What the 6K? A new 6K display????

[theorist9]

I also wonder what size / density that rumored 7k display would have been. As some have noted, the current gen MBPs are running at a higher PPI than 218. (What is it… 254 ppi?)

I think the two most likely configs for an Apple 7k display are:

1) They stay at 218 ppi, which would increase the size to 36".
2) They stay at 32"; interestingly, that would increase the density to 254 ppi, thus matching the 14"/16" MBP's.

 

[tstafford]

Bit disappointing the Dell 6K is only 450 nits of SD brightness. I don't think I'm likely to pull the trigger unless the reviews are just off the chart. Not quite compelling enough at that price point to have me swap out an ASD.

 

[theorist9]

Bit disappointing the Dell 6K is only 450 nits of SD brightness. I don't think I'm likely to pull the trigger unless the reviews are just off the chart. Not quite compelling enough at that price point to have me swap out an ASD.

Just curious what you need the added brightness for. Are you doing video editing? I'd use it as a larger monitor for text work, so 450 is more than enough for that. While its 2000:1 native contrast is decent for an LCD, it's too low to be good for watching movies.

 

[mushy peas]

Just curious what you need the added brightness for. Are you doing video editing?

The recommended nits for Rec 709 is somewhere between 80-120 anyway, depending on your monitor. And if you're editing for HDR you shouldn't be using this or the ASD.

It's worth pointing out that 600 nits is not 50% more than 450 nits because brightness perception is non-linear, and works according to a power law that includes the size of the light source. So the difference in real-life is likely to be pretty marginal, especially with the Dell being that big larger than the ASD.

 

[theorist9]

I also wonder what size / density that rumored 7k display would have been. As some have noted, the current gen MBPs are running at a higher PPI than 218. (What is it… 254 ppi?)

I think the two most likely configs for an Apple 7k display are:

1) They stay at 218 ppi, which would increase the size to 36".
2) They stay at 32"; interestingly, that would increase the density to 254 ppi, thus matching the 14"/16" MBP's.

.....and of the two, my guess would be that Apple chooses #1. Yes, they would probably like to offer the added sharpness of 254 ppi. However, as you know, Apple scaling is only sharp at integer values so, keeping to 2:1, Apple might decide the UI size at 254 ppi will be too small, particularly at the typical viewing distances for a large monitor.

Plus there may not be much BOM difference between 32" and 36" 7k monitors, and the larger size of the latter will probably generate more sales than the higher density of the former.

 

[tstafford]

Just curious what you need the added brightness for. Are you doing video editing? I'd use it as a larger monitor for text work, so 450 is more than enough for that. While its 2000:1 native contrast is decent for an LCD, it's too low to be good for watching movies.

The recommended nits for Rec 709 is somewhere between 80-120 anyway, depending on your monitor. And if you're editing for HDR you shouldn't be using this or the ASD.

It's worth pointing out that 600 nits is not 50% more than 450 nits because brightness perception is non-linear, and works according to a power law that includes the size of the light source. So the difference in real-life is likely to be pretty marginal, especially with the Dell being that big larger than the ASD.

Thanks folks. I didn't know that about the non-linear nature of the brightness.

I'm using the monitors for general stuff - no video/photo editing. I like the brightness of the ASDs because unless I close the shades my office is fairly bright.

I'll keep my mind open about the Dell. Looking forward to seeing some reviews.

 

[theorist9]

The recommended nits for Rec 709 is somewhere between 80-120 anyway, depending on your monitor. And if you're editing for HDR you shouldn't be using this or the ASD.

It's worth pointing out that 600 nits is not 50% more than 450 nits because brightness perception is non-linear, and works according to a power law that includes the size of the light source. So the difference in real-life is likely to be pretty marginal, especially with the Dell being that big larger than the ASD.

Thanks folks. I didn't know that about the non-linear nature of the brightness.

I'm using the monitors for general stuff - no video/photo editing. I like the brightness of the ASDs because unless I close the shades my office is fairly bright.

I'll keep my mind open about the Dell. Looking forward to seeing some reviews.

According to https://jeheonpark93.medium.com/luminance-brightness-and-lightness-2dd9daa35948 ,

B ~ L^n, where B is brightness, L is luminance (nits), and n ≈ 0.3–0.5.
That means, if they had the same screen size and calibration (esp. gamma), the ASD would look (600/450)^.3 to (600/450)^.5 brighter, which works out to 10%–15%.

However, as @mushy peas pointed out, the Dell has a 32" screen which, everything else being equal, could cause it to appear brighter than a 27" screen: Luminance (nits) is light output per unit area. Thus the total light output (luminous flux) from a 32" screen at 450 nits would be 5% higher than that from a 27" screen at 600 nits: (32/27)^2 x (450/600) = 1.05 (for the same calibiration, esp. gamma, and scene).

While the perceived brightness of an object is more directly about its luminance than its luminous flux, the luminous flux can impact the perception of brightness.

 

[rumz]

.....and of the two, my guess would be that Apple chooses #1. Yes, they would probably like to offer the added sharpness of 254 ppi. However, as you know, Apple scaling is only sharp at integer values so, keeping to 2:1, Apple might decide the UI size at 254 ppi will be too small, particularly at the typical viewing distances for a large monitor.

Plus there may not be much BOM difference between 32" and 36" 7k monitors, and the larger size of the latter will probably generate more sales than the higher density of the former.

That makes logical sense given that the smaller screen of a MacBook Pro probably means there’s higher potential for closer viewing distances. That and the smaller screen size means real estate is at more of a premium, so slightly smaller UI can be useful.

A 36” display, though, wow. I wonder what that monster would be priced at!

 

[theorist9]

That makes logical sense given that the smaller screen of a MacBook Pro probably means there’s higher potential for closer viewing distances. That and the smaller screen size means real estate is at more of a premium, so slightly smaller UI can be useful.

A 36” display, though, wow. I wonder what that monster would be priced at!

If they could make it so it passes Dolby/Netflix HDR monitoring standards, they could charge a lot. But it seems unlikely they'll achieve that until they go OLED or Micro-LED. If so (i.e., if it's not HDR-qualified), I'd guess it won't be priced much more than the current XDR, especially given pricing pressure from Dell's 6k 32", which will probably be <$3k discounted.