sharp 32" 4k monitor - who else is planning on getting it?

No wonder sharp is in such dire straights if after all the brouhaha about igzo they are in the sorry state of being able to produce 50 panels a day (ie. 1500 a month). What's their factory like? Size of garage or something? Or are they getting low yields or something?
 
sfor said:
No wonder sharp is in such dire straights if after all the brouhaha about igzo they are in the sorry state of being able to produce 50 panels a day (ie. 1500 a month). What's their factory like? Size of garage or something? Or are they getting low yields or something?
Click to expand...

They're meeting demand. Not sure what the issue is - a 5000$ 4k screen certainly will not sell in high volumes.

Even though Sharp is in bad shape, you can be assured that they've done many assessments on how to maximize profits for the given demand. The demand is not high enough to go into mass production yet.
 
Last edited:
Are you sure it's not production issues? They 've been rumored to provide displays for the retina macbook pro, the ipad, then ipad mini and not a single time did they manage to meet apple's quality and volume requirements, so apple ended up going with lg, samsung and au optronics. They've only managed screens for the iphone. I would think that if they could produce more than 1500 panels per month they would.

I also want to say that as much as sharp's screen is indeed impressive, its ppi is nowhere near what ibm had 10 years ago at 3840×2400 for 204 ppi. Sharp's now just bumping the 27" 110 ppi to 137 ppi in 32". What with all the talk about igzo and high res. panels the fact that something that was out more than ten years ago managing to still pack 50% more pixels per inch is rather counter climactic isn't it? Sure contrast on the ibm wasn't that good and motion was shit, but who cares if you are using it for office work, and like I said it was more than a decade ago. I am really disappointed at the rate of growth here. I also find it dishonest how they report these monitors as 4k. They are 4k, but you can have one gazionlth K if you make a screen large enough, so what? The whole point is in the ppi, not in the total number of pixels.
 
PPI doesn't matter as much for desktop and big screen HDTVs. Let me backtrack: it matters less because the viewing distance isn't inches from your face like a smartphone which you view 2 inches from your eyes. The viewing distances is significantly larger in length for an HDTV and desktop screen, so you don't judge PPI by the same metrics. Furthermore, 8k resolution would be required for 300+ PPI on a 27 inch screen. You know that will never happen, at least not anytime in the next 5 years.

Again. 300PPI won't happen on a 27-30 inch screen anytime soon. The resolution required is beyond 8k horizontal resolution, and on top of this you don't need that PPI for a screen that you view from 2+ feet away.. Furthermore, there is nothing deceptive about 4k resolution. It is 4k horizontal resolution. If you don't want it don't buy it.

Use your head man. Unless you're totally dense you're going to understand that a 5000$ desktop monitor isn't going to sell in high volumes. I have to ask, do you plan on buying one? I seriously doubt it, so why are you complaining again? I mean you just bought a 23 inch monitor right, and now you're complaining about a 5000$ monitor which i'm sure you won't buy. Come on. Your complaints about the production are ridiculous. Period.
 
Last edited:
Of course I am not judging it by the same metric. 137 ppi is good enough, but to be close to (to user apple's marketing term, which I don't like to do) retina that would have to be closer to 170 and up factoring in the distance.

All this resolutions as in 720p, 1080p, 4k are deceptive in that even the smallest ppi screen, say a 1 ppi screen, a pixel per inch if given enough size can get to 720p, 1080p, 4k, 8k whatever. It is deceptive thus. The real metric is ppi. Of course over a certain cut off for ppi based on distance it won't matter anymore. But that's not the point.

The point is that it's not some kind of achievement to get to 4k when that means 137 ppi as opposed to 204 ppi from a monitor more than a decade ago. It's actually a very modest advancement over 1440p 27" inches. The monitor has gotten a bit larger, and the ppi a bit larger too. Igzo sm-igzo, the advancement is good, it's also very welcome, but it's not really that great. Thus it serves them better to go with the 4k specification instead of the actual ppi. Trust me if ppi where high enough to tout instead of the total number of pixels they would go with that. It's marketing.

Why are my complaints ridiculous? First of all they are not complaints, they are comments. Sharp has an atrocious record of meeting demand and quality control for screen production their "retina" panels time and again, only to have sasmung, lg and au, fill in for them at the end, with apple. I am very justified in assuming that the 1500 panels per month production rates are down to their now famous inability to meet demand. And yes I do think a $5000 panel can sell more than 1500 models per month worldwide, easily. There are tons of applications and users *around the globe* willing to fork out $5000 for it to get that extra resolution, accuracy and screen real estate.
 
Good grief, stop it with the PPI stuff. Understand is that "retina" is based completely 100% on viewing distance. Understand that is very easy, due to economies of scale, to produce a high PPI screen when it is only 5 inches or 7 inches large. It is significantly harder to produce 300PPI+ on a 27 inch screen, the components cost significantly more. The economics of scale to produce a 30 inch screen is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT for a large desktop display compared to a 5 inch smart phone -- How many smartphones are sold (billions). How many 5000$ desktop screens are sold? Very few. On top of this, you're asking for 300PPI on a desktop screen. That requires GREATER than 8k resolution. Now you tell me if that is going to happen in the next 2 years on a 27"? Hint: No.

Again, as i've said before - the "retina" moniker is based completely 100% on viewing distance as i've stated. So with proper viewing distance added to the equation, a 1440p 2560x1440 screen is basically similar detail wise to any apple retina screen. You view smartphone 2-3 inches from your eye. Obviously this is NOT the case with a HDTV or desktop monitor.

Stop thinking that the small PPI increases aren't significant. You are completely incorrect - if you compare a 1080p and 1440p monitor side by side, the increase is enormous. It is readily apparent to anyone that has seen a 1080p TN 27" and a 1440/1600p side by side.
 
Last edited:
Are you talking to yourself? Where did I talk about 300 ppi on a 27" being produced anytime soon, last time I checked i talked about upwards of 170 ppi? I am asking about 300 ppi on a dekstop? wtf? anyway...
 
Goes without saying how eagerly we are all awaiting some reviews here boys!
 
I use a 37in 1920x1080p tv for my monitor now looks just fine to me and huge screen. My dell 24in monitor is in the garage now not being used anymore. Btw it's dirt cheap compared to dedicated computer monitors
 
yelsewshane said:
I use a 37in 1920x1080p tv for my monitor now looks just fine to me and huge screen. My dell 24in monitor is in the garage now not being used anymore.
Click to expand...

I would shoot myself on that thing. The absolute minimum resolution I am willing to use on any computer now is 2560x1440. Minimum...
 
reading from other sites seems these monitors our selling out like crazy. But it looks like most stores are only getting 10-15.

playing on are large HDTV is for the "other" PC (the nice thing about Home theater PCs isn't u don't need to go crazy on video cards for 1080p - two 680s should hopefully be 'nuff for another year). But using a HDTV as a monitor at your desk is eye cancer :) 1080p is poooo... my desktops at work aren't even 1080p (most are 1200p+)
 
Last edited:
Which kinda validates my point that it's sharp who, once more, can't get supply to meet demand, instead of actually meeting low demand with a small number of panels per month produced.

It also makes one wonder whether it would have actually been better for us as consumers if sharp had gone under so that lg or samsung would have bought the ip and started producing more cheaply and en masse them in non mickey mouse facilities.

Anyway, at least since they put all that effort to come up with something as apparently as innovative as igzo they should get some of their money's worth back. And it's kinda sad these days who people who actually come up with the tech and spend so much in r&d are always a step away from going under and companies such as apple can buy up a few african countries with the cash they have at hand just for slapping other people's technologies in a product and sticking a half beaten apple on it.

I also wonder (I am wondering a lot, I guess, lol) what's up with panasonic and the incredible uber high ppi (if I recall correctly around 200ppi) 20 or so inch screen they came up with as a tablet at ces. Boy would it be great to get a non wide aspect ratio 200ppi monitor in 20-22" inches.
 
Finally good to see 4K monitors finally arriving on the market.

It's been more than 10 years since the first 4K monitor hit the market -- that's the IBM T221.

I do expect 4K to become mainstream by the end of this decade or early next decade, as a low-cost upgrade to 1080p. The price difference will disappear, much like 720p vs 1080p. But I'd love to have a stroboscopic 4K display, though!
 
I 've been reading other forums re. the longevity of the igzo panels but I 've not been able to find anything concrete on concerns about it. Anyone here have any idea what it's all about?
 
The IGZO 32" production will start to ramp up. This will be hero technology for Sharp.
 
Last edited:
Are there any actual reviews of the thing? All I've seen are press pufferies.
 
Stuart if you don't mind me asking, and I don't mean to be intrusive but why did you change your message about a three year warranty 24/7 in Australia? If you'd rather not share this, I don't have a problem editing my message too, but I was curious since it was a positive piece of info, that's all.

@Quartz. Someone's bought it and they are sorta demo-ing it, with not that many details though, over at another forum, I think it's redusers something, but I 've not been able to find any reviews either and I 've searched hi and lo.
 
Just wanted to get my facts correct. Wasn't able to check over the Easter weekend. I took some notes last week and after rereading appeared ambiguous. Confirming though, the PNK321 will be sold in Australia with a 24/7 3 year return to base warranty.
 
I am harboring hopes that prices will drop below 3K as soon as somebody else enters the market. The thing was supposed to retail for $5500, it's already 4700, seems like a good sign to me :)
 
Supports HDMI 1.4a for single cable 4k transmission. Portrait or landscape orientation. Unit designed for professional applications. Saw four apps open at once. Four full HD screens in one.
 
I talked to a Sharp rep in the US and she told me that this has not been officially released in the US yet. She said that it should ship at the end of the month. Are these venders legit?
 
Games? Unfortunately, many games use medium to low res textures due to console limitations. An uber HD screen won't change that.
 
I'm just wondering what Skyrim or Crysis would look like with the high texture mod packs on this. And how much VRAM you'd need.
 
I just got mine on friday. Having some troubles getting it to do native at 60hz over displayport 1.2
it only shows 30hz in the nvidia control panel.
 
omegaw666 said:
I just got mine on friday. Having some troubles getting it to do native at 60hz over displayport 1.2
it only shows 30hz in the nvidia control panel.
Click to expand...

Pics or it didn't happen. Also you may want to try making a custom resolution -> screen resolution -> advance settings -> Monitor -> Screen Refresh Rate: 60 Hertz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top