3840x2160 32" monitor on the way

I'd like one, but I don't see myself actually use it. Even with me possibly downsizing to 3 x 30", I just have so much resolution as it is.
 
ZoNe said:
Don't really care about this. Have to buy insane video card(s) to play on it.
Click to expand...

Actually the opposite is true. You will get BETTER performance on a 4k screen since you can run games at 1920 x 1080 with zero scaling artifacts/ no loss of image quality whatsoever. On a current 2560 x 1440 screen you're stuck at that high resolution so when some new game drops that a GTX 780 can only run at 18 fps, you're forced to take out shadows and disable New Amazing Effect and shorten view distances and what have you, in order to avoid the jaggy blurry shit fest that is digital upscaling. WIth a 4k screen just drop it down to half res, and BAM 40fps max settings.
 
Hope that will significantly reduce the prices of 27-30 inch displays that have a resolution of 2560 X 1440/1600 resolution?
 
The prices may come down from Dell and HP if they have tons of them shelved and next-gen hits and they aren't selling well at all. The actual cost of production of the panels probably won't change unless something happens to where IPS 27-30 inch monitors become the mainstream "norm".
 
A13X said:
Actually the opposite is true. You will get BETTER performance on a 4k screen since you can run games at 1920 x 1080 with zero scaling artifacts/ no loss of image quality whatsoever. On a current 2560 x 1440 screen you're stuck at that high resolution so when some new game drops that a GTX 780 can only run at 18 fps, you're forced to take out shadows and disable New Amazing Effect and shorten view distances and what have you, in order to avoid the jaggy blurry shit fest that is digital upscaling. WIth a 4k screen just drop it down to half res, and BAM 40fps max settings.
Click to expand...

You can drop down to 1280 x 720, half the resolution with a 2560x1440 screen. Similar to what you're suggesting here, but even though it scales perfectly, it still looks like crap. I've never seen an LCD running a non-native resolution and look good. Maybe when the pixel density gets higher it won't be as bad.

I just hope Windows doesn't force some stupid DPI scaling at high resolutions like that, I want more screen real-estate.

It sounds like OSX will run that new MBP at essentially 1440 x 900 (with regards to text/icons/UI), but with 4x the pixels.
 
Blazestorm said:
They listed a notebook that does 2560x1440 in 2012... What?

Either way, I picked up 3 x 27" @ 2560 x 1440 for $350ea so I'm not complaining... these will last a few years and I'll upgrade again to some ridiculous 4k screens.
Click to expand...

except for dat 2880 x 1800 retina display Macbook :cool:

They also have 960x640 as the premium resolution for handhelds for 2012 even though there's
a good handful of phones with 720p displays
 
Salanmon said:
except for dat 2880 x 1800 retina display Macbook :cool:

They also have 960x640 as the premium resolution for handhelds for 2012 even though there's
a good handful of phones with 720p displays
Click to expand...

well the macbook w/ retnia did just ship and it runs OSX at 1920x1200 scaled so maybe they are being all specific on phones and not counting Pen-tile screens that have shared sub-pixels as true 720p too..

or maybe they aren't up to date :)
 
There are professional monitor that goes up to the resolution now, Eizo makes 2 at least. And they are super expensive. at 30-40k each.
 
Blazestorm said:
I just hope Windows doesn't force some stupid DPI scaling at high resolutions like that, I want more screen real-estate.

It sounds like OSX will run that new MBP at essentially 1440 x 900 (with regards to text/icons/UI), but with 4x the pixels.
Click to expand...

I played around with the new retina MBPs and I wasn't observing 1:1 pixel mapping at default 1440 x 900 and the other four you can set, short of trying an external program to set the resolution manually. I used this as the test.

I'm reading that boot camp isn't much better, quoting "a blurry mess" in Windows from quick Googling.
 
Windows 8 has some good scaling options so that text should not look small on higher DPI displays. However, in a particular application, it will depend on the developer. Remember there's going to be a 10.6" 1080p tablet from Microsoft running Windows 8 pro.

See here for more details:
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/22683
 
This is wonderful news about 4k displays! I probably won't be able to afford one, but at least the price of 1440p lcds will drop to the ground. Woohooo...;)
 
Vega said:
32" 3860x2160 is about the perfect size, but these monitors will only be 60 Hz and have all of the huge draw-backs of being LCD tech. :mad:
Click to expand...

Industry spinning its wheels. Bigger numbers without meaningful gains in the areas that count (motion, black level, non-native display quality).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top