Asus PA32UCX 1152-zone Mini LED available for pre-order

Sitti_S

n00b
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
22
Finally, a monitor I have been waiting for is now available for preorder at B&H https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1485224-REG/asus_32_proart_pa32ucx_4k.html.

I was expecting the price would be $2999, but turns out it is $3999. I guess it's mainly because of 1152-zone FALD, must be expensive to manufacture. Now it's got 3 times more local dimming zones than previous model 384-zone PA32UC ($1999), but is it worth double the price?
 

bananadude

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
370
60Hz and no VRR presumably. Bargain lol! This is obviously for a different kind of consumer, but still... shows you where we're headed regards pricing of what gamers want.
 

Sitti_S

n00b
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
22
60Hz and no VRR presumably. Bargain lol! This is obviously for a different kind of consumer, but still... shows you where we're headed regards pricing of what gamers want.

Previous model had freesync, I'd assume new one does as well. Obviously this isn't for gamers. I need over 30" 4k monitors with true HDR capability, so looks like this is the monitor for me. I can afford it, but i'm not sure if it's worth paying twice more than previous model.
 
Last edited:

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
60Hz and no VRR presumably. Bargain lol! This is obviously for a different kind of consumer, but still... shows you where we're headed regards pricing of what gamers want.
The PA or "ProArt" series from ASUS is their line of professional monitors. This isn't meant for gaming. Regardless, HDR FALD monitors are going to continue being expensive simply because of the smaller scale of everything in relation to televisions.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,557
I think the overall point should be that there is absolutely zero reason to make displays 60 Hz only anymore. DP 1.4 has been out for years now and would literally cost almost nothing to include a 120 Hz mode on a display like this. Yes, gaming is not the target of this display. But 60 Hz sucks really bad for production work too.
 

bananadude

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
370
The PA or "ProArt" series from ASUS is their line of professional monitors. This isn't meant for gaming. Regardless, HDR FALD monitors are going to continue being expensive simply because of the smaller scale of everything in relation to televisions.

Yes, well aware it's not gaming oriented, but as Vega says, no reason at all for ANY monitor to be 60Hz in 2019... and certainly not at this price. It's crazy. 120Hz has clear professional advantages that have nothing to do with gaming.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,036
I think the overall point should be that there is absolutely zero reason to make displays 60 Hz only anymore. DP 1.4 has been out for years now and would literally cost almost nothing to include a 120 Hz mode on a display like this. Yes, gaming is not the target of this display. But 60 Hz sucks really bad for production work too.

Generally agreed but as the X27 showed, making a FALD backlight that can actually keep up with high refresh rates is pretty hard. So yeah you include 120hz on this but the backlight probably still reacts in 200-300ms like every other non-Gsync HDR FALD, and it would still be shit for gaming.

But yes, manufacturers need to get over the fixation on 60hz. It's not acceptable anymore for any PC display.
 

Sitti_S

n00b
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
22
Maybe it has something to do with true 10-bit and 8-bit+FRC. So far all "10-bit" IPS higher refresh rate gaming monitors are 8-bit+FRC. However I haven't seen any IPS monitor with true 10-bit with over 60hz. Perhaps someone can explain, is there any technical difficulty that makes true 10-bit + high refresh-rate very difficult or costly to achieve?
 

gan7114

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
275
Maybe it has something to do with true 10-bit and 8-bit+FRC. So far all "10-bit" IPS higher refresh rate gaming monitors are 8-bit+FRC. However I haven't seen any IPS monitor with true 10-bit with over 60hz. Perhaps someone can explain, is there any technical difficulty that makes true 10-bit + high refresh-rate very difficult or costly to achieve?

AFAIK, it comes down to the limitations of current technology and trade offs.

IPS and VA LCD displays have good color fidelity, but have notoriously slow pixel response time. Usually, this is measured in "grey to grey" timing, usually anywhere from 4ms to 8ms depending on if we're talking about an overclocked gamer display, or a non-overclocked professional display. However, a typical "black to white" response time is usually anywhere from 8ms to 16ms, e.g. double the grey to grey timing. To compound that, different colors also have different response times. To further compound that, LCDs are not self-emissive; they require a separate backlight.

For refresh rates, 60Hz equates to 16.67ms and 120Hz is achieved at 8.33ms.

For color reproduction, 8-bit is capable of 16.7M colors and 10-bit is capable of 1.07B colors. In other words, there's many more gradients of color for 10-bit.

In order to achieve all those 1.07B gradients of color accurately, you not only need light but the right amounts of light to reproduce all those gradients properly, and that comes down to how long the light is allowed to pass through the LCD. You can probably see where this is going. IPS is well suited to reproduce colors accurately while running at 60Hz because its native pixel response timings roughly correlate to the timings of 60Hz. You can find 60Hz professional IPS displays with 10-bit wide gamut all day long, but won't find many (if any) high refresh rate / overclocked gamer displays that are true 10-bit. At best, they're 8-bit or maybe 8-bit + FRC which uses dithering to best approximate what the intended color should be on screen.

LCD is just too slow for accurate 10-bit color reproduction at high refresh rates. With a few expensive exceptions, the manufacturers don't bother to make them.
 
Last edited:

l88bastard

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
2,913
LCD is just too slow for accurate 10-bit color reproduction at high refresh rates. With a few expensive exceptions, the manufacturers don't bother to make them.

That or their customer base is so old they have no idea what 60hz or 120hz even is....most people who use computers dont even know what resolution is.

For the kind of prices they charge for professional grade displays (upwards of $30k sometimes) they could figure out 120hz 10bit with HDMI 2.1 if they wanted to.

maxresdefault.jpg
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,809
That or their customer base is so old they have no idea what 60hz or 120hz even is....most people who use computers dont even know what resolution is.

For the kind of prices they charge for professional grade displays (upwards of $30k sometimes) they could figure out 120hz 10bit with HDMI 2.1 if they wanted to.

View attachment 169553

Right. People that spend $30k on displays don't know what they're buying and are generally speaking old and/or idiots. They clearly don't do anything related to imaging that would necessitate them having any knowledge of display technology. :rolleyes:
 

l88bastard

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
2,913
Right. People that spend $30k on displays don't know what they're buying and are generally speaking old and/or idiots. They clearly don't do anything related to imaging that would necessitate them having any knowledge of display technology. :rolleyes:

I know people who spend $200k on a car that they don't know jack shit about, they just know its fast, has a name brand, is flashy and will get them laid.

Clueless Professionals, companies, governments and organizations buy useless expensive shit all the time, fuck'in A Apple crafted an entire business model around that demographic!
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,809
I know people who spend $200k on a car that they don't know jack shit about, they just know its fast, has a name brand, is flashy and will get them laid.

Clueless Professionals, companies, governments and organizations buy useless expensive shit all the time, fuck'in A Apple crafted an entire business model around that demographic!

I resent the fact that you insist that an entire industry of professionals are "all clueless" and that you also believe people who work in those industries also have zero concept of money and for some reason as a result have infinite of it to spend. Your ignorance compounds when speaking about Apple. Your lack of nuance shows that you don't understand this market or Apple's. Bringing up anecdotal evidence in a field of this size is meaningless. Especially when comparing a workplace tool that no one buys to impress anyone versus a luxury good.

You've basically stated that every colorist is an idiot. Every editor is an idiot. Every effects artist is an idiot. Every DIT is an idiot. Anyone who uses scopes is an idiot. Anyone who works in a broadcast room is an idiot. Anyone who wants to see as much information as possible to get as close to their camera is an idiot (which by the way isn't possible yet. REC 2020 is a reduced color space that's agreed upon to contract and standardize the enormous color range that modern cinema cameras are capable of capturing). Anyone that works in any visual technical capacity in Hollywood is an idiot.
Just because there are people out there that do useless spending, you would say: therefore everyone does useless spending. Because there are people out there who buy things they don't need, you would say: therefore that same product no one needs. Fallacies of the highest order. Whether intended or not, your statements imply an absurd amount of broad, sweeping generalizations.

You sit in your chair and make sweeping statements about purchasing decisions and have no understanding. This is armchair engineering to the highest degree. If it's simple, and can be done easily and more cheaply (because by stating that this is useless overspending you know it can) you should get it done yourself and charge 1/20th the price while being at the exact same quality level as any of this 'over-costed' competition. You'd become a millionaire overnight and a billionaire in 10 years.

Apple was able to reduce the cost of professional displays by 5/6ths (30k to 5k) and that is mind blowing and disruptive. Clearly you think their effort was easy, not enough, and could be done for even less. Please, feel free at any time to drive these prices down.


EDIT(s): For clarity. Grammar.
 
Last edited:

l88bastard

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
2,913
I resent the fact that you insist that an entire industry of professionals are "all clueless" and that you also believe people who work in those industries also have zero concept of money and for some reason as a result have infinite of it to spend. Your ignorance compounds when speaking about Apple. Your lack of nuance shows that you don't understand this market or Apple's. Bringing up anecdotal evidence in a field of this size is meaningless. Especially when comparing a workplace tool that no one buys to impress anyone versus a luxury good.

You've basically stated that every colorist is an idiot. Every editor is an idiot. Every effects artist is an idiot. Every DIT is an idiot. Anyone who uses scopes is an idiot. Anyone who works in a broadcast room is an idiot. Anyone who wants to see as much information as possible to get as close to their camera is an idiot (which by the way isn't possible yet. REC 2020 is a reduced color space that's agreed upon to contract and standardize the enormous color range that modern cinema cameras are capable of capturing). Anyone that works in any visual technical capacity in Hollywood is an idiot.
Just because there are people out there that do useless spending, you would say: therefore everyone does useless spending. Because there are people out there who buy things they don't need, you would say: therefore that same product no one needs. Fallacies of the highest order. Whether intended or not, your statements imply an absurd amount of broad, sweeping generalizations.

You sit in your chair and make sweeping statements about purchasing decisions and have no understanding. This is armchair engineering to the highest degree. If it's simple, and can be done easily and more cheaply (because by stating that this is useless overspending you know it can) you should get it done yourself and charge 1/20th the price while being at the exact same quality level as any of this 'over-costed' competition. You'd become a millionaire overnight and a billionaire in 10 years.

Apple was able to reduce the cost of professional displays by 5/6ths (30k to 5k) and that is mind blowing and disruptive. Clearly you think their effort was easy, not enough, and could be done for even less. Please, feel free at any time to drive these prices down.


EDIT(s): For clarity. Grammar.


giphy.gif

giphy.gif
 

Attachments

  • hE554F408.gif
    hE554F408.gif
    1.7 MB · Views: 56

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,036
Apple was able to reduce the cost of professional displays by 5/6ths (30k to 5k) and that is mind blowing and disruptive.

The Apple display isn't competitive with any of the displays they compared to it. Anyone who believes otherwise is just wrong. The Apple display is a pretty standard 576 zone FALD. If Asus does a good job with this topic's display(PA32UCX), it might actually be better than the Apple one when calibrated. Apple basically just made a "decent" HDR professional display for $5000. Which is fine, I mean, that's a reasonable product.

But anybody who tells you that you can use it in place of a CG3145 or BVM X300 v2 when color grading HDR and get the same result is lying to you. You cannot. You WILL make a mess(by the standards of high end film production). Is it fine for low/mid budget filmmakers and YouTubers to get into the HDR production game? Yeah, certainly.

People REALLY need to stop believing Apple hype. It's always an exaggeration/lie, just like every other company's marketing.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,809
The Apple display isn't competitive with any of the displays they compared to it. Anyone who believes otherwise is just wrong. The Apple display is a pretty standard 576 zone FALD. If Asus does a good job with this topic's display(PA32UCX), it might actually be better than the Apple one when calibrated. Apple basically just made a "decent" HDR professional display for $5000. Which is fine, I mean, that's a reasonable product.

But anybody who tells you that you can use it in place of a CG3145 or BVM X300 v2 when color grading HDR and get the same result is lying to you. You cannot. You WILL make a mess(by the standards of high end film production). Is it fine for low/mid budget filmmakers and YouTubers to get into the HDR production game? Yeah, certainly.

People REALLY need to stop believing Apple hype. It's always an exaggeration/lie, just like every other company's marketing.

Here is the problem: you're making an awful lot of assumptions about a product that is not only not in your hands, it's not even in the hands of knowledgeable experts. If you won't even accept or acknowledge that. Then don't even bother to read the rest of this post. You have a clearly exposed bias and are unwilling to even give the benefit of the doubt.

2: There is an assumption that keeps happening here (specifically the [H]) that Apple has no idea what it's doing in the professional market. Which couldn't be further from the truth. They've been backed by high end directors, editors, and colorists for sometime. The [H] doesn't understand workstations (why is the Mac Pro $6000???? Why would anyone spend $40k on a computer?! LOL??), Apple does. And their machines are favored by quite a few production houses (they were favored as an example by the Coen Brothers, Apple had an entire campaign based around people in the industry using their products). I say all that to say they have access to not only these $30k monitors to compare them to, they also have access to the end users that will eventually be using these displays. Even if you want to be cynical about Apple's ability to "market" the people Apple is trying to sell this stuff to isn't capable of being "sold". Despite the other user that I didn't mince words with speaking to the contrary: this market isn't just going to spend money on stuff that doesn't get their job done. If Apple fails in regards to its claims, these monitors won't sell enough to even get their R&D/tooling/manufacturing costs back. Period.

If you want to know more about their track record, Apple is a leader on the software side. They are the creators of ProRes, a professional by any definition video format. And ProRes is exclusively an Apple format, one that plenty of people are willing to bend over backwards to use, because it decodes so easily in editing and is incredibly flexible. It also now has a RAW flavor which has been game changing because the data rates are much lower than RED raw as an example with all the benefits thereof. It shouldn't have to be mentioned, but I will anyway, but this format of course has to have class leading color and control built into it. Are there other formats? Sure, ArriRaw and RED raw most notably, but no one would ever consider ProRes to be second fiddle (Arri as an example also shoots to ProRes. I would consider Arri to be the best system in the market and they use this format). It's one of the formats that changed film makers minds and moved them away from analog film in the late aughts and early 2010s. The point once again?: They are invested in the professional market, they have the track record to prove it, and they know what they need.

3: I already covered this: but you're making huge leaps as to what the capacities of these monitors are and will be. Number of FALD LEDs perhaps will affect accuracy and bloom, but absolute brightness, color accuracy, color uniformity, panel uniformity? Not at all. Additionally there was serious tech placed into this display. Tech that other companies haven't invented yet (such as the fact that it's using a blue instead of white LED backlight, and having a FALD system that updates 10x more quickly than 60Hz as well as an onboard processor that modulates the FALD and LCD synchronization). I'm also certain that Apple will have better QC in terms of LED calibration out the door. Meaning that they will ensure that all the LEDs in the backlight respond uniformly. Which will not be something an enduser will be able to calibrate after the fact (like for instance on this display or the X27).


As to point 1 and 3, here's a video from at least a person who has seen one and used one:
Is Johnathan Morrison the end all be all? Nope. But as is discussed in this video, he's familiar with dropping over $10k on a display. Unlike most users.
 
Last edited:

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,036
Here is the problem: you're making an awful lot of assumptions about a product that is not only not in your hands, it's not even in the hands of knowledgeable experts. If you won't even accept or acknowledge that. Then don't even bother to read the rest of this post. You have a clearly exposed bias and are unwilling to even give the benefit of the doubt.

2: There is an assumption that keeps happening here (specifically the [H]) that Apple has no idea what it's doing in the professional market.

Not gonna address points I didn't write, and don't care that you have a severe case of Apple worship. I didn't even say that the display would be unsuccessful, only that it's not as good as the best pro monitors. It's not as good because the tech in it is cheaper and worse. It's REALLY that simple.

3: I already covered this: but you're making huge leaps as to what the capacities of these monitors are and will be. Number of FALD LEDs perhaps will affect accuracy and bloom, but absolute brightness, color accuracy, color uniformity, panel uniformity? Not at all. Additionally there was serious tech placed into this display. Tech that other companies haven't invented yet (such as the fact that it's using a blue instead of white LED backlight, and having a FALD system that updates 10x more quickly than 60Hz as well as an onboard processor that modulates the FALD and LCD synchronization). I'm also certain that Apple will have better QC in terms of LED calibration out the door. Meaning that they will ensure that all the LEDs in the backlight respond uniformly. Which will not be something an enduser will be able to calibrate after the fact (like for instance on this display or the X27).

Apple doesn't make display panels. Any display product they make will have similar capabilities to other panels produced by that manufacturer this year. Their FALD is not going to be any magically better than the one in the PA32UCX, or any of the more advanced miniLEDs monitors produced this year. Also, the only FALDs that operate anywhere near 60hz are the G-sync Ultimate ones, all the others on the market are much slower, including all TVs and all professional monitors. So I dunno what you're even talking about here, you don't seem to understand the current monitors on the market let alone Apple's.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,809
Not gonna address points I didn't write, and don't care that you have a severe case of Apple worship. I didn't even say that the display would be unsuccessful, only that it's not as good as the best pro monitors. It's not as good because the tech in it is cheaper and worse. It's REALLY that simple.

There is an assumption that it is worse. They've developed a lot of the tech thats in it e.g.: the TCON chip, which is custom manufactured.
Everything is more expensive until it isn't. Until someone figures out how to make it better and for less. Computers used to be something that only governments and the super wealthy could afford. Now the phone in my pocket has more computing power than the Apollo 11 control module.
Like I said in the post you quoted: you're assuming its worse. You don't even have to agree with me on that. But if you're unwilling to say: "you don't know" how it will perform everything else is an assumption. Including mine. Obviously I'm the optimist in this situation. But we all want pro displays that don't break the bank.


Apple doesn't make display panels. Any display product they make will have similar capabilities to other panels produced by that manufacturer this year. Their FALD is not going to be any magically better than the one in the PA32UCX, or any of the more advanced miniLEDs monitors produced this year. Also, the only FALDs that operate anywhere near 60hz are the G-sync Ultimate ones, all the others on the market are much slower, including all TVs and all professional monitors. So I dunno what you're even talking about here, you don't seem to understand the current monitors on the market let alone Apple's.

It's true they don't. But they are a large enough organization to leverage whatever they need (including getting displays panels that are better or equal to their 30k competition, that is if you're going to argue "all the tech is the same"). Case in point: the display is a custom resolution. So who else is using this panel? You're assuming it's better or worse than the competition but you have zero evidence even on how well this particular panel performs. Literally. Their FALD by its nature is different. And it was built and designed by engineers at Apple whom of course are having other manufacturers build for them. That much is obvious.

So, the panel is custom. If the panel is custom then the FALD generally has a good chance of being custom (which it is, as it uses Blue LEDs and not white ones) as is the controller for the panel. As is the FALD refresh rate. You seem to think this display is from off the shelf parts, but there is clearly way more evidence in favor of it not, including the exploded view of the display itself in which all of its internals are shown. They aren't hiding. There isn't mystery inside. The only mystery is if their engineering is as good as they say. And once again, that will take having it in your hot little hands to determine.

On the engineering note, it's obvious that Apple is more than capable of making and leveraging 100% custom solutions in the phone world and the same in the computing world (short of the components that Intel/AMD provide). You honestly think they can't offer a 100% custom display solution leveraging their partners? That's only a handful of contracts away.
 
Last edited:

Iratus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
1,517
Gone a bit off topic for the asus screen now hey. I do like the ProArt monitors but I’ve got no need for Dolby Vision or the like. I’d question how many people do, but I guess it’s a good way for them to get the tech locked in on low volume parts so they can sort out costs and production techniques.

For the Apple screen, I’m almost tempted to buy one just to trigger some people. Maybe I should get raging angry that it’s Thunderbolt and I can’t use it. I miss the days when I used to get fired up about technology. It’s a fucking screen who cares.
 

bigbluefe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
958
The Apple display isn't competitive with any of the displays they compared to it. Anyone who believes otherwise is just wrong. The Apple display is a pretty standard 576 zone FALD. If Asus does a good job with this topic's display(PA32UCX), it might actually be better than the Apple one when calibrated. Apple basically just made a "decent" HDR professional display for $5000. Which is fine, I mean, that's a reasonable product.

But anybody who tells you that you can use it in place of a CG3145 or BVM X300 v2 when color grading HDR and get the same result is lying to you. You cannot. You WILL make a mess(by the standards of high end film production). Is it fine for low/mid budget filmmakers and YouTubers to get into the HDR production game? Yeah, certainly.

People REALLY need to stop believing Apple hype. It's always an exaggeration/lie, just like every other company's marketing.

Why are you pretending that standards are so high when it comes to big budget movies?

The Solo Star Wars movie is infamous for having such terrible cinematography that it was hard to make out what was going on in scenes.


A lot of big budget movies look like absolute shit.
 

bigbluefe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
958
Are you joking? This monitor isn't made for games.

Hi. Monitors are made to DISPLAY IMAGES RAPIDLY. Every monitor should be good for playing games, and every monitor should be good for media creation. It isn't an either or. You can be good at both.

The fact that this monitor doesn't have FreeSync is akin to Asus telling its customers that it thinks they're morons.
 

bigbluefe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
958
I just want to emphasize that ALL 24fps movies will have juddering when the camera pans on a 60hz display that doesn't support variable refresh.

So you're telling me that someone editing a 24fps video would want to see fucking JUDDERING when playing it back during editing?

No. STOP fucking pretending that high end monitors shouldn't be better at everything. You're letting slime bag companies get away with murder. This is just a scam to try to get professionals to waste money on additional monitors they shouldn't need.

kxu63lik09ny.jpg
 

Iratus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
1,517
I just want to emphasize that ALL 24fps movies will have juddering when the camera pans on a 60hz display that doesn't support variable refresh.

So you're telling me that someone editing a 24fps video would want to see fucking JUDDERING when playing it back during editing?

View attachment 171267

At this point I'm thinking trolling but ok, I'll bite. VRR wasn't a thing a few years ago, do you think everyone used CRT's till it came out? Let me help, many higher end monitors let you choose commonly useful video frequencies as an out the box option. Almost all monitors let you choose it as a 'custom resolution'. The old Asus ProArt ones (or the ones we have do anyway) and the Apple one support 48. You wouldn't want to edit in 24hz as a rule but a custom resolution will let you do it. It is definitely one of the benefits of the new technology in terms of streamlining the process and work are.

Also, in terms of workflow the traditional one had the editing monitors and the reference monitors. TWhich you sometimes shared as even for big companies they're not everywhere owed to cost (I remember having to wheel the reference cart with the 12" trinitron round and I worked for a multi billion dollar broadcaster in the early 2000's). This isn't "murder", screens can't do everything without blowing out engineering costs on things that have no value to their consumers. It's not a way to run a business. One day we will all have 10,000 NIT VRR 288hz infinite constrast 8K monitors and we can probably declare 'screen's done and look at textured surfaces but we're a while off yet.

Fun fact, I've been to McDonalds in Yass. It's down the road from where my wife grew up.
 

bigbluefe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
958
At this point I'm thinking trolling but ok, I'll bite. VRR wasn't a thing a few years ago, do you think everyone used CRT's till it came out? Let me help, many higher end monitors let you choose commonly useful video frequencies as an out the box option. Almost all monitors let you choose it as a 'custom resolution'. The old Asus ProArt ones (or the ones we have do anyway) and the Apple one support 48. You wouldn't want to edit in 24hz as a rule but a custom resolution will let you do it. It is definitely one of the benefits of the new technology in terms of streamlining the process and work are.

Also, in terms of workflow the traditional one had the editing monitors and the reference monitors. TWhich you sometimes shared as even for big companies they're not everywhere owed to cost (I remember having to wheel the reference cart with the 12" trinitron round and I worked for a multi billion dollar broadcaster in the early 2000's). This isn't "murder", screens can't do everything without blowing out engineering costs on things that have no value to their consumers. It's not a way to run a business. One day we will all have 10,000 NIT VRR 288hz infinite constrast 8K monitors and we can probably declare 'screen's done and look at textured surfaces but we're a while off yet.

Fun fact, I've been to McDonalds in Yass. It's down the road from where my wife grew up.

Everything is economies of scale. The cheapest ass TN panel monitor would be too expensive to make unless you make 40 billion of them.

Splitting everything into separate models defeats all the benefits of economies of scale.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
I just want to emphasize that ALL 24fps movies will have juddering when the camera pans on a 60hz display that doesn't support variable refresh.

So you're telling me that someone editing a 24fps video would want to see fucking JUDDERING when playing it back during editing?

No. STOP fucking pretending that high end monitors shouldn't be better at everything. You're letting slime bag companies get away with murder. This is just a scam to try to get professionals to waste money on additional monitors they shouldn't need.

View attachment 171267
I had a $180 60 Hz LCD monitor 15 years ago that could operate at 24 or 48 Hz. Most televisions that have been released in the last 7 years have a 24 Hz mode, and if they don't then they will do 3:2 pulldown.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,036
The PA32UCG announcement kind of took the wind out of the sails of this thing IMO. Especially at its price point.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
The PA32UCG announcement kind of took the wind out of the sails of this thing IMO. Especially at its price point.

Yeah, I am sure, many here had $4000 ready to drop on this until that announcement. :D

I would love to a see a really detailed review of this. Particularly how blooming is, with the high zone FALD implementation.
 
Top