3840x2160 for their 4K displays.
And something else about display sizes that hardly anyone here mentions: Apple still hasn't shrunk the bezels on their displays. I can maybe understand wanting to keep the MacBook's bezel a bit thick to protect it from the occasional bump, but it's unacceptable for the Apple displays and the iMac to have this thick region of non-screen. Some video wall monitors have bezels as thin as a nickel, and TV's regularly go right to the edge. I think the original purpose of this black region around the screen was to improve visibility, but I'd say nothing is darker than empty space. Shrinking the bezel on the iMac and Thunderbolt Displays might give them another couple inches of screen space without changing their dimensions. It's really kind of astonishing that Apple made the iMac edge 5mm deep, which you can't notice while using, but it didn't even occur to them to shrink the forward facing part of the bezel! I so hope they fix this when they introduce their first 4K display.
OK, maybe I wasn't done with the ranting after all.
Do not make up nonsense. The 25.5" (often called 26")panels were 16:10. They kept the height the same and released the 16:19 27" displays. Considering others were shipping in late 2009, they would have needed to put in development time prior to that.
I just wonder how they'll do the retina thing. I mean, you can't run OSX in non-retina mode at 3840x2160, interface elements will be way too small. I really like the size of UI elements on the current 27" iMac/TB display. I know OSX is able to do retina@2560x1440 (so 5120x288) and scale that down to 4K, but it seams that's not something apple will do. Anyone care to eleborate how they'll do the retina resolution?
So you have evidence that Apple tasked LG with making a 27" panel for them and it was all Apple's idea?
Marmite the food spread. On the first taste you either love it or hate it.
A lot of people hate glossy displays and love matte displays or vice-versa. I don't hate coated displays but the hard coat on the Dell U2212 made me want to try scraping it off with a knife it was that aggressive (in fact it may as well have been smeared with Marmite.)
I take the point that another poster made that it may not be as bad in this newer model, but frankly I wouldn't risk it until I've seen it. So aggrieved am I at that Dell could produce a monitor with such a bad screen coating. No exaggeration. Someone else with different tastes may look at it and say, 'What's the problem?' Personally I think they'd have to be blind not to have an issue with the hard coat on the U2212.
Last edited:
