Sony unveils pro 4k OLED monitors

A

azza21

n00b
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
6
According to Engadget Sony announced 2 new monitors today, apparently May will see the release of 1 of the models. I so hope this is true, it feels like i've been waiting my whole life for OLED, Linky below

Sony 4K OLED monitors

UPDATE:

More information about the Sony 30" 4K OLED.


SONY 4K OLED


The 30" panel is produced the same Japanese fab that produces Sony's current OLED panels (the 7.4", 16.5" and 24.5" panels used in Sony's professional monitors). This explains why the resolution of the 30" panel (4096x2160) is different than the 56" one (3840x2160) as the Oxide-TFT backplane of the 56" panel is made by AUO, not Sony. Both panels however use Sony's Super Top Emission technology.

Our source at Sony confirms that they plan to launch the first 30" 4K OLED monitor next year - in fact they plan to do so by April 2014.

Regarding those enhanced 16.5" and 24.5" OLEDs for the "A" Series monitors, our source says that the improvements were achieved by a new architecture - Sony redesigned the pixel construction and this enabled a major improvement in viewing angles and a greatly reduced color shift.[/QUOTE
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
As long as they dont look like the AMOLED on samsung mobile devices. I have been waiting on a good 4k monitor for ages. If this is not too expensive I might buy it.
 
"The company announced its A Series Trimaster EL monitors at NAB today, outing a 4,096 x 2,160 30-inch model as well as a 3,840 x 2160 56-inch display."

56" = 16:9
30" = 17:9

Interesting. I'd probably have to wait till the 30" dropped below 2k before I consider them but it's nice to hear that some progress if finally being made to get us higher resolution monitors. Seems I'll have to wait till 2014-15 at least.

By then the Titan III will be out to drive that bad-boy.....hopefully at 120 Hz.
 
Aren't OLED picture displays worse than LCD and plasma? I don't see what the draw is other than power savings.
 
janas19 said:
Aren't OLED picture displays worse than LCD and plasma? I don't see what the draw is other than power savings.
Click to expand...

Ive seen some really good OLED displays. Its the shit that samsung puts in the Galaxy series that puts me off. Their AMOLED and the cheap way the implement sub pixels and over saturate color is what is wrong.
 
///AMG said:
Ive seen some really good OLED displays. Its the shit that samsung puts in the Galaxy series that puts me off. Their AMOLED and the cheap way the implement sub pixels and over saturate color is what is wrong.
Click to expand...

I quite like the oversaturated color on the S3.
 
the press release was a bit confusing. The 30 inch 4k OLED is being launched in 2014. Then which one is being launched in May of 2013?
 
///AMG said:
I know it wont be cheap. But if its not like 10K for 30" but something like 2-5 for the 30" I might bite.
Click to expand...

12K for the 30" would probably be a low estimate.

kindasmart said:
I'd probably have to wait till the 30" dropped below 2k before I consider them
Click to expand...

You will never see a price of 2k on any of these monitors. Ever.

The current line of Sony OLED professional monitors start at around $6,000 and go up to $25,000. The press release notes that Sony has sold 20,000 professional OLED displays so far. These monitors will replace those. Adding 4K will likely increase the prices by five times, because they can.
 
Which isn't surprising, its high end audio hardware. Not defending the three year warranty but just about all high end audio hardware have obscenely long warranties. I don't think I've seen anything visual that offers more than five years, even very expensive "professional" gear.
 
It sounds like Sony is going to be pushing OLED hard in 2014 - the prices seem to be decent as well.

5000$ for a 4k 55" OLED isn't cheap, but it's a heck of a lot cheaper than what OLED has cost in years prior. Hopefully it catches on.
 
To expand on this - disregard any hype regarding "retina" and "high PPI" because desktop monitors and big-screen HDTVs should not be judged by the same criteria as ultra portable handheld devices. While high PPI is obviously desirable, it is much, much less relevant on big-screen displays because high PPI is:

1) Cheaper to produce on ultra portable devices which are handheld
2) Is based completely on viewing distance.

High PPI is critical on handheld smartphones because these are devices which are 3-4 inches tall and are held mere inches from the face. That means, that high PPI is desirable and easily achievable - the cost for producing high PPI "retina" displays is not too expensive for a portable device.

However, the cost rises exponentially with screen size - consider that achieving 300+ PPI on a 27 inch screen would require a *higher* than 8k resolution. That will just never happen, at least not for a few years if ever. Furthermore, 300+ PPI isn't really needed. These aren't devices which you view 2 inches from your face. You can view these displays very comfortably from 2 feet or further without eye strain, which is a far different story than with ultra-portable phones. You cannot view a smartphone from 4 feet away. To summarize, retina PPI is probably not achievable on big screen displays due to exponential cost increases. Secondly, it really isn't needed - high PPI always has to be taken in context with viewing distance. Obviously big screen monitors and HDTVs don't require the same viewing distance as does an ultra portable device. So because of this, PPI will increase on bigscreens but it will do so much more slowly than in ultra mobile devices - the typical 4k monitors will have a PPI just under 190 PPI if i'm not mistaken.
 
I see. Still, 4k resolution 55 inch at 5000$? That seems like the beginning of reasonable pricing (in comparison to prices of earlier models) Retailers will likely sell for even less than MSRP and if sales are semi-adequate, it will drive prices down even further.

I certainly hope that 4k becomes mainstream at some point in the near future...
 
xoleras, you dont seem to get it though i ve explained it to you, and you insist. a 27" desktop monitor doesnt have to go 300 ppi to qualify for retina,it has to arguably go over 135 or so ppi. so the 30" oled sony can very well be considered retina monitor, as the new sharp is too that can funtion at 1080p pixel doubled.
 
I've mentioned this in prior posts but didn't in that reply due to demonstrating the difference in viewing distances between handhelds and bigscreens. "Retina" is based 100% completely on viewing distance. To sound like a broken record here, I was pointing out difference in uses between a handheld device - They are not judged by the same criteria due to different viewing distances.

This is another reason why the term "retina" is completely and utterly worthless when guaging a big screen device. The definition is nebulous at best and doesn't indicate which viewing distance can be viewed comfortably at the optimum difference. So you may as well just shut up with the retina comparisons, it is worthless for big screens. To summarize, "Retina" isn't a criteria you judge by for Bigscreen displays. You don't quantify display quality in a condensed "PPI" number or a completely vague definition of retina provided by Apple - there are many more considerations, not the least of which is how far you sit away from it. That was the point I was driving at. Asking "is a big screen retina" is such a 100% completely and utterly worthless question posed by Apple fanboys.
 
Last edited:
I just really want a 4K monitor with really good response time and little to no input lag. 120HZ is too much to ask for but if they give it Ill gladly take it lol. I have been holding out forever in getting new TVs because I want 4K, I would pay a decent chunk of change but not over 10K for a really good monitor that will last me.
 
i don like to use marketing terms, esp. so apple's, but retina is an apt term an its useful as it means that at the average typical usage distance 99% of the population wont tell pixels apart. it also means that the pixels will be tight enough to render an lcd screen effectively resolution independent with the right software.

it's a far more useful term than 720p 1080p etc. which have caught on and used extensively, because like i ve said given enogh diagonal length ANY screen can get to ANY XXXp or Yk even a 1ppi screen. the issue is not the number of vertical or horizontal pixels a screen has but at which size it can pack them in. So it was far more bs back when manufcturers claimed 1080p in some 70" or so panels, and people though ok that 32" tv is 1080p the 70" tv is 1080p so they are the same "quality", and they were thus mislead. In contrast retin does actually mean something, that for almkst everyone at typocal usage distances thats the max number of pixels they ll ever need and anything above will be unoticeable. you can keep disagreeing but logically this is how things work out.
 
First, the term "retina" can only be applied to Apple products because it is a trademarked marketing term. Secondly, the retina definition is completely vague to the point where you can nearly state that any display is retina. Obviously, no firm can do that because - again - trademark issues. You will never see a non Apple product referred to as Retina because retina is an apple only term.

Here's Apple's definition:

Retina Display is designed to smooth the jagged edges of pixels are provide a higher-quality image than previously available on mobile devices. It's resolution is so good that it makes it impossible to distinguish individual pixels..
Click to expand...

The only problem here is that this is completely variable due to viewing distance and Apple did not disclose any formula for the determination of "retina". Sound like a marketing term and nothing else? Yeah? Still, apple doesn't clearly define what the fuck "retina" means. You can literally take their definition and call any display "retina". Now, back to the subject at hand. PPI will increase in desktop displays, although it will be at a slower pace than in ultramobile devices. Asking whether a bigscreen is "retina" is a completely worthless question. Nothing but an apple product can be called "retina", and as you've seen the definition of retina is completely nebulous. Worthless question.
 
Last edited:
xoleras said:
I see. Still, 4k resolution 55 inch at 5000$? That seems like the beginning of reasonable pricing (in comparison to prices of earlier models) Retailers will likely sell for even less than MSRP and if sales are semi-adequate, it will drive prices down even further.

I certainly hope that 4k becomes mainstream at some point in the near future...
Click to expand...

I may be in the minority, but I find it very hard to get excited over a 4K LCD. What content is there to even run at 4K? Streaming = nope, not really. Blurays = nope. And I'd need an all powerful computer to play any games at that res (overlooking the fact that I rarely PC game as it is).

It just feels like they are trying to milk what they can out of LCDs.... and of course push the 3D stuff that nobody seems to really care about. I think OLED will still be years away while manufacturers slowly push 4K LCDs as the next big thing, simply because it is easier for them to do so.
 
There is some 4k video content available already. I have some here although I don't have a display to view it at full res.

With display it seems like hardware comes first, then content. Many movies are shot or mastered in 4k so there is plenty of content out there, but no real distribution channel for it at this time. HDTV's came along a good deal before 720p and 1080p content were common.

I welcome 4k displays because once you get beyond a certain pixel density you can't differentiate displays by just adding more pixels because people can't see them. What does that mean? It means display makers will have to compete on other metrics such as color reproduction, black levels, etc. for the next round.
 
StormUP said:
I welcome 4k displays because once you get beyond a certain pixel density you can't differentiate displays by just adding more pixels because people can't see them. What does that mean? It means display makers will have to compete on other metrics such as color reproduction, black levels, etc. for the next round.
Click to expand...

That's what bugs me a little bit. It shouldn't be the next round, it should be now.

For media watching, at normal distances, the improvement going to 4K won't be as impressive as going from SD to HD... at least based on what I have read. I'd much rather see manufacturers focus on black levels/color now, than 5-10 years from now.
 
I'm glad to see we're finally starting to see higher resolutions. There is no such thing as too big, especially as you increase the physical size. Higher the resolution, the more you can do on a single monitor. Then you still have 2 or 3 of em, and that's a LOT of workplace real estate.

Would be awesome where I work too... being a NOC we have tons of stuff open and it's always a challenge trying to fit it all on the 4 monitors.
 
Does anyone know the refresh rates on these monitors? I didn't see any specs related to that. But for the price I would assume it's way over 120mhz?
 
Out of naive curiosity could it be technically possible to use a SSAA method for video? I'm only asking this from an upscaled DVD to 1080p standpoint being better visually over leaving it as it is.
 
WeaponX said:
Does anyone know the refresh rates on these monitors? I didn't see any specs related to that. But for the price I would assume it's way over 120mhz?
Click to expand...

A 120MHz display of any size would be quite a challenge.

To attempt to do 4k at 120Hz with current connection technologies, you would have to resort to multiple cables, which can be less than ideal, but I doubt you'll see anyone try to do it. TV manufacturers don't understand the need for more than 24Hz so you're lucky that you get 60Hz from them. Monitor manufacturers started making 120Hz monitors because 30Hz per eye for 3D induced vomiting; being able to use them for 2D display over 60Hz is really just an accident and they have no idea why you would want to use it for that.

To the rest of you arguing about retina and high PPI, 4K isn't about increasing PPI. TV manufacturers just want to make TVs bigger than 60 inches. The PPI of 1920x1080 gets too low when you go much over 60" in a typical living room, so they need more pixels to keep the PPI the same when they go up to 100" and 120" TVs.
 
Namelessme said:
That's what bugs me a little bit. It shouldn't be the next round, it should be now.

For media watching, at normal distances, the improvement going to 4K won't be as impressive as going from SD to HD... at least based on what I have read. I'd much rather see manufacturers focus on black levels/color now, than 5-10 years from now.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately MOARE PIXELS is a lot easier to advertise than "more accurate colors over the sRGB gamut". I did see Sharp? trying to advertise a "4 color" LCD that has Red, Green, Blue and "Gold" subpixels compared to 3 on all other TV. I'm not sure how successful that campaign was. It made me LOL because my Mitsubishi DLP has 6 colors(red, green, blue, cyan, yellow and magenta) on it's color wheel.
 
I do not understand the hype about 4K televisions (not computer monitors) as the human eye is unable to discern the difference versus 1080p for screens size lower than 70" at a normal seating distance.
Furthermore, 1080p signal is likely to look worst due to scaling.
Also, 4k is unlikely to be supported by cables companies due to bandwidth requirements.

4k is a fine example of more is not necessary better.
 
RadXge said:
I do not understand the hype about 4K televisions (not computer monitors) as the human eye is unable to discern the difference versus 1080p for screens size lower than 70" at a normal seating distance.
Click to expand...

You understand the hype perfectly. It's for TVs larger than 70". They want to make TVs up to 120", but 1920x1080 PPI is too low for TVs of those sizes at a normal seating distance.
 
now that just sucks. whats the point then? if this newer higher resolutions monitors cant look good as an iphone.
 
Yup...problem with 1080 on a large screen flat panel is you can see the pixel structure...so called "screen door' effect. You lose the movie like aspect with such things...(Can sit farther away of course, but then again a fail with regard to home theater objectives...)
 
RadXge said:
I do not understand the hype about 4K televisions (not computer monitors) as the human eye is unable to discern the difference versus 1080p for screens size lower than 70" at a normal seating distance.
Furthermore, 1080p signal is likely to look worst due to scaling.
Also, 4k is unlikely to be supported by cables companies due to bandwidth requirements.

4k is a fine example of more is not necessary better.
Click to expand...

The logic in defining "normal" in terms of 1080p seating distance instead of adjusting it to new resolutions is very flawed, to say the least. Advances in resolution and display technology allow for advances in other things, from panel sizes to seating arrangements :p
 
andre1975 said:
now that just sucks. whats the point then? if this newer higher resolutions monitors cant look good as an iphone.
Click to expand...

A 4k 30 inch PC monitor will definitely look as good as an iphone if not better. Read some of the earlier replies specifically regarding how "retina" is meaningless and vague, while image clarity depends on numerous factors including viewing distance. In that respect, big screens aren't judged by the same criteria as a 4 inch phone. They are viewed from differing distances.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top