So, Where are the 5K monitors?

I am more interested in improvements in contrast, pixel response time, input lag, and overall panel consistency before 5K.

I game on an X34 and I do find it immersive and enjoyable, but I would not say the picture quality is good. Contrast is extremely poor, and I didn't exactly win the panel lottery as far as back-light bleed is concerned. IPS needs to go away on the high end and be replaced by OLED. When I want to be visually wowed, I always go back to my OLED TV's.
 
LOL at the people that can't understand the want for higher resolutions for sharper text at 200% scaling.

Just FYI, opinions aren't ever wrong. This isn't a right/wrong discussion.
 
IPS needs to go away on the high end and be replaced by OLED. When I want to be visually wowed, I always go back to my OLED TV's.
IPS-type panels are pretty good when you have anyone other than AUO making them.
I have no complaints about the displays used on the iPad Pro - or most of Apple's products - which are glossy displays with AR-treated glass bonded to them, and a 1600:1 contrast ratio.
In all conditions except a completely dark room, their displays look fantastic. Great uniformity, color accuracy, viewing angles etc.

Of course OLED has the potential to look a lot better, but they're not really suited for use as a computer monitor yet.
That's why Dell's OLED monitor is going to be so expensive, and include anti-burn-in features.
That said, I can't wait until OLED gets cheaper, has DisplayPort 1.3/1.4 support, and supports variable refresh rate technology.

100-110 DPI will never look good? The reason DPI is so high on phones and the like is because the screens are small, and people are going to be looking at it close to their eyes. In desktop use situations you're most likely going to be sitting at least 2 feet away. At that distance 110 DPI is just about the perfect density for the arc resolution of the average person's vision before individual pixels are able to be defined.
You should take a look at high DPI monitors. (>200 PPI) The different is significant.
Also: it amazes me how many people don't seem to understand that a perfect display should have enough resolution that you cannot see individual pixels.
Being able to see pixels is not a good thing.
 
We usually get GPUs with new Displayport tech way before we have actual displays that can do these. Pascal coming out with DP 1.4 in a week but who knows when the first DP 1.3 monitor will even be. Could be end of 2017 before we see monitors with that.
 
We usually get GPUs with new Displayport tech way before we have actual displays that can do these. Pascal coming out with DP 1.4 in a week but who knows when the first DP 1.3 monitor will even be. Could be end of 2017 before we see monitors with that.
I don't think it will be that long. Dell have already announced their 4K 120Hz OLED display, which will surely be using DisplayPort 1.3
And these 3440x1440 @ 144Hz monitors were just announced: AOC AG352UCG/UCX: 35"-Monitore mit 3.440 × 1.440, 144 Hz, VA, FreeSync, G-Sync

We'll be waiting a year for new OLED televisions from LG though, since it was only recently that the new models were released. (sadly limited to 60Hz with no variable refresh rate support)
 
I don't think it will be that long. Dell have already announced their 4K 120Hz OLED display, which will surely be using DisplayPort 1.3
And these 3440x1440 @ 144Hz monitors were just announced: AOC AG352UCG/UCX: 35"-Monitore mit 3.440 × 1.440, 144 Hz, VA, FreeSync, G-Sync

We'll be waiting a year for new OLED televisions from LG though, since it was only recently that the new models were released. (sadly limited to 60Hz with no variable refresh rate support)
The Dell OLED sounds super cool, although I will not be dropping that kinda cash on a first generation monitor. I want to see how the "burn in" turns out with OLED monitor tech. From what I read, Dell is having to put in "Pixel Orbiting" basically with a proximity sensor to try and mitigate that issue. Maybe it will not be a problem but I'm worried it might be. Only time will tell from the beta.... I mean, early adopters (not me).

Those 35" ultrawides look very cool, but I don't think I can stand another VA panel. 35" Ultrawide 1440p 144hz G-Sync all sound great otherwise. That size might be perfect for me. If they revise later with OLED, and it was proven to have any real problems, that could be something for me.

It looks like I'm screwed for at least another 1-2 years on getting a monitor I will be happy with.
 
I don't know if this has been asked, but where exactly are all the 5K monitors? We only have two 2880p panels IN THE WORLD at the moment: You'd think we'd see all kinds of 1%'er products with 5K resolution on 150" screens or some other nonsense. I would probably kill, or at least become violent for a 50" 2880p monitor with decent contrast, and I'm probably not the only one.


your thoughts, ladies and gentlemen.

I see this is an old post but regarding the OPs question above, outside of 4k monitors, there are several monitors in the medical imaging industry that are very high resolution. Hardware is hardware so you can use them on your home PC if you wish. These monitors are normally marketed in MP (megapixels), with a full hd monitor (1920x1080) being 2MP. 5MP and 6MP have been around for a long time for high detail breast imaging (mammography). Barco makes a nice 12MP monitor now called Barco Coronis Uniti (MDMC-12133). These monitors are typically driven by Barco MXRT-7600 video cards. Specs and such can be found at http://www.barco.com/en/uniti#brochure-wrapper and there is a wiki entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barco_(manufacturer)
 
An old thread and a long wait but Iiyama has released a 27" ProLite XB2779QQS 5k monitor. It runs at 60 Hz in native resolution with a single DisplayPort cable and has "edge-to-edge glass finish". I hope this means it has a glossy surface and if this is correct, this model should obliterate every 27" 4k monitor in the market as the price is set competitively at around €799.

https://iiyama.com/gl_en/products/prolite-xb2779qqs-s1/
 
In my humble opinion there is an upper PPI limit that makes sense. And for desktop monitors I would say it's around the 182 mark (and this only to have 2x scaling for 91 PPI otherwise I think 150 PPI would be enough) considering you should be at least 1m away from your monitor. The "standard" 91 PPI we have now is clearly not enough when you consider font rendering anyone saying otherwise probably isn't interested in font rendering or never tried a higher PPI screen.

This being said for 5k I want at least a 32 inch monitor. For 27 inch it only makes sense for the 2x scaling so programs that don't support higher PPI can be up scaled with integer scaling. This way they look the same as on a 1440p screen although I find 1440p too much for 27 to be comfortable in prolonged use without scaling.
 
Last edited:
I... when you consider font rendering anyone saying otherwise probably isn't interested in font rendering or never tried a higher PPI screen....

I am also having a lot of issues with some poor quality antiglare coatings which decreases the font readability. Do you recommand some monitors (4k or 5k)? As a developper, I really need the best font rendered. Thanks.
 
There was a time when 1440p was simply too demanding for gaming at the high end, but now its becoming a pretty standard resolution.

I use a 40 inch 4k screen, and I could easilly see upgrading to a 50" 5k screen. More desktop space, more immersive games...

I'm just wondering why there aren't any 5K screens AT ALL outside of the 27" Mac, and the 27" Mac with a HP logo on it. You would imagine at least ONE pannel manufacturer would put out some halo 50+ inch product.
LG apparently offers a 5K display. You can buy it from Apple, here:
https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKN62/lg-ultrafine-5k-display?fnode=4c

You can also get it from Amazon, but that appears to be resellers.
 
You think that the monitor manufacturing industry is going to release progressively superior monitors every year?

giphy.gif
 
Note that the LG 4k and LG 5k are little tricky to use from a Windows OS as there are no buttons to access all the settings.... With a MacOS the driver is better integrated.
 
Has someone found a 2018 panel roadmap including the 5k monitors (if they still exist...)?
 
TFT Central's panel DB doesn't list anything newer than 2015 panels at 27" and a 2016 model at 31.5".
 
  • Like
Reactions: idont
like this
I am also having a lot of issues with some poor quality antiglare coatings which decreases the font readability. Do you recommand some monitors (4k or 5k)? As a developper, I really need the best font rendered. Thanks.

My list of what I don't recommend is growing :) To be fair I mostly try cheaper versions (400-750$ range). Buying monitors is really a nightmare, finding one that is decent (no exaggerated back light bleed or uniformity issue) is really hard... The anti glare coating became less aggressive in recent years on most monitors, personally I couldn't live with a glossy screen since I need to be able to use it in different (and not fully under my control) lighting conditions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: idont
like this
Oh, totally agree. With Steve Jobs gone, now there is nobody who pushes up the quality of computer monitors. So they have no rush to revolutionize or fixe issues. We are back in a traditional "this year monitor is a little better than previous one"... nothing more...

... personally I couldn't live with a glossy screen since I need to be able to use it in different (and not fully under my control) lighting conditions.

Maybe one of these could help: https://www.eizo.ch/fr/moniteurs/ac...uissement/ch2700-lichtschutzblende-27-schwarz

I also noticed that Dell always uses a 3H AG coating except on their flagship monitor like the UP3218k (8k) which uses a 2H.
 
It's more like we're in a "this year's monitors are worse than last year's" phase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: idont
like this
In my humble opinion there is an upper PPI limit that makes sense. And for desktop monitors I would say it's around the 182 mark (and this only to have 2x scaling for 91 PPI otherwise I think 150 PPI would be enough) considering you should be at least 1m away from your monitor. The "standard" 91 PPI we have now is clearly not enough when you consider font rendering anyone saying otherwise probably isn't interested in font rendering or never tried a higher PPI screen.

This being said for 5k I want at least a 32 inch monitor. For 27 inch it only makes sense for the 2x scaling so programs that don't support higher PPI can be up scaled with integer scaling. This way they look the same as on a 1440p screen although I find 1440p too much for 27 to be comfortable in prolonged use without scaling.


People say this, but after I've been thinking about this for a long time, I've come to the conclusion that this idea is completely arbitrarily.

There is this tie from PPI to user interface that is inherent in Windows. And I think that it's Windows and "scaling" that needs to get better. Not that PPI should have an "upper limit".
There was a time in which essentially font characters were a 3x4 grid in terms of representation on screen. If we had kept that method, even having 50PPI would render fonts completely unreadable on screen.

To explain or perhaps compare this better, printers have exceeded 3000 DPI, and that is absolutely used to 'read' from. This 3000 DPI is what makes fonts, prints, and reading look flawless in paper form. In light of that, I would say creating an 'upper limit' on what should exist digitally is missing a huge amount of what could be.

Scaling then in its current form is a misnomer. Windows in its current state with its 'stuck' UI is designed for only a certain and arbitrary PPI. The issue then is not the PPI, it's the construct that Microsoft has created on how many pixels a UI element should be. But really that same UI element could contain 10x as many pixels, or 100x as many pixels, or really arbitrarily any amount of pixels you want it to contain. In other words, an increase in PPI doesn't need to be tied to things getting smaller, it just means they need to construct things out of more pixels. This is regardless of if I'm using a 92 PPI monitor or a 350 PPI one (or in theory a 1000+ PPI one) there is no reason why the font size couldn't appear to be exactly the same (apparent) size on all 3. With obviously the higher PPI monitor benefiting from perfect smoothness and better readability as its fonts would simply contain more pixels to render them.

So, don't misunderstand the problem, just like fonts being 12 pixels, there is a big space for increased PPI. UI elements should be "rendered" rather than be raster based. Vectors as an example fix a lot of these problems from a UI perspective (with perhaps the issue becoming increased processing power necessary to render them, however there are plenty of things a designer could do as tricks to "solve" that issue).
 
Last edited:
Not that PPI should have an "upper limit".

Yes, maybe I was too harsh with the "limit" thing. Saying that after a certain PPI mark it doesn't make much economical sense anymore since the diminished returns would have been a better way to formulate it, but a lot longer too :) From 91 to 138 on a 32 inch for example the jump is very visible, after that you won't really notice a difference unless you go very close to the monitor, which on a phone may make sense, on a huge desktop monitor not so much.

I totally agree with you on the other points though. Thing is, software tends to be written with the current technology and limitations in mind, so it's kinda silly to bash on Microsoft since they didn't foresee this coming. And I'm in no way a windows fan, there are many things wrong with it, scaling is broken on mixed PPI dual monitor setups for example even for apps that support it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, maybe I was too harsh with the "limit" thing. Saying that after a certain PPI mark it doesn't make much economical sense anymore since the diminished returns would have been a better way to formulate it, but a lot longer too :) From 91 to 138 on a 32 inch for example the jump is very visible, after that you won't really notice a difference unless you go very close to the monitor, which on a phone may make sense, on a huge desktop monitor not so much.

I totally agree with you on the other points though. Thing is, software tends to be written with the current technology and limitations in mind, so it's kinda silly to bash on Microsoft since they didn't foresee this coming. And I'm in no way a windows fan, there are many things wrong with it, scaling is broken on mixed PPI dual monitor setups for example even for apps that support it.

Sure. But this is also to directly counter things being "too small" at a specific screen size. I think that Apple has done a fantastic job with creating a 5k monitor "standard" at 27" (which for reference is 217 PPI, and in fact the very type of displays talked about in this thread). Whereas there are many people in this thread arguing that that creates a UI that is "too small". So it's not that the technology doesn't exist already for high PPI monitors (or even more than that, that they aren't in the wild and have availability), or at the very least monitors high enough in PPI to push the current limits of GUI technology.

But to add on to my point, I think going back the other way (I know a lot of folks are intentionally buying 40"-55" TV's at 4k in order to reduce PPI), is the "crutch" solution. Especially when really this is a problem that should be fixed in UI. I should be able to use 4k at 15" which is 293 PPI (like a laptop) and have the experience still be GOOD, if not excellent. I personally don't want to have a desktop display ever, that is larger than about 32". And I don't think the size of my display should ever be limited by resolution.

So "upper limit" or no, the issue exists today, and we're butting up against it today. And I think the solution should be put out on UI designers to create a system that actually works. Considering that the display is by far the biggest way of interfacing with the computer, it's unacceptable that this is a problem. macOS has done "decently" at this, but still has a lot of room to improve. Windows is just a complete mess. And I don't use Linux enough to know or comment about that.

The one hope I have, I suppose is that earlier someone posted a link and info to a medical display manufacturer: Barco. And while those displays aren't drivable by mainstream parts and undoubtedly a 12MP display is not affordable by most of us, I should hope that that is the sort of things that UI builders are looking at and considering while making and crafting UX. Because if people in their current trend continue believing that 40" at 4k is the "right" resolution to PPI, then the only way to have a 12MP consumer display would be to have it be nearly 80" (as opposed to Barco's 12MP at 32"). And while that might seem funny now, 8k-12k consumer displays could easily become a reality in a decade or less. Meaning that these problems need to be figured out long before then.

===

EDIT: In terms of how this all affects me specifically and in particular, having more pixels changes how editing works for me. I'm a photographer and videographer. I should be able to use 4 and 5k monitors at any display size to be able to work with footage regardless of the screen size. Being able to see the entire frame all at once without cutting it or clipping it matters.

When retouching photos, you don't always want to be working at 100% (as in 1-1 pixels while viewing or retouching an image), but you still want to have more pixels littering the display as it affects your viewing of the image (as in, current apparent resolution of the image) as well as the editing of it (there is a lot of pixel work with the brush tool, cloning, and things of the like). So more pixels essentially creates greater accuracy. Also, even consumer cameras at this point can easily have 40MP. And as awesome as it would be to view all 40MP at once on a 32" display, the tech isn't there yet. But still, if I could have that now, I'd take it now (that essentially would make it like viewing a 32" print, meaning the detail would be incredible. Remember my discussion about 3000 DPI printers before? It would be like that, but a display). And it should work now.

So while my usage case might be "specific", having my editing apps work, but having the rest of my UX be broken is unacceptable.

If that stuff doesn't matter to anyone else, it should, because like I noted, if 12MP displays became mainstream tomorrow, it would be impossible for most people to actually use them for computing because the UI scaling is broken. And it wasn't that long ago that 37" 1080P Westinghouse displays were a thing (which was what, 60PPI or something like that?). If we were stuck there at that PPI, we'd have a lot of problems today. Especially since we have 217 PPI monitors that already exist that are breaking everything.
 
Last edited:
Heck, where are the 4k 144hz GSYNC monitors??

I realize my posts haven't been precisely on topic as a result of some derailing about PPI, but this thread is about 5k monitors at the very least.
But to answer your question, no one has pushed the display tech. Both in terms of connectivity and also in terms of panels and panel electronics.

To get the bandwidth for 144hz, connections are going to have to get a lot faster. And someone out there is going to have to want to create a panel that can also be driven at 144hz. Apparently the powers that be don't think there is enough of a market to necessitate trying to create that. Or at the very least there isn't a market that exists that would be willing to pay the current price premium it would take at this time. (I'm just pulling numbers out of my butt, but if it meant that a 4k 144hz display would currently cost $2000 to be viable, not a lot of gamers would be jumping on it, meaning that they wouldn't be able to make a profit). So obviously there is some sort of break even point in which it will become viable in terms of cost and demand for someone to make it (perhaps around $800ish for early adopters?). But whether it's from cost or tech, no one has been willing to stick their neck out yet.
 
Connections we have today do support 4k at 120hz, no display with that refresh on the market though. As of apple doing a good job, they actually made a half ass-ed job, that's why they need to double the resolution for it to look good (hence the 5k on 27 inch, but mac books follow the same rule). Modern windows apps actually scale very well, the problem are legacy apps and mixed PPI monitors in multi monitor setups... iOS and Android do have good high PPI support, but there apps that don't play to their "needs" and rules (that keep changing) are simply dropped from the stores. If you would follow the same on desktop high PPI is pretty much solved on windows and linux as well...
 
As of apple doing a good job, they actually made a half ass-ed job, that's why they need to double the resolution for it to look good (hence the 5k on 27 inch, but mac books follow the same rule).

This is only partially true. If you haven't used macOS then you wouldn't be aware of the scaling options within the OS. Of which there are 5. It doesn't allow for full control of everything (or in other words infinite values of scaling as opposed to only 5), hence why I say they've done an okay job. I didn't say that they even did a 'good' job. It's imperfect, but on each of the 5 options macOS and subsequently its apps will look good, without fuzziness or other issues in UI elements. I tend to go for the "more space option" rather than Apple's default balanced setting as I prefer to generally have more stuff crammed into my display and I have reasonably good vision.

What I said they did do a good job at was creating a display format and standard that surpassed what the rest of the market was doing. At the time, 5k wasn't even drivable natively by any connection method in 2013. They essentially got it to work via a hack and Dell tried to follow suit by making a standalone 5k display available via using 2 DP cables. 5k allows for viewing of 4k footage natively while having space for other editing tools. And a much higher PPI on a 27" display than the rest of the market was doing. And still much higher than what you've posted you think is even good for people. Of which I disagree.


Modern windows apps actually scale very well, the problem are legacy apps and mixed PPI monitors in multi monitor setups... iOS and Android do have good high PPI support, but there apps that don't play to their "needs" and rules (that keep changing) are simply dropped from the stores. If you would follow the same on desktop high PPI is pretty much solved on windows and linux as well...

Adobe generally has had to deal with high PPI for a while. I'm not sure about anything else in Windows that scales well. But I spend a lot less of my time in Windows environments. I base what I say upon what everyone else is doing. Which is running away from high PPI to lower PPI displays and their own commenting that scaling is broken. So even if what they're saying is partially inaccurate, enough of it must be true to have that level of complaints. Not to mention your own comments on what you feel Windows can handle. And having an upper limit on practical PPI.

iOS does scaling via hacks. Which is fine. Apple forces app creators essentially to create different sizes of different things designed to show elements on different displays. Technically iOS NEVER scales. It just forces programmers to create the UI to be rendered at different resolutions. So a lot of redundancy. It makes apps faster and rendering perfect but it forces app creators to make a lot of redundant work. Great for the end user, less for the designers. It was easy at first, because what you accused them of doing on desktop, they actually did do on iOS. They simply doubled the resolution on their "retina" displays for iPhone 4. And continued that path for a while. Now that Apple has made X and is continuing on to 3 new displays all with non 16x9 resolutions, I imagine that iOS development in September 2018 is going to be a nightmare.

I can't comment on Android, but I imagine it's much the same.

So I guess I agree with you on just dropping support for a lot of poor apps in Windows by technicality. Much the same way it happens on the App Store(s). But that isn't because iOS has good scaling, it doesn't. It's just brute force in terms of making apps having to fit the design constraints.
 
Last edited:
Which is running away from high PPI to lower PPI displays and their own commenting that scaling is broken.
So instead of having some apps look like crap we go back to having all apps look like crap don't really get that logic. Windows 10 allows you to set specific settings for every app, so the ones that don't scale well you can tweak and only those will look blurry rest will be crisp as it should be. Most of the applications I use (programmer) support high PPI just fine, those that don't I replace with ones that do, or if non available you settle for that one being blurry.

We don't need to agree on everything, if everybody would have the same opinion it would be a really boring world. I stand by my opinion that there is actually an economical barrier (or limit) that makes sense. Maybe the ones I think make sense are not for every use case. Typing this on a 32 inch 4k screen right now and I really don't think I would want a higher PPI than this unless it would be for the same price (a 5k one so the legacy apps that don't support scaling can use integer scaling being the only reason I would ever want higher) which obviously is not the case...
 
Last edited:
I base what I say upon what everyone else is doing. Which is running away from high PPI to lower PPI displays and their own commenting that scaling is broken. So even if what they're saying is partially inaccurate, enough of it must be true to have that level of complaints

Who is "everyone else"? The vast majority of consumers are buying and working on laptop displays, not desktop ones, and literally every high-end laptop on the market is a high(sometimes EXTREMELY high - 4K @ 13") ppi display. Even 1080p @ 15" is 147ppi, the same as 4K @ 30".

Sure there are complaints about scaling, but the major apps - Browsers, Office, Adobe, etc all scale just fine, and most of the market has accepted high ppi and moved on.

The people who are still complaining and deliberately going out of their way to buy low ppi displays are the ones in the minority, and typically their complaints are based on niche legacy apps that most people have replaced or don't need/use.... and the fault of poor scaling is the developers of those apps(if they are even developed anymore). Don't mistake those posters for the market -- they do not even represent a significant segment of the market.
 
Don't mistake those posters for the market -- they do not even represent a significant segment of the market.

For the consumer market, you are right. But the professional market (which has a lot more purchasing power) thinks differently and has constraints that punches not in the same direction. :(

If you doubt it, check the new monitors released by EIzo (outside the video/photo editing) or other high end companies.
 
I am currently running 3 x Dell 2007 IPS (1600x1200dpi) which I really like, but been looking to upgrade the middle monitor to 30 in or larger, and may keep one or two of my 2007 on the side. This is for work purpose, so mostly for spreadsheets, programming, some image manipulation. Text clarity and picture quality is the priority. I may play some video from youtube during lunch break, but no games.

I been looking at 4K TV but have not find any that I like. I was just wasting time looking on eBay last night looking at Dell 30 inches, and stumble upon Barco monitor who make crazy expensive monitors for medical fields. I see that Coronis Fusion 6MP DL (MDCC-6130) is within my price range. Does anyone use this monitor? From what I can gather, this thing should produce some of the best images. I am guessing a modern video card with DVI-D should be able to drive this monitor without any problem. Some of the highlights: IPS 30 in, 3280 x 2048 dpi, 0.1995 pixel pitch, 800 cd/m2. On paper this looks great, but I am looking for some real world opinions from fellow H. Obviously buying from eBay, I wont be able to look at it.

Let me know what you all think?
 
Last edited:
I am currently running 3 x Dell 2007 IPS (1600x1200dpi) which I really like, but been looking to upgrade the middle monitor to 30 in or larger, and may keep one or two of my 2007 on the side. This is for work purpose, so mostly for spreadsheets, programming, some image manipulation. Text clarity and picture quality is the priority. I may play some video from youtube during lunch break, but no games.

I been looking at 4K TV but have not find any that I like. I was just wasting time looking on eBay last night looking at Dell 30 inches, and stumble upon Barco monitor who make crazy expensive monitors for medical fields. I see that Coronis Fusion 6MP DL (MDCC-6130) is within my price range. Does anyone use this monitor? From what I can gather, this thing should produce some of the best images. I am guessing a modern video card with DVI-D should be able to drive this monitor without any problem. Some of the highlights: IPS 30 in, 3280 x 2048 dpi, 0.1995 pixel pitch, 800 cd/m2. On paper this looks great, but I am looking for some real world opinions from fellow H. Obviously buying from eBay, I wont be able to look at it.

Let me know what you all think?

I do SolidWorks CAD everyday. I run 3x 1600x1200 monitors at home. My work has me on OLD Gateway 1080p TN panels. I've shopped a lot, and if I had to pick a new one, it'd be this:

LG 34WK95U-W

It's the best combo of size/resolution out there IMO. Realize you're going to need a new video card to drive it though, if you're stuck with DVI-D right now.
 
I do SolidWorks CAD everyday. I run 3x 1600x1200 monitors at home. My work has me on OLD Gateway 1080p TN panels. I've shopped a lot, and if I had to pick a new one, it'd be this:

LG 34WK95U-W

It's the best combo of size/resolution out there IMO. Realize you're going to need a new video card to drive it though, if you're stuck with DVI-D right now.

I can update the video card if needed, but that LG is a bit out of my price range. I am trying to stay under $1K, obv the cheaper the better.
 
I am currently running 3 x Dell 2007 IPS (1600x1200dpi) which I really like, but been looking to upgrade the middle monitor to 30 in or larger, and may keep one or two of my 2007 on the side. This is for work purpose, so mostly for spreadsheets, programming, some image manipulation. Text clarity and picture quality is the priority. I may play some video from youtube during lunch break, but no games.

I been looking at 4K TV but have not find any that I like. I was just wasting time looking on eBay last night looking at Dell 30 inches, and stumble upon Barco monitor who make crazy expensive monitors for medical fields. I see that Coronis Fusion 6MP DL (MDCC-6130) is within my price range. Does anyone use this monitor? From what I can gather, this thing should produce some of the best images. I am guessing a modern video card with DVI-D should be able to drive this monitor without any problem. Some of the highlights: IPS 30 in, 3280 x 2048 dpi, 0.1995 pixel pitch, 800 cd/m2. On paper this looks great, but I am looking for some real world opinions from fellow H. Obviously buying from eBay, I wont be able to look at it.

Let me know what you all think?

You'd need to run 2x DVI-D cables to it not one as noted on the specsheet. A single DL-DVI cable maxes out at 2560x1600x60hz. I don't think any current generation cards have 2 DVI ports, although for non-gaming use a several year old card would be fine.

I'm running a 32" 4k panel (125% scaling) between 2 portrait mode 1200x1600 displays at home. It's only about a half inch shorter, which while not quite as good as the 2560x1600 it replaced is still close enough not to bother me like the mismatched collection of screens I use at work does.
 
I use 32/4k/200% at work and there is no going back. ppi all the way.
At home I use 32/1440/150% at 165 Hz and it is OK too. Next I want 32/4K/165Hz, I do not have space for bigger monitor. My TV is 49/4K.
 
A "widescreen" version of 32/4k seems like something that "should" have been done by now. 32/4k @ 125 or 150 scaling is very nice. With the now well acknowledged popularity of 21:9 and DP 1.4 bandwidth it seems like we should have these on the market.
 
Back
Top