Could not have said it any better my friend.
I love my ACDs and every time I see an iMac and
TB displays I cringe at the reflections I get all over the place. Matte FTW! 
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 Display Panels from AUO Spark Speculation of 4K Apple Displays
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Could not have said it any better my friend.
I love my ACDs and every time I see an iMac and
TB displays I cringe at the reflections I get all over the place. Matte FTW! The trick is will they only run at 30 hz? I haven't seen any indication of a 4K display thats able to run an 60-120 hz like current 2560x1600 monitors. Your eyes will not enjoy staring at 30 hz, unless apple has shares in lense crafters
Pro tip: Read the info in the image. Right at the bottom it might just give you the answer you're looking for - 60hz
In the beginning I don't think anybody would be watching TV on them as their would be little advantage. You need the right source material to leverage the screen. On the other hand engineers, artist and the like will likely be running over each other to get such a screen.
----------
I understand your concerns about Apple dragging its feet but in this case I think it is a bit misplaced. Why? Well everybody knows that the professional industry is going to 4K displays, as such it doesn't make sense to focus on old technology. Transition periods are always tough because investment in engineering and R&D has been refocused on products in the pipeline.
I don't doubt that one bit. However if they come out with a 4K display I could see a backlog of orders for months or even a year. Why? Because the user base is already aware that 4K displays are coming and many purchases are on hold because of that. Due to this wait an upgrade to the current display would do little for sales.
Yes! If Apple wants us to believe they still care about pros with this new Mac Pro, they need to present a display that doesn't double as a mirror. Let pros spend their 8+ hours a day working at their computers on graphics in a normally lit environment, without severe eye strain from constantly fighting reflections.
You're obviously not a photographer, and maybe not near-sighted like so many of us computer using people are.
Doing digital photo editing (and audio editing, actually) often requires sitting closer for precise selections and edits.
There's also the huge swath of near-sighted computer users who sit close to their displays as a matter of comfort. Lenses on the eyes do not provide that comfort, and neither do glasses. I had to get a reduced prescription in order to reduce eye strain because I need eye correction at the computer. This resulted in also needing to sit a bit closer. And in general, I need to see things up close to work on them. The only thing I do without getting up close is watching video (not editing, edict I'm sure I'd do up close too).
It's also going to matter a lot with text. That's where I notice it the most on my iPhone (and yes, I still see pixels there sometimes, because I hold my phone a little more than the width of my fist away from my face when my eye correction isn't on, and with eye correction, it has to go further than I'm comfortable with to reduce strain).
So congratulations on not being the standard for which all things should be made. Please let the rest of us have our retina displays and sit close to our screens.
Spoken like a true consumer. Now let the creators and creatives have their Pro tools please.
If only.
If I was, then I'd be getting excited at the prospect of 3840 x 2160 'raw' on a 32" screen, and to hell with pixel-doubling.
As it is, the 1920x1200 on my 17" MBP can get a bit much - but I'm fine with 1440p at 27".
As I said, it would be nice if Apple could fix their otherwise very nice OS so that you could re-scale the UI. Windows can do it - how hard can it be?
(Ans: very hard if all your 3rd party software is hard-coded in pixels).
Right. Windows can do it. With lots of screwed up GUIs and text running off their areas. And blurry icons.
Windows can technically accomplish lots of things if you don't want it elegant and consistent. Microsoft doesn't tend to test these modes. Not do most other software developers.
I recall reading that Apple did try a fully scalable GUI for a number of years in their back room research and testing. The results were poor. That's why they've chosen to use specific resolutions and doubled pixel counts to solve the problem, instead of free scaling. The GUI has to be designed at specific scales, not allowed to scale freely. Free scaling has never worked as elegantly and consistently as pre-determined-scale designs.
whereas with Retina display, everything worked perfectly from day one right?
Sorry, remind me... I always get Apple and Microsoft mixed up one of them is totally hamstrung by the need to maintain compatibility with corporate software originally written for DOS, the other has quite a reputation for ruthlessly killing off obsolete features and APIs and imposing strict standards on anybody wanting to use their App stores. Which was which?
Which part of needing to buy a new freaking monitor if you want slightly larger text on the menu bar is "elegant"? Let alone the only alternative of switching to a non-native resolution, which looks really bad.
Funnily, scaling seems to work perfectly in the dock in 'mexican wave' mode, so I find it really hard to accept that 'fuzzy icons' are the problem.
I do remember the good old days, however, when it was even more extreme: all Apple monitors had 1 pixel = 1 (Postscript) point and screen resolution was permanently fixed based on your monitor size. May have had something going for it back in the days of slower processors and restricted RAM when (e.g.) having high resolution, non-antialiased bitmap assets and resampling them down to the required size was actually a big deal.
Spoken like a true consumer. Now let the creators and creatives have their Pro tools please.
Yeah, even though I can't afford "pro machines" I welcome the advent of 4K and 8K beyond that.
I guess this is the last nail in the coffin of 16x10. No one is making 16x10 screens in these densities. No one ever since the IBM T221.
3840x2160 @ 27" isn't enough resolution to avoid looking muddy in a scaled mode, but it would make a nice screen to run Windows at 150% on.
3840x2160 @ 27" isn't enough resolution to avoid looking muddy in a scaled mode, but it would make a nice screen to run Windows at 150% on.
Yeah but those couple billion people won't be willing to fork over the apple tax. The world is moving away from the living room model of entertainment.
----------
Yup, There are 4k displays over 10,000 dollars. So what? Most people are price conscious though and Apple knows that. Televisions aren't an industry you can charge a premium on anymore. Ask Sony, Samsung. Or better yet, ask a former giant like Pioneer.
There very much is a reason to pay more for certain things. Brand however, is rarely one of them. Content will be the same.
A couple hundred million in the U.S.
The "loads of streaming services" are watched on televisions too, not just tablets. So any new television displays will be adopted by streamers, too, not just traditional cable subscribers.
----------
Your original post asked how many ppl actually watch TV in living rooms anymore, you didn't ask how many would pay the "Apple tax". You are changing your argument.
If you think that ppl aren't watching content on televisions in living rooms anymore (in HUGE numbers), then you are wrong. The trends are UP in home viewing and investment in home theater. People WANT to watch all the new streaming content on quality displays with good sound in the comfort of their homes. The world is NOT "moving away" from this at all, but is moving more toward it. Yes, tablets and smartphones have added new viewing opportunities, but those are simply adding the ability to watch while mobile or away from the living room. The home viewing experience on a large screen is still desired for most people.
I was surprised at how much of a difference there was between 720p and 1080p on a 4.7" screen. I won't be surprised to see a huge difference between 1080p and 4k on a 32" screen, because I'm not blind.
As for the "look at how big and fine mine is" - it's a computer monitor, a tool for my home office that no one's going to see! Unless this is you...
Haha, love it.
I am lugging a Dell XPS 18 to Japan for the next 6 weeks - will be funny to see the looks when I bust that out in Starbucks.
This is likely the panel Dell was talking about in its 28" 4K monitor for under $1000 (notice it only has 8-bit native color, not 10-bit like current 24" and 32" Dell 4K monitors).
Content creators need 4k screens, not people watching tv. I create content for huge LED walls and lately I've been working in a 4k resolution space so it would be great if I could view my work at 100% for a change. How about people who work on IMAX movies or anyone who works with RED cameras? I know a videographer who just bought a 6k camera! Or photographers who work on super high res photos? These monitors aren't for watching tv, they are for making money.
FWIW, Netflix is testing 4k delivery next year
Last edited:
That is why I wonder what they are talking about when Dell says they will release a 28" one for under $1,000.