Great article. But keep in mind, 4K HDTV's won't be affordable and in most peoples homes for another five years from now. That's plenty of time to get these details worked out in the meantime.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
How far away for 4K PC monitors, and affordable ?
- Thread starter Zorachus
- Start date
Great article. But keep in mind, 4K HDTV's won't be affordable and in most peoples homes for another five years from now. That's plenty of time to get these details worked out in the meantime.
The problem with 4K content is that it's huge in a way that currently cannot be delivered to the home. Uncompressed 4K content is 600 MB/sec, or about 2.2 TB per hour of video. SSDs currently top out around 500 MB/sec, so you can immediately see that uncompressed distribution can't happen anytime soon.
Red's Odemax system is supposed to release in March, and is supposed to be able to compress 4K video down to 2.5 MB/sec. I've got a 15/5 FIOS connection that regularly sees 1.8 MB/sec downloads, and I don't think many consumers have a connection faster than that. On a larger scale than the individual user, imagine a customer base as large as Netflix all attempting to download at 2.5MB/sec.
(NB: in this post MB/sec = megabytes per second).
Red's Odemax system is supposed to release in March, and is supposed to be able to compress 4K video down to 2.5 MB/sec. I've got a 15/5 FIOS connection that regularly sees 1.8 MB/sec downloads, and I don't think many consumers have a connection faster than that. On a larger scale than the individual user, imagine a customer base as large as Netflix all attempting to download at 2.5MB/sec.
(NB: in this post MB/sec = megabytes per second).
But that's not really relevant since we don't do uncompressed video except in some very high end capture applications. Blu-ray, which looks quite good, is normally about 25mbps. Uncompressed 8-bit 4:2:0 1920x1080@24fps would be about 570mbps, never mind going 12 bit 4:4:4 as the 4k example is.
Will 4k need more bandwidth than 1080? Of course. It'll still be manageable though, particularly since you find that video compression tends to not need double the space for double the pixels due to the way it works. I'd bet that a 50mbps AVC stream would look pretty decent for 4k, and 100mbps would look great. Now is that feasible to stream? No not really, but you can do it on disc, and it will be feasible to stream soon enough.
Remember compression is just a part of life with video. It is extremely rare to work with uncompressed workflows, even on the capture side. Plenty is done at regular AVC rates which is 24mbps, even high end pro cameras like Panasonic's AVC-Intra cameras are 100mbps for 10-bit, 4:2:2 1080p30. Even the Red Scarlet 4k camera shoots compressed, its' REDCODE format does 3:1 to 18:1 compression depending on settings, at a max data rate of about 440mbps.
These are the cameras you use to actually capture and produce high end content, never mind delivery to consumers.
While uncompressed video would be nice, it is hardly a requirement to having a viable format.
houkouonchi
RIP
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,622
LOL, then you woke up
A 21" monitor with a resolution of 3840 x 2160. Ha, yeah ok. And due out next year too, LOL.
I have a 22.2 inch monitor made in 2002 which is 3840x240. They should have had these as common place 5 years ago. I think it will happen.
HAHA 17 inch at 2560x1440 is borderline retina? Not even close. I would say my 22 inch 3840x2400 display is 'borderline retina' which is almost 4x the pixel density of that 27 inch. Even then I think it could go a little farther before considered to be 'retina'
Even 1080p content will look substantially better on 4k TVs. All 4k Ultra HD screens will include a CPU for scaling purposes - part of why they will be so expensive.
As intelligent as your "HAHA" argument sounds, you may want to double check the meaning of the term "retina". More than actual PPI, it is dependent on the typical viewing distance that one uses a device. Obviously, a user sits further away from a monitor or TV than they would an iphone.
Having a retina display is of little importance in a big screen ultra HD TV or computer monitor. The pixel density and resolution required to achieve a 300+ PPI on a 30" inch screen would be ridiculously cost prohibitive, not to mention would require greater than 4k resolution on a 30 incher. Since you're not using a TV from a foot away, PPI is not important on a big screen - it does help with an iphone or tablet, however.
houkouonchi
RIP
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,622
That was a typo. If you see what I quoted it was 27 inch (not 17). What I said didnt really make sense at 17 but yeah at 27 inches that resolution isnt even close to being retina.
Ive used a > 200 PPI > 20 inch monitor at normal viewing distances and it could be even higher pixel density. My point was 27 inch at only like 110 PPI or whatever it is is not even close.
warriorpoet
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 43
If 220 PPI at 20 inches viewing distance (Macbook Pro 15") is considered "retina", 108.79 at ~31 inches has got to be getting close. I can tell you my Dell is functionally equivalent to "retina" at 136.7 PPI at ~25 inches.
houkouonchi
RIP
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,622
220 PPI is four times the pixel density of a 109 PPI monitor. This means that 20 inches on 220 PPI is equivelent to 80 inches distance at 109 PPI. I don't know why you think at 31 inches viewing distance that it would be close to retina. It really is not close at all. Also I am probably more like 25 inches in viewing distance.
Whether it is retina or not is absurd. It doesn't matter. It ISNT a mobile device.
It is a large screen monitor, achieving 300 PPI on a 27 inch screen would require a resolution in far excess of what is reasonable - likely higher than 4k resolution which is absurd. Furthermore, high PPI is desirable on mobile devices because they're 1) SMALL and 2) YOU HOLD THEM CLOSE TO YOUR FACE -- This is quite obviously not the case with big screen TVs and PC monitors. With mobile devices, because of the nature of the 3-5 inch screen -- readability is very important when you're staring at something the size of your palm.
A 27 or 30 inch monitor is obviously not the size of your palm so it doesn't need to be 300 PPI, and that isn't feasible anyway due to cost. If you care what resolution is required to achieve 300 PPI on a 30 inch screen is, please calculate it and post it here. It will be quite humorous, and please let us know when in the year 2018 it will be developed.
I'll give you a hint. 300 PPI at 4k resolution requires a 15 inch screen - or being more generous, 250 PPI would require an 18 inch screen. Now go do the math and figure out what resolution is required on a 27 inch or 30 inch for 300 PPI......As I said. Worthless. You're arguing something completely pointless and absurd, retina doesn't matter for anything except mobile devices. Unless of course you want an 8k resolution on a 27 inch screen and a reasonable cost.
Last edited:
warriorpoet
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 43
The average distance from monitor on a desktop system is near 31". The average distance for a laptop is right around 25". For me at around 25 inches at 136 PPI (Dell XPS16 RGBLED), pixels are indistinguishable in everything but corner cases (Windows' unhinted fonts, Gnome 2's hideous rounded edges, etc.). This is my personal experience. For me, 109 DPI at 31 inches is perfectly fine.
At 5120 x 2880 a 27" monitor gets close to 220 PPI (217.51). The bandwidth required for multiple monitors at that native resolution is immense.
That doesn't mean higher resolution monitors aren't great, or unusable, just impracticle at the present time.
A 30" panel at 293.72 PPI requires a resolution of 7680 x 4320. That's a lot of pixels. A 30" panel with the same pixel density as an iPhone 5 requires a resolution of 8520 x 4800.
Your calculation comparing the 220 PPI MB Pro and a 27" desktop monitor misses one crucial factor. Visibility does not calculate linearly. If it did, the MB Pro would require a 4260 x 2400 screen to be "as retina" as an iPhone. Clearly, your math is wrong.
In fact, if you check their calculations, the iPhone 5 is roughly 33 PPI/ inches distant, and the MBP is 11 PPI/ inches distant, resulting in roughly a 2/3 reduction in required pixel density per 10 inches. When you extrapolate that out to 27"/ 31 inches from display (3.67 PPI/ inches distant), the result is 99 PPI required for "retina". 2560 x 1440 27" monitors are already 108.79 PPI, meaning you may already, according to Apple's "retina ratio" have a retina 27" monitor on your desktop with or without Apple tax, as you prefer.
Last edited:
It may be fine but that doesn't me it can't be better, even for you. Why does printed text look better than text on a display? More pixels...
Suppose you've got a single line at 220 ppi. What happens to that line at 110 ppi? You lose sharpness.
warriorpoet
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 43
Of course. I'm excited for advances in display technology, but they do seem to be coming along rather slowly.
edit: and text also looks better in print because it's not shooting light directly into my retinas.
houkouonchi
RIP
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,622
Wha?
When did I say things were linear? My point was that it should be equivelent pixel/size retina-ness or whatever you wanna call it if the DPI is halved and distance is quadroupled.
So if an iphone 5 is retina @ 326 PPI at a viewing distance of 8 inches then by my calculation half that PPI (163 PPI) would be retina at 32 inches viewing distance
I have to sit 4-5 feet away from my 27 inch monitor to get the same visual effect as looking at my 22.2 inch 3840x2400 (204 PPI) monitor at normal viewing distances.
I am sorry but I have been using a 203 PPI 22 inch monitor for a lot of years with X windows set at 75 DPI (smallest possible fonts) with pretty normal viewing distances for me at around 25 inches. That is close to retina. I am sorry but at only 5 inches more and pixels 4x bigger it is not even remotely close unless maybe your vision just totally sucks.
warriorpoet
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 43
You didn't. Your calculation was linear.
houkouonchi
RIP
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,622
No, they really weren't. Your example that you printed was when you said a MB pro would require 4260x2400 to be considered retina would be linear because it means its still over 300 PPI which is not required to be retina at a laptop viewing distance.
Yes I get that as viewing distance increases then the PPI requirement does lower.
I don't see how you could ever think at a normal viewing distance 108 PPI is retina. that is just rediculous. I mean what about a little 17 inch monitor that is 1280x1024? They have had monitors that size for years and years. You really gonna try to argue that is like near retina?
I know I am only slightly farther away from the monitor when its a 30 inch vs a 17 inch so having higher resolution does not make it any more retina when the pixels are the same size and your distance from it is +/- 10%.
EDIT:
The only people would ever argue that a 30 inch 2560x1600 or 27 inch 2560x1440 resolution monitor is 'near' retina is because 1) They have crappy vision or 2) they have never actually seen what a larger high PPI screen looks like.
warriorpoet
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 43
High ppi is great, but what we have is acceptible. That is my argument.
If you look at the Apple math closely, you'll notice their high dpi screens hit a plateau around 220 dpi. That strikes me as reasonable. I'll be ecstatic to see a 200 dpi 27" - 30" monitor around where I can afford it.
An aside: Retina is an Apple marketing term. Using it as a general performance yardstick muddies the discussion somewhat.
houkouonchi
RIP
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,622
Well I didn't think acceptible was ever the argument? it was whether or not current 27 inches are close to being retina at only 108 PPI. If you ask me I say no its not even close. Would a 200 PPI 27 inch monitor be retina? Hell yes it would but it would be over 10 megapixels as well.
Now 3840x2160 in 30 inches is around 150 PPI. Is that retina? I would probably argue its close and I would definitely accept someone calling it 'near-retina' but like I said... 109 PPI is not even close.
The 'Retina' definition comes with a mathematical definition based on pixel density, viewing distance, and assumed visual acuity. The retina limit is 3.3 * 10^-4 radians per http://apple.stackexchange.com/ques...most-pixels-of-any-tablets-displa/44222#44222.
For a 108PPI display, it's "Retina" if you're sitting 28 inches away.
Bump up to 150PPI, and it's "Retina" if you're only 20 inches away.
Jump all the way to 200PPI, and you can be 15 inches away from the screen.
(Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest inch)
For a 108PPI display, it's "Retina" if you're sitting 28 inches away.
Bump up to 150PPI, and it's "Retina" if you're only 20 inches away.
Jump all the way to 200PPI, and you can be 15 inches away from the screen.
(Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest inch)
houkouonchi
RIP
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,622
Well I guess it depends on how you define retina. How i have known it to be defined is when the pixels are small enough where you can't (especially in text) see the individual pixels making up the text. Basically where things do not look pixelated because you can not discern the individual pixels.
The thing is that even at 30 inches 2560x1440 on a 27 inch monitor is not even close to that. That is what I am looking at now just as I am writing this.
sharknice
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 3,745
Scaling looks worse than something displayed at its native resolution. But it would be a straight 4:1 scale so it should look the same. If they do fancy scaling it will likely look bad.
Jesus christ. This crap does NOT matter on non mobile devices, what you're asking for would require 8k resolution on a 27 inch screen. Wake up and welcome to reality.
This isn't a 4 inch display that you hold 2 inches from your face.
Last edited:
suiken_2mieu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2,911
So when can I get my 4K monitor at $1000 or less?
Mark Rejhon
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
My prediction: Later part of 2015, or early 2016. Watch for boxing day sales in this time period.
The expensive stuff will hit this year, including the Apple-ized 4K display(s). The subsequent years will be a rapid pace of price drops (forecast based on how fast prices fell for Retina displays). Then it hits the low $1000 range for one year's holiday season, and then one year's boxing week sales tips the scale to $999. My bet's on winter 2015-2016 for a sub-$1000 value-brand 4K monitor.
Could be a year earlier or later. Most predictions seem to agree with this time range.
Last edited:
houkouonchi
RIP
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,622
It *does* matter. On my macbook and on other machines I make sure text does not use any extra pixels because I want as most desktop real-estate as possible. Considering its perfectly usable to me at normal viewing distances having double the screen real-estate on a 22 inch monitor as a 27 inch 2560x1440 monitor is a big deal in my book. But whatever.
Like I said its around 25 inches from my face.
The best solution would be to strike a balance. The concept of retina works very well at small screen sizes, but returns diminish as you increase panel size. Retina is all relative. 300ppi suffices for devices with 3.5"-5.5" screens, but if you're looking to have 300ppi on something like a 27" or 30" screen, you're looking at well beyond 4K. I believe at 4K, the ppi would be somewhere just over 200... to get 300ppi, its somewhere in the neighborhood of having 15 million pixels. Power consumption aside, it's not practical, and certainly not feasible or affordable at this point in time.
I am, however, a huge advocate of 1440p and 1600p making the transition to the 21.5" - 24" range. That would give a nice 135-150ppi, and is a bump up from the current ~95ppi of such panels. It's time to dump 1080p and 1200p for monitors, in my opinion.
Wrap up my thread here. I think 4K HDTV's are very much needed for huge sizes like the monster 70"-80" screens, those giant TV's @ 1080p look like beef, very grainy and low res for such a large screen size. 4K resolution would look fantastic at that size.
Reading the high end audiophile magazines, the extreme nit picky hardcore guys, still say 55"-60" screen size is the best for current high end 1080p, giving the best image quality. No audiophile rich guy goes for the 80" Sharp 1080p screens, those are known to be crappy looking for the real detailed crowd.
Now PC Monitors, do not need to be 4K res for like a 24" screen, that's overkill. I think a 4K PC Monitor would be great around 36" - 38" or so.
Reading the high end audiophile magazines, the extreme nit picky hardcore guys, still say 55"-60" screen size is the best for current high end 1080p, giving the best image quality. No audiophile rich guy goes for the 80" Sharp 1080p screens, those are known to be crappy looking for the real detailed crowd.
Now PC Monitors, do not need to be 4K res for like a 24" screen, that's overkill. I think a 4K PC Monitor would be great around 36" - 38" or so.
Monitors are a different thing, but 4K TV is all but pointless.
A little perspective on the NEED for a 4K for home video watching.
The majority of all normal Digital Projector at your local movie theaters are only 1080p.
Think about that 50 foot screen, 1080p projector and it looks very good.
But we need more than 1080p for home movie watching?
Saying what display size is good for which resolution is pretty much worthless until you factor in viewing distance.
42", to be precise. Same PPI as a 21" 1080p screen.
4k tv's?
what device could you use to get native resolution on that TV today other than the pc?
houkouonchi
RIP
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,622
Whats funny is that I am one of the few who will argue that 4k is not pointless in a 22 or 24 inch monitor against all these others who say its 'overkill' yet I am probably the only one who already uses a 22 inch 4k display on a daily basis. Funny how that works...
You use a 22" 4K display? You working with some prototype or something that no one has heard of?
houkouonchi
RIP
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,622
Not a common display but the panel originally came out in 2002 (I actually have one that was made in 2002) which is a Viewsonic VP2290b. I also have an IBM T221 9503-DGP (same panel) that is quite a bit newer (made in 2006, the last production year they were made).
It is definitely dated with horrible response time but it does produce a very nice still picture and response is good enough for 24/30 FPS video.
It is very power hungry and thick (for being an LCD) but I don't really care that much for those parts. The vp2290b which I gave to my sister runs via four single link DVI connections (she runs it with ati eyefinity) and has a maximum refresh of 40 Hz (it is actually getting a 60Hz signal but the internal refresh rate is still 40Hz). The IBM T221 9503 DGP that I run on my machine at works is ran off a gtx 460 via 2x dual link DVI @ 48Hz.
Still its 3840x2400 on a 22.2 inch display @ 204 PPI. Its only slightly bigger pixels than my Macbook pro retina. Here are some pics (crappy iphone):
Been using these monitors since 2007.
cool
The first one, the T220 was about $18K, the T221 was about to $8k.
Most people (as opposed to corporations) found them on clearance/refurb for MUCH less.
Spicedaddy
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2012
- Messages
- 65
It's funny that we had a 4K 22inch LCD years ago, and the tech basically disappeared instead of getting cheaper. The problem IMO is Windows and software... Higher resolutions just make things smaller, that's why most monitors are around the 100dpi mark.
The OS and software has to be resolution independant before it makes sense to get something like a 23" 4K screen for desktop work.
The OS and software has to be resolution independant before it makes sense to get something like a 23" 4K screen for desktop work.
Where did Acer say they were releasing 4K desktop Monitors this year?