The 5K Display is Coming

4k tvs are a bargain when you consider what the price of an hdtv was when it first came out. I do not get this push for more pixels though as the human eye can resolve only so much detail.
 
Megalith said:
Anyone find it funny how most of the people clamoring for 4K or 5K don't even do photo or video editing?
Click to expand...

Do you need to do either of those to appreciate a good screen? I doubt people who use phones do photo editing on them. If you don't game then having a better display with indiscernible pixels at any viewing distance should be the goal for anyone who can afford it. With gaming that comes at a high enough cost in fluidity and fps that it may not be worth it to many.
 
1080P on my 70" looks great. Sure all of the 4K 5K 8K 200K will looks insane and you can see the vascular system in humans at 50ft but who is gonna stream that content when the US has the slowest speeds and highest price then anyone in the world?
 
...and still no consumer-level HDR displays, even after the first were built almost 8 years ago. Unlike 4k and its ilk, the content already exists. Film production has been using HDR for at least 15 years, and television production has followed. CG films are rendered full-HDR. Most modern game engines are already rendering HDR internally, and could output full dynamic range with a simple patch. But we get nothing, because Dolby bought out Brightside and sat on the patents, hoping they could someday milk licensing money. </end mini rant>
 
Ducman69 said:
Makes sense that all 5K displays would be equal, since we know for a fact that all 1080p screens are identical in cost and quality. Wait, what?
Click to expand...
If you just said Dell will do something better than Apple..

They haven't ever done that and I don't think this is going to break that trend.
 
Well, there is some movement on that front.

http://variety.com/2014/digital/new...tv-but-more-to-high-dynamic-range-1201154367/

And Dolby supposedly showed something earlier this year.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...tching-glimpse-dolby-s-hdr-tv-technology.html

Initially, I couldn't believe that they were able to achieve true blacks back in 2005 (?). I thought only OLED allowed you to do that.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/BrightSide-High-Dynamic-Range-Display-Technology/208/2

WHY THE FUCK ISN'T THIS TECHNOLOGY UBIQUITOUS YET?
 
Megalith said:
WHY THE FUCK ISN'T THIS TECHNOLOGY UBIQUITOUS YET?
Click to expand...

The same reason 1366x768 laptop screens are still being sold, unfortunately. The *average* joe sees "HD" and thinks they have a good thing.

It's a situation that slowly is changing..Slowly..

Riley
 
Bring back system link. Three computers with dual GTX Titan Z's networked to drive one 5K monitor each. It's the only way.

It's going to be a couple generations before we see single GPU cards with enough oomph to drive 5K60p, much less 5k60p x 3.
 
Skud said:
I think Apple made the right choice with the 5k screen. Ars recently did an article on why Apple chose 5k vs 4k and it's because 5k is better for production and editing of 4k video. With a 5k screen you can display an entire, unscaled 4k video and still have room left for toolbars, menus, and controls.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/1...k-instead-of-4k-its-all-about-the-video-baby/

Riley
Click to expand...

It is also a doubling in resolution of 2560x1440. This is the biggest reason to go 5K, because fonts and graphics scale 2x to increase sharpness without changing proportions, size, or spacing. Its the same reason Apple went with the resolutions for the retina display Macbook Pro, iPhone, and iPad.
 
Wow that's 5120x2880, I guess they wanna sell us some new stuff!

The iGPU in my i5-3570K runs (4k) 2560x1440 just fine. Will Broadwell iris pro run 5120x2880?
 
SuperSubZero said:
Cute that Dell still thinks they can sell their 5K monitor for $2500 when Apple is doing an entire computer with a 5K screen for that much.
Click to expand...

The computer is low end on the Mac and I don't think you can use it as an external display so kind of useless if you have a high end gaming PC needing 5K display.
 
mi7chy said:
The computer is low end on the Mac and I don't think you can use it as an external display so kind of useless if you have a high end gaming PC needing 5K display.
Click to expand...

On top of this well apples says it sells something for 2500, that is what they sell it for period. When dell says they sell for 2500 that is the max it will ever sell for but there will be many sales to bring it down in price throughout the year on top of all the added professional features. The similar range 30 inch monitors often approached $1000.

Now personally I would probably keep my eye on what EIZO NEC and other professional monitor makers will release but dell has no problem moving these high end units into professional fields.
 
amdgamer said:
4k tvs are a bargain when you consider what the price of an hdtv was when it first came out. I do not get this push for more pixels though as the human eye can resolve only so much detail.
Click to expand...

Real estate. Sure, the human eye can no longer see pixels at way less then 4K, but that's not the reason people use 4K. The display still looks better during games then saay 2K for reasons I'm not quite sure about, and you can fit so much stuff on one display.
 
Rather than making even larger display, I would love to see more effort put into making a panel that have an image quality close to IPS and a response time similar to TN
 
Hornet said:
Rather than making even larger display, I would love to see more effort put into making a panel that have an image quality close to IPS and a response time similar to TN
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, what sorts of situations does the response time of IPS monitors hold you back on? I have an 8ms response time and I've never found it to be an issue, twitch gaming is in no problem. Now I imagine someone competing in an actual tournament might need the subtle difference, but it has never once been in an issue with fast paced-deathmatch games. On old IPS monitors you could see the trail of fast changes, it was awful, but for me the difference between 8ms and 2ms just really isn't that big a deal.
 
tetris42 said:
Out of curiosity, what sorts of situations does the response time of IPS monitors hold you back on? I have an 8ms response time and I've never found it to be an issue, twitch gaming is in no problem. Now I imagine someone competing in an actual tournament might need the subtle difference, but it has never once been in an issue with fast paced-deathmatch games. On old IPS monitors you could see the trail of fast changes, it was awful, but for me the difference between 8ms and 2ms just really isn't that big a deal.
Click to expand...

What does it matter if its a tournament or not? You do realize this is a computer forum with many people who would compete in tournaments right, but the reality is why would that even matter. If someone plays casually once a week or at the highest level neither of them want the stupid monitor to be slowing them down and impeding their experience.
 
rudy said:
What does it matter if its a tournament or not? You do realize this is a computer forum with many people who would compete in tournaments right, but the reality is why would that even matter. If someone plays casually once a week or at the highest level neither of them want the stupid monitor to be slowing them down and impeding their experience.
Click to expand...
My point is I can't see the difference except on an EXTREMELY minute level compared to a CRT, to the point where it's never adversely affected me in any way for gaming. However, I'm not a professional player who spends 8+ hours a day playing, maybe at that level, the difference matters.

As for "impeding the experience", I'll take a monitor with accurate colors and excellent viewing angles with a fast enough response time that it's not a problem for me in any game over a TN monitor any day.
 
A good analogy to the tournament gamer would be with keyboards. Many people like mechanical keyboards and they suit them just fine for every situation in gaming as well as regular use. Some professionals prefer scissor switches to lower the travel time of the keys slightly by a few milliseconds, yet I don't see everyone complaining about that's holding them back when using a keyboard.
 
tetris42 said:
My point is I can't see the difference except on an EXTREMELY minute level compared to a CRT, to the point where it's never adversely affected me in any way for gaming. However, I'm not a professional player who spends 8+ hours a day playing, maybe at that level, the difference matters.

As for "impeding the experience", I'll take a monitor with accurate colors and excellent viewing angles with a fast enough response time that it's not a problem for me in any game over a TN monitor any day.
Click to expand...

All I have to say is if you cant tell the difference and you are using 60fps chances are you just haven't experienced it. I would rather I be the limiting factor in my ability to game not my monitor or anything else.

120 hz + lightboost is like cheating its so much better. No you don't just sit down and own that second its one of those things that you take advantage of after you play with it a bit. There are differences in what you can do with your mouse and how you can play when you can see that well. Its the most significant upgrade to a computer I have done in a decade.

Its fine if you value graphical fidelity more than performance in monitor, I on the other hand cannot accept either compromise which is why at this point in time I must run 2 monitors, 1 that has good colors and higher resolution for productivity and office work and the other that is fast, lightboosted for action. The whole point of the comment you responded too is we, the people who value the speed would rather we did not need to compromise it would be great if we could have both the speed and the color accuracy and quality in the same montor that way we don't have to compromise and look at washed out colors with bad viewing angles so we can actually see and aim.
 
MostComfortable said:
It is also a doubling in resolution of 2560x1440. This is the biggest reason to go 5K, because fonts and graphics scale 2x to increase sharpness without changing proportions, size, or spacing. Its the same reason Apple went with the resolutions for the retina display Macbook Pro, iPhone, and iPad.
Click to expand...

Expected.
Apple will use displays that allows that next iteration update also.
 
jpm100 said:
My 46" could be better. In fact for Computers 1080 was a step back from where they were before 16:9 became dominant. Even my last CRT trumped 1080 in actual total pixels.


But the 5k thing is a one-upsmanship thing by apple which will cause proliferation of resolutions in displays and drive cost to all consumers There's nothing wrong with offering better but make it a significant improvement. Not a small change that breaks standardization.. .
Click to expand...

I have a 20" CRT that does 2048x1536@120Hz as well. Of course, I don't use it simply because of desk space, heat, size, contrast, etc...

IMO, they should make monitors do higher refresh rates before worrying about resolution. Heck, I don't see higher res as a hard thing to do anymore. I mean, come one, if you really want super high res, just tie a bunch of Samsung cell phone screens together: 1080p for every 5" diag...I could fit 9 to 12 of those screens in the same space my 28" monitor now takes.
 
tetris42 said:
Well by that definition, almost ANY videocard is "entirely adequate" for 4k gaming. I bet there are plenty of graphics cards out there that could handle Quake 3 on ultra at 60fps @ 4k.
Click to expand...

I urge you to take a look at the tests on [H] where they show real-world use, rather than the benchmarks other sites use, simply setting all details to max and seeing what happens.
 
mi7chy said:
The computer is low end on the Mac and I don't think you can use it as an external display so kind of useless if you have a high end gaming PC needing 5K display.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why Apple didn't allow this. Imagine if you could use their iMac as an external display. I'm willing to bet Apple would have at least several percent more of a market share as power users now would also have a Mac to play around with too.
 
BBA said:
I have a 20" CRT that does 2048x1536@120Hz as well. Of course, I don't use it simply because of desk space, heat, size, contrast, etc...

IMO, they should make monitors do higher refresh rates before worrying about resolution. Heck, I don't see higher res as a hard thing to do anymore. I mean, come one, if you really want super high res, just tie a bunch of Samsung cell phone screens together: 1080p for every 5" diag...I could fit 9 to 12 of those screens in the same space my 28" monitor now takes.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I don't think higher res is a big deal these days where you can chain phone-sized 1080p on a big screen. Until they can come with a single GPU that's capable to run games 60fps @ 8K, I'd be more impressed.
 
He was a prophet. We just misinterpreted his words:

quote-Bill-Gates-640k-ought-to-be-enough-for-anybody-89027.png
 
I'm okay with 1366x768 or 1024x600 and IDC what resolutions are for sale right now because it just doesn't make any difference at all and yeah, I've had to work with much higher resolution screens and it genuinely makes like zero difference to me.
 
rudy said:
How long will idiots keeping repeating a completely made up quote by haters?
Click to expand...
I resent your implication that I an an idiot, and your implication that James E. Fawcette, writer for InfoWorld, (April 29, 1985 issue) is a Microsoft hater. It wasn't trendy to hate MS until at least the mid 90s.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
I resent your implication that I an an idiot, and your implication that James E. Fawcette, writer for InfoWorld, (April 29, 1985 issue) is a Microsoft hater. It wasn't trendy to hate MS until at least the mid 90s.
Click to expand...

Seriously though... how can a quote that someone said 20 years ago about TECHNOLOGY be relevant today??

I can say, right now and fairly correctly that no average user needs more than 8GB of ram. 20 years from now? Who knows? We might be using 1 TB of ram in our personal computing devices. How does what I said today correlate with what is coming down the line? :confused:
 
QwertyJuan said:
Seriously though... how can a quote that someone said 20 years ago about TECHNOLOGY be relevant today??
Click to expand...

Because the quote was being recast as 640K pixels (horizontal presumably), as humor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top