Finally; 32" 4K monitors are around the corner!

[Saundie]

It looks as though Sharp are preparing to bring us a lovely 32" 3840x2160 monitor next year, the PN-K321; http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/27/sharp-pn-k321-4k-igzo-lcd-monitor/

While $5.5k is far too expensive for me, it gives me hope that we'll see them replacing 30" 2560x1600 displays within a couple of years. I also assume that it means we'll see displays with the same sort of PPI as the "retina" Macbooks soon. I for one would like a couple of 24" 2560x1600 displays.

Edit: Sharp's press release

 

[Greebo]

I think the issue which has held them back and will keep prices high for some time is the cost and lack of availibility of the sources.

For the home entertainment/tv market you can't yet buy a 4k player AFIK plus even if you could, there is nothing available to watch yet in 4k.

For the computer market, yes using the screen as none gaming then you have cards powerful enough to run it. Playing games at 3840 x 2160, i'm not sure we are there yet with powerful enough cards but it will come.

Like all things though, I remember the first plasma tv's at $10,000 each and look at the price of them now? Equally my mates first video recorder cost £1000 in 1985 which is about £4000 in today's money.

Technology gets cheaper as time goes by.

 

[Saundie]

It was the same story for 720/1080p displays when they first came out, then graphics cards caught up and blu-ray players became prevalent. Now even casual gamers are playing at 1080p on modest hardware, and you can't buy a non-HD TV any longer.

The reason I am excited about this announcement is how slowly monitor hardware seems to have progressed over the past 5-10 years. Now that we're starting to see "professional" 4k displays, it's only a matter of time before it filters down to the "enthusiast" and "mainstream" segments of the market.

It's not just desktop monitors that this should influence; I am sure I'm not the only one who's looking forward to the end of the scourge that is the 1366 x 768 laptop display, either!

 

[Yaayuh!]

For the home entertainment/tv market you can't yet buy a 4k player AFIK plus even if you could, there is nothing available to watch yet in 4k.

There are 4K upscalers (Sony) and 4K TVs to buy, have been for a while this year. No native 4K Blurays, yet.

All in due time. I suppose 4K TVs will sync with 4K desktop resolution in someway or another. Consoles especially.

 

[Greebo]

Yeah but extra resolution for no extra visable gain is pointless. Do you realise how close you need to sit for your eyes to see the difference between 4k and 1080p?

Already with a 27" 1440p screen you need to sit no more than 2 1/2 foot away and once you are 3 foot away your eys cannot tell the difference between 1440p and 1080p. With a 30" 1440p screen you need to sit at least 3 and 1/2 foot away maximum.

Already most people watching tv or playing games at 1080p would not notice if they were oonly at 720p as they are sitting too far away. Even with a giant 50" screen you need to be only 7 foot away before you notice any difference from 720p. To be honest, most people could have just lived with 720p and saved loads of money. 1080p was marketed so everybody thought they needed it and it was better. I would have rather they improved the colour accuracy and black depth than the resolution.

so, back to the point, a 4k 32" screen you would need to sit/stand directly in front of the screen to see the "difference".

So even with a 60" home entertainment screen you will need to put your sofa in front of it.

Hence why I think we don't need these 4k and 8k resolutions, even on pc's. All it really gives you is a bigger desktop display.

After all, even with a 30" 1440p screen we already have "retina" displays as in from the normal viewing distance, that is the maximum resolution the human eye can resolve.

 

[Saundie]

I sit about a foot away from my monitor, but that's not really the issue. My phone has a 340ppi display, which means that text is razor sharp no matter how close I hold it to my eyes. Is it so unreasonable to want the same from a desktop display? Higher resolution displays would also do away with the need for anti-aliasing in games, which is another advantage.

I'm sorry Greebo, but I'm bored of my 1920x1200 24" display; I want more pixels!!

 

[Yaayuh!]

Yeah but extra resolution for no extra visable gain is pointless. Do you realise how close you need to sit for your eyes to see the difference between 4k and 1080p?

Already with a 27" 1440p screen you need to sit no more than 2 1/2 foot away and once you are 3 foot away your eys cannot tell the difference between 1440p and 1080p. With a 30" 1440p screen you need to sit at least 3 and 1/2 foot away maximum.

Already most people watching tv or playing games at 1080p would not notice if they were oonly at 720p as they are sitting too far away. Even with a giant 50" screen you need to be only 7 foot away before you notice any difference from 720p. To be honest, most people could have just lived with 720p and saved loads of money. 1080p was marketed so everybody thought they needed it and it was better. I would have rather they improved the colour accuracy and black depth than the resolution.

so, back to the point, a 4k 32" screen you would need to sit/stand directly in front of the screen to see the "difference".

So even with a 60" home entertainment screen you will need to put your sofa in front of it.

Hence why I think we don't need these 4k and 8k resolutions, even on pc's. All it really gives you is a bigger desktop display.

After all, even with a 30" 1440p screen we already have "retina" displays as in from the normal viewing distance, that is the maximum resolution the human eye can resolve.

In answer to your rant: I don't know, but i welcome 4K easily, the sooner the better. I've never seen a 4K image before, right up to it or far away.
Whether we NEED it or not is irrelevant. It's of better quality than "Full HD" 1920x1080 and is the next step up in the Full HD res.

The next step for TV resolution is QFHD (4K) and maybe QHD for budget at some point, given the current R&D, concepts and what's already available.
PC is bound to follow suit regardless of whether having 4K on a 27" monitor is "worth it" or not. The technology would be standardised and applications and services (including games) can then flow from one to the other without hiccups.
Just a matter of time.

I will agree that QHD is enough for a 27" screen (Apple Thunderbolt Displays we have a work), but i would turn down a 4K screen, i want the best. If it's standardised then they will be manufactured left right and centre with lower costs and more models to choose from, marketed for different uses, e.g. Gaming.

One thing that annoys me at the moment with QHD (2560×1440) at the moment is that they're VERY expensive and cater only for colour precision/professorial market.
Yes you can get a cheap horrible screen, will have a dodgy backlight issues and a horrific build quality. But still the same sort of panels.

The sooner QHD and QFHD is standardised in TV and Desktop, the better. I want to see a plethora DisplayPort/Thunderbolt/HDMI 2.0+ 100Hz 2560×1440 and 3840×2160 screens ASAP. I'm sick of 1920x1080.

 

[Greebo]

Wasn't a rant

Just pointing out that most people don;t even see the benefit in 1080p never mind 1440p so 4k will do nothing for them.

I would rather see well made, affordable, 100Hz+ 1440p screens than 4k screens tbh.

Again, I fail to see your point about 4k tv's. Yes they will come and manufacturers will give you the hard marketing about how much more detailed they are over 1080p but once you have got your mates round and got them to see how detailed they are from 6" away, once you are sat on your sofa 10 foot+ away, they will not look any better than 1080p or even 720p.

Saundie, why do you want to be staring at your screen from 2 inches away?

Your screen is not the same as your phone.

And as for your point with high res screens doing away with AA, already if your eyes can't deferentiate the pixels on a 1440p 27" screen from two and half foot away, then you don't need any AA at that res never mind going to 4k.

Also remember that a card powering a 1440p or 4k screen needs to be way more powerful than one running a 1080p screen with AA although the higher res is always the better option.

Myself I am more than happy with my 27" IPS 1440p screen which I view from about two feet away. The same 4k screen would look exactly the same from where I was sat.

 

[Yaayuh!]

Wasn't a rant

Yeah it was

Just pointing out that most people don;t even see the benefit in 1080p never mind 1440p so 4k will do nothing for them.

I would rather see well made, affordable, 100Hz+ 1440p screens than 4k screens tbh.

Again, I fail to see your point about 4k tv's. Yes they will come and manufacturers will give you the hard marketing about how much more detailed they are over 1080p but once you have got your mates round and got them to see how detailed they are from 6" away, once you are sat on your sofa 10 foot+ away, they will not look any better than 1080p or even 720p.

I can see the difference between 720p and 1080p easily at home on my TV, with EASE i tell you.
My eyes are MAGIC!!!

 

[Greebo]

Yeah it was



I can see the difference between 720p and 1080p easily at home on my TV, with EASE i tell you.
My eyes are MAGIC!!!

Yeah but I bet you sit close enough so you can

We only have a 32" screen in our lounge as the gf "hates large tv's" () and sitting on our sofa a full 13 foot back, I can't tell the difference. In fact I doubt I would notice if it was 480p

I do laugh at my mates who have more sensible 40" screens and rave about the quality of full hd 1080p but are sitting 13 foot away when even with 20:20 vision they can't tell the difference.

It would be a bit like somebody claiming that they can tell the difference between a retina iphone from 5 foot away to another non retina screen.

 

[roadgamethes]

Higher resolution displays would also do away with the need for anti-aliasing in games, which is another advantage.thanks

 

[se_vietboi]

Yeah but I bet you sit close enough so you can

We only have a 32" screen in our lounge as the gf "hates large tv's" () and sitting on our sofa a full 13 foot back, I can't tell the difference. In fact I doubt I would notice if it was 480p

I do laugh at my mates who have more sensible 40" screens and rave about the quality of full hd 1080p but are sitting 13 foot away when even with 20:20 vision they can't tell the difference.

It would be a bit like somebody claiming that they can tell the difference between a retina iphone from 5 foot away to another non retina screen.

Looking at a phone from 5 feet away is ridiculous though. At reasonale viewing distance, you should be easily able to tell the difference between 480/720/1080 etc on monitors of equal size. Unless you eyesight is terrible.

 

[Greebo]

Looking at a phone from 5 feet away is ridiculous though. At reasonale viewing distance, you should be easily able to tell the difference between 480/720/1080 etc on monitors of equal size. Unless you eyesight is terrible.

No, that's my point. Most people look at tv's or monitors at a distance when you then can't tell the difference. Hence My point about looking at an iphone from 5 foot away. Would you notice if the iphone had a 4k screen? Hell, of course not! In fact, at the normal viewing distance of one foot from a mobile, you cannnot notice the extra resolution in an iphone 5 over lesser resolution screens. View it from 2 inches away then of course you can.

The human eyes can only resolve a certain definition even if you have 20/20 vision.

Yes, in your example, on a pc monitor at say 2 foot away, the eyes can tell between 480/720 and 1080. The maths backs this up. My point is that once you go to 1440p at 2 foot, then this is the maximum a person can differentiate with 20/20 perfect eyesight. Make that screen 4k, the person would see no difference. So we are back to the "nobody would look at an iphone from 5 foot arguement". In order to notice a 4k display on a 27" monitor you would need to view it from less than 6 inches away. Who sits in front of a 27" screen from 6 inches away and then can olny see half the screen in their vision? It's just as stupid as looking at a phone from miles away.

Hence why do people want the 4k screens? It's just marketing again like when they brought out 1080p for tv's.

4k screens have their uses as tv's once they are in the 60" to 100" size but even 1080p 70" screens still cost £8000 so way beyond the affordable now never mind 4k.

I can see loads of 32" to 40" 4k tv's coming to market at premium prices and people buying them thinking they are an upgrade when they will not be.

 

[Greebo]

Higher resolution displays would also do away with the need for anti-aliasing in games, which is another advantage.thanks

So they should. They have more than twice the pxiels of 1440p screens. Which means you will need a graphics card twice as powerful to run them.

My point is that which will be the faster? 1440p at say 2xaa or 4xx or 4k with no aa but the card is processing twice as many pixels?

I suspect that 1440p with AA will give the faters fps. So good to get rid of the need for AA but you will need faster cards than we have now and the point being these next generation faster cards might well be powerful enough to run 1440p with 16xaa or 32xaa anyway so there will be no difference.

 

[ATIorNvidia]

So they should. They have more than twice the pxiels of 1440p screens. Which means you will need a graphics card twice as powerful to run them.

My point is that which will be the faster? 1440p at say 2xaa or 4xx or 4k with no aa but the card is processing twice as many pixels?

I suspect that 1440p with AA will give the faters fps. So good to get rid of the need for AA but you will need faster cards than we have now and the point being these next generation faster cards might well be powerful enough to run 1440p with 16xaa or 32xaa anyway so there will be no difference.

Who cares if 4k requires twice as much power? Single cards will be strong enough within a a couple years. 4k res (TRUE 4k res) and no AA will look better and way more natural than 1440p + AA.

 

[spoffle]

Wasn't a rant

Just pointing out that most people don;t even see the benefit in 1080p never mind 1440p so 4k will do nothing for them.

That's just media though, there are many tangible bonuses to the higher resolution.

As for your comment about hardware pushing 4K, well it's been available for ages already.

I was playing games at 5760x1200 for a few years until I upgraded to 3x 27" monitors for 7680x1440 which is a lot more pixels than a 4K display.

Again, I fail to see your point about 4k tv's. Yes they will come and manufacturers will give you the hard marketing about how much more detailed they are over 1080p but once you have got your mates round and got them to see how detailed they are from 6" away, once you are sat on your sofa 10 foot+ away, they will not look any better than 1080p or even 720p.

I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on my TV from normal viewing distances.

Saundie, why do you want to be staring at your screen from 2 inches away?

Your screen is not the same as your phone.

It's all about relative pixel density. 2560x1440 displays still have pixels large enough to see from normal viewing distances.

2560x1440 is noticeably better than 1920x1080, 4K will definitely be noticeable over 2560x1440.

And as for your point with high res screens doing away with AA, already if your eyes can't deferentiate the pixels on a 1440p 27" screen from two and half foot away, then you don't need any AA at that res never mind going to 4k.

AA is less important the higher res you go, but to say that AA is not necessary at 2560x1440 isn't true. You must have poor eyesight. A 4K display will be getting to the point of not needing AA at 60-80CM away

Also remember that a card powering a 1440p or 4k screen needs to be way more powerful than one running a 1080p screen with AA although the higher res is always the better option.

The performance drop going up in resolutions doesn't see a linear drop though, so you won't need a graphics card 4x more powerful. That aside, there are already a few cards out that are more than capable of running games at 4K.

Myself I am more than happy with my 27" IPS 1440p screen which I view from about two feet away. The same 4k screen would look exactly the same from where I was sat.

I'm very happy with my 27" 2560x1440 screens too, but a 4K screen from 2 feet away will not look the same, it will be noticeably sharper and be much nicer to look at.

I think my current screens are great, a nice improvement over my 1920x1200 screens, but I can still see pixelation on things like the mouse cursor, text and that sort of stuff.

 

[spoffle]

Who cares if 4k requires twice as much power? Single cards will be strong enough within a a couple years. 4k res (TRUE 4k res) and no AA will look better and way more natural than 1440p + AA.

4K won't require twice the power anyway. Going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 is a doubling in pixels; 2073600 pixels to 3686400 pixels is just under double.

But game performance going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 doesn't half.

 

[Greebo]

That's just media though, there are many tangible bonuses to the higher resolution.

As for your comment about hardware pushing 4K, well it's been available for ages already.

I was playing games at 5760x1200 for a few years until I upgraded to 3x 27" monitors for 7680x1440 which is a lot more pixels than a 4K display.

Point accepted with reference graphics hardware being up to spec. Still don;t think 4k will add anything to most people but people will buy the marketing as 4k is better right?

I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on my TV from normal viewing distances.

Define your tv size and viewing distance? My 32" from 13 foot I can't. I'm not saying that applies to everybody. If you have a 50" and viewing from 10 foot I am sure you can easily tell the difference. Could you then notice 1440p or 4k from the same distance? Maybe not.

It's all about relative pixel density. 2560x1440 displays still have pixels large enough to see from normal viewing distances.

2560x1440 is noticeably better than 1920x1080, 4K will definitely be noticeable over 2560x1440.

Disagree. Define your "normal" viewing distance? Apple's "retina" screens, so called because its the maximum the human eye can differentiate at "normal" viewing distances obviously varies with the size of the device and the distance viewed.

Iphone 5 - 326 ppi, viewing distance 10 inches
Ipad - 264 ppi, viewing distance 15 inches
Macbook pro 15" - 220 ppi, viewing distance 20 inches

As the viewing distance increases then the required ppi decreases. My 27" screen has a 110ppi I think. A 4k 27" will have 180ppi I think? That's getting close to be needing to be sat also as close as a Macbook pro.

People with normal 20/20 vision cannot see the pixels on a 1440p 27" screen from 30" away. This is fact. You might have better than 20/20 vision and can but you are a small market.

AA is less important the higher res you go, but to say that AA is not necessary at 2560x1440 isn't true. You must have poor eyesight. A 4K display will be getting to the point of not needing AA at 60-80CM away

See point above. Most people with normal eyesight can;t see the pixels from 80cm away at 1440p on a 27" screen so hence don't need AA already. 30"+ screens and people sitting very close or people with better than 20/20 vision will see the difference, granted.

The performance drop going up in resolutions doesn't see a linear drop though, so you won't need a graphics card 4x more powerful. That aside, there are already a few cards out that are more than capable of running games at 4K.

Accepted. However my point was which uses the most gpu power? A creen with double the pixels and no AA or the smaller screen with AA applied? tbh I don't know the answer myself however I was pointing out the need to not use AA doesn't necessarily give the benefit th3e user thinks eg faster fps.

I'm very happy with my 27" 2560x1440 screens too, but a 4K screen from 2 feet away will not look the same, it will be noticeably sharper and be much nicer to look at.

I think my current screens are great, a nice improvement over my 1920x1200 screens, but I can still see pixelation on things like the mouse cursor, text and that sort of stuff.

Well you have goo eyesight then and better than mine! I can see things many people round me can;t but I need to be 30 cm from my screen to see the pixelation on my cursor and and text but I don't sit 30cm from my screen normally so that's okay.

 

[ntg]

Define your tv size and viewing distance? My 32" from 13 foot I can't. I'm not saying that applies to everybody. If you have a 50" and viewing from 10 foot I am sure you can easily tell the difference. Could you then notice 1440p or 4k from the same distance? Maybe not.

I got a 59'' samsung tv and I'm sitting about 8ft away from it. I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p very well in movies and I can also tell the difference between 1080p and 1080i. When it comes to tv series and regular tv news etc, noticing the difference between 720 and 1080 is more difficult, simply because there is much less to stand out in the screen.

The smaller the screen size the harder it is to differentiate the differences between resolutions, so I can't see why you would expect to be able to on a 32'' TV, especially from 13ft away! Most city flats and houses won't have the luxury of so much space between the couch and TV.

Also, I would expect 4K to target big screens, as in 60''+ as that's where it makes a difference. To be honest, once you go over 60'' on screen size, even 1080p doesn't look that good.

Given that 80'' screens are already on sale (in US) you can see the need for 4k.

As far as computer monitors go, I doubt someone will see much benefit from a 4k resolution on a 32'' monitor, but then again you could have intermediate situations, such as 2k or something similar. Plus, 4k at smaller screen size such as 40'' will make good monitors - where now you have no real good options as 1080p on a 40'' tv for computer monitor just doesn't look than good.

 

[nalla]

tvs are different to monitors though, in the fact that if your watching tv yes you are 8-12 foot away, whereas a monitor is usually at a desk, and your chair slides under it and you sit a lot closer, i have a 30" dell @ 2560 x 1600 and although its large i still sit quite close to the screen , so therefore on monitors people will notice the difference as they are not sitting more than 3 foot away.