Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
As of last night, the Seiki 4k TV was actually under $1000 on Amazon. Shipped free.
4k TVs and Monitors
- Thread starter ddrueding
- Start date
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Not available for shipping here and not available on amazon.ca. Not one of my priority anyway.
ddrueding
Fixture
I cannot get this machine to display @ 4k with the Seiki 50" TV. When connected via either the DP or HDMI ports the resolutions above 1080P are displayed, but trying to select them causes a "Not support" error on the screen before the resolution reverts. Just ordered a fanless GT 640 card to see if that works. So far the only times I've been able to display 4k was pulling DVI from the graphics card.
ddrueding
Fixture
I was just screwing around and came across the following situation.
EndPCNoise machine above connected to Denon AVR-3313CI via DP -> HDMI and then HDMI to Seiki 50" automatically kicked into 4k mode. Looks awesome.
ddrueding
Fixture
Sounds awesome. I just hope I can wait until at least one other unit comes on the market before pulling the trigger.
Stereodude
Not really a
31.5" for 4k doesn't have quite the same charm after playing with 7" of 1920x1200.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
You probably sit further away from a 31.5" monitor than a 7" tablet.
Stereodude
Not really a
I'm sure that's very much true. I'd love a large desktop monitor with 300ppi though. :mrgrn:
ddrueding
Fixture
Considering even the 50" 4k screen required some scaling to be usable, this will be more about smoothing text than getting more working space.
Should make headshots easier, though.
Should make headshots easier, though.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
dd, did you ever establish the precise set of hardware that allows your TV to operate in 4k mode?
ddrueding
Fixture
Yup. DVI to HDMI or HDMI to Receiver to HDMI. Both worked, but had sync issues with cables longer than 3'. There were also scaling issues unless the refresh rate was specified as higher than 30Hz, which also caused sync issues even with shorter cables. Both were true with either the on-board video or the add-on card I tried.
In any case, that TV is now living life happily in a 1080P mode on someone's wall. It looks great for BluRay content. I'm waiting for the next batch that will support 60Hz.
In any case, that TV is now living life happily in a 1080P mode on someone's wall. It looks great for BluRay content. I'm waiting for the next batch that will support 60Hz.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
ddrueding
Fixture
Nice. Looks like they have their 24" also available in 4K. Did you order the 32"?
ddrueding
Fixture
Not ordered yet, I was going to give it the weekend for someone here to provide a reason not to . 24" simply isn't enough for 4K unless you are doing some crazy level of scaling.
. 24" simply isn't enough for 4K unless you are doing some crazy level of scaling.jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
So much for 4K not being available in smaller size monitors for a while! To say I'm thrilled is an understatement.
It all depends on how close you sit to the monitor. I'm near-sighted and absolutely can't work at a monitor while wearing my glasses. Therefore, I typically sit about 15 or 16 inches from my monitor. At that distance, I can easily pick out individual pixels on my 20" 1600x1200 primary monitor, and more so on my 19" 1280x1024 secondary monitor. 4K in a 24" size would be sweet. Additionally, I physically wouldn't have the room for a larger than 24" monitor on my desk anyway. The price is still well beyond my means. However, just the fact that someone is making them means others will follow suit. When these babies get under about $250, I'll seriously consider buying one.
ddrueding
Fixture
I consider just being able to make out the pixels with some effort the perfect PPI. At home my standard viewing distance is about 19". Leaning forward another 4" and squinting allows me to just make out the edges in high-contrast areas. This allows me to drag-and-drop with pixel accuracy if needed in CAD or photo-editing software. If the PPI was significantly higher, some kind of snap or other alignment tool would be required.
Your 20" 1600x1200 has a pixel pitch of .255mm (assuming Dell 2007FP or similar)
My 30" 2560x1600 has a pixel pitch of .25mm
The Dell 4k 32" has a pixel pitch of .182mm
The Dell 4k 24" has a pixel pitch of .137mm
That is a huge difference.
Your 20" 1600x1200 has a pixel pitch of .255mm (assuming Dell 2007FP or similar)
My 30" 2560x1600 has a pixel pitch of .25mm
The Dell 4k 32" has a pixel pitch of .182mm
The Dell 4k 24" has a pixel pitch of .137mm
That is a huge difference.
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
Where I notice pixelation the most is when reading text. I often print out any .pdfs I read or refer to frequently simply because it causes eyestrain trying to read them on my monitor. When monitors get to the point that I can size a page to fit the screen, and read the smallest size text on the monitor which I can read on a printed page, then I'll consider that good enough. I think the .137mm pixel pitch of the Dell 4K 24" would fit those criteria, especially if I rotated it to portrait mode.
ddrueding
Fixture
That is a deal-breaker for me...the 32" supports 60Hz.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
That looks like a perfect secondary monitor to me.
That is a shame. I would have considered it and overlooked the TN panel aspect had it been 60 Hz.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
The bigger the monitor, the more TN is a problem. Whereas I could easily live with 30Hz for non-video applications - an LCD doesn't have anywhere near the problems that a 30Hz CRT would have.
Chewy509
Wotty wot wot.
Toshiba demos laptop with 4K display at CES: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014...d-monitors-toshibas-laptops-are-going-4k-too/
If enough 15" and 17" laptops get them, then expect prices to drop significantly in the 20"-27" sizes...
If enough 15" and 17" laptops get them, then expect prices to drop significantly in the 20"-27" sizes...
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Apparently, OSX has pretty serious problems with 4k Display support. Given that a sizable chunk of professional-grade content creation is being done on OS X, that suggests a real disincentive to bother with getting decent desktop-size 4k displays for the rest of us. Goddammitsomuch.
ddrueding
Fixture
I read that as a bunch of content creation professionals don't know a damn thing about computers, and that is why they were on OS X in the first place. Now they have to suffer their decisions.
The info I read suggested OSX will negotiate the panel at 4K (3840 x 2160) and display properly. However, it is the UI components that don't scale nicely leaving menus, text, etc appearing tiny. Yes, that's annoying, but those using OSX and Mac hardware can still do their 4K content creation/production. Unless there is more I haven't read, I don't think of that as being a pretty serious problem.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
"OMG it's ugly" seems to be a perfectly valid reason to reject something for people who use Macs. Historically, OSX had handled device independent scaling (and WYSIWYG color calibration, which I understand is the big reason people stick with OSX for content creation) a lot better than Windows, so out might just be that its users have no tolerance for weirdness.
For Apple's user-base, it probably is a serious problem. They'll probably fix it at some point when there is more demand for 4K panels (when the price drops).
sedrosken
Florida Man
I always went with what I've had around - - I once had a (almost definitely overdriven, at 1024 x 768 with 32 bit colors) 14" CRT VGA monitor that was so old that it felt the need to prominently display the fact that it was non-interlaced, despite the fact that people stopped caring about that years ago. Now I do a bit better, with (on my workbench) a 19" 1440 x 900 Dell SE198WFP. I use a HP vs15 on my P4 though, because I hate running old computers in anything other than 4:3. I've no clue why, must be my everlasting OCD. Also, that vs15 is the only other monitor I had lying around. And it has built in speakers. And at 1440 x 900 my SE198WFP was next to unreadable, and it didn't support any 16:9 resolutions lower than that. And if I'm going to run a 16:9 monitor, it's going to run at a 16:9 resolution, darn it.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
You may very well be in the odd state of actually needing a monitor definition file and/or discover that some other video modes become available with a graphics driver update.
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
I still don't care for anything other than 4:3, even with modern PCs. I'm using an LG 20" 1600x1200 for my main monitor and a Viewera 19" 1280x1024 for my secondary monitor. The Viewera is actually 5:4 but that's close enough to 4:3 for me not to care. That said, I'll gladly join the 16:9 crowd when 4K monitors in the 24" or so size get under about $250. I have a feeling I won't have to wait more than another year or two. On another note, I still think there might be a reasonable sized market for 4:3 4K monitors (i.e. 4096x3072, or at least 2880x2160)
Stereodude
Not really a
If they have enough vertical pixels I don't stress the aspect ratio that much. That said editing and working with FHD video on a system with a 1600x1200 screen isn't the best.
ddrueding
Fixture
In people's opinion, is the Dell 32" still the 4k to get in that range? Likely ordering Monday.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Other than no-name Korean brands, is there another option besides Sharp that's actually shipping?
I haven't checked to see if a newer revision of their Ultrasharp is out yet...but I'd say the Dell is still your best bet. At the very least for Dell's warranty and return policy(s).
ddrueding
Fixture
Not that I know of, just wanted to be sure before I drop that kind of money.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Meanwhile, the Seiki 50" 4K TV is down to 699$ at Amazon, with free shipping. Granted, it only does it at 30Hz, but still.
ddrueding
Fixture
That is the same one I was fooling with a few months ago. I wouldn't call it a working 4k screen; it has too many cases where it just doesn't work @ 4k.