4K Displays Ready For Prime Time

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

4K Displays Ready For Prime Time

Posted by Soulskill on Friday May 30, 2014 @02:55AM from the all-the-pixels dept.

An anonymous reader writes "After the HD revolution, display manufacturers rolled out gimmick after gimmick to try to recapture that burst of purchasing (3-D, curved displays, 'Smart' features, form factor tweaks, etc). Now, we're finally seeing an improvement that might actually be useful: 4K displays are starting to drop into a reasonable price range. Tech Report reviews a 28" model from Asus that runs $650. They say, 'Unlike almost every other 4K display on the market, the PB287Q is capable of treating that grid as a single, coherent surface. ... Running games at 4K requires tons of GPU horsepower, yet dual-tile displays don't support simple scaling. As a result, you can't drop back to obvious subset resolutions like 2560x1440 or 1920x1080 in order to keep frame rendering times low. ... And single-tile 4K at 30Hz stinks worse, especially for gaming. The PB287Q solves almost all of those problems.' They add that the monitor's firmware is not great, and while most options you want are available, they often require digging through menus to set up. The review ends up recommending the monitor, but notes that, more importantly, its capabilities signify 'the promise of better things coming soon.'"

27 of 207 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Where's The Content? by CycleFreak · 2014-05-30 03:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

So I can get a 4k display for less than $700. Where can I get content worth watching on that display? Not only worth watching, but is somehow made better by all those extra pixels.
All that aside, seems like it would make for a really nice PC monitor.
1. Re:Where's The Content? by by+(1706743) · 2014-05-30 03:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  If the BBC released their nature documentary series (Life, Planet Earth, Africa, Frozen Planet, etc.) in 4k, that would really be tempting...
  
  I'm sure David Attenborough's voice would sound even better in 4k ;)
2. Re:Where's The Content? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-05-30 03:16 · Score: 2
  
  For the moment, PC monitor is pretty much the compelling use case. There are a few pricey white-elephant 4k video sources; but not many. PCs, by contrast, just see a bigger monitor(barring a tediously long list of, sometimes GPU-vendor, even model, specific gotcha interactions with some of the hacks used by certain 4k displays to cope with the fact that none of the common interfaces are quite there yet for 4k, with Displayport, a monitor trying to use MST can get...interesting. With HDMI, I hope you like 30Hz, because them's the breaks, and I assume that EDID is total garbage, as ever). If you do comparatively lightweight stuff, even a modest GPU can probably drive it without incident. Gaming will require some serious punch; but anything remotely modern can run at the resolution it is told to, if you have the power.
3. Re:Where's The Content? by Albanach · 2014-05-30 03:36 · Score: 2
  
  Note: that's not a monitor, technically, but a TV.
  Besides the addition of a tuner, is there really a difference in this day and age? Some TVs come with higher and lower refresh rates, resolutions, etc., as do some monitors.
4. Re:Where's The Content? by Rei · 2014-05-30 03:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I did the calculations and don't care to repeat them again, but depending on your use case, it might help... or it might be totally imperceptible. A medium-large on the other side of a good-sized living room, your eyes shouldn't be able to see the difference. On the other hand, a large computer monitor right in front of you, in many situations you will be able to see the difference. Note that human eyesight isn't a simple matter of resolution comparisons, it gets kind of complicated... there's basic measures of how far apart you can see two black dots or lines separated by white before they merge into one, but the less the contrast, the greater the distance they have to be separated (absolute brightness matters too, as does distance from the center of your field of vision and all sorts of other stuff), and of course your ability to perceive fine detail drops tremendously when viewing moving objects. But in relatively static, high contrast images, on a large screen near the viewer (say, a nice computer monitor), most people shouldn't have trouble seeing the difference in a side-by-side comparison.
  The only problem with this gimmick is that we're basically running into a resolution dead-end here, there's only so far you can go before the improved detail becomes meaningless. I hope for their sake that they come up with true (non-stereoscopic) 3d or something of that nature, or they're going to be running out of TV-sales gimmicks.
  Hmm, I just thought of something that I heard about a good while back but haven't seen any movement on - "peripheral vision" TVs. I seem to recall reading years ago about a type of TV that used lights around the edges to dimly shine the peripheral colors on the TV image around the room parallel to the TV, giving the illusion to your peripheral vision of an expansive screen. I could envision improving that with a video format that includes a lower-resolution peripheral video stream and side projectors instead of simple side lights. Maybe that could be the next gimmick. ;)
  
  --
  The Spanish-English dictionary is out of ink.
5. Re:Where's The Content? by strikethree · 2014-05-30 04:27 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The only problem with this gimmick is that we're basically running into a resolution dead-end here, there's only so far you can go before the improved detail becomes meaningless.
  Why would you even discuss this now. We are NOWHERE near the types of resolutions that my eyes are happy with. Yes, I am an elitist snob who couldn't tell a pixel from a hole in the ground. I do not care. Stop whining about how none of us can tell the difference. I can tell the difference and even if I can not, I believe I can tell the difference.
  I do NOT want to see even a hint of blockiness or fuzziness at the edge of a font. I want curves that appear to be perfect curves. As it stands now, I can clearly see blockiness in all fonts. With hinting turned on, some aspects of the blockiness goes away but it is still there... and now the fonts are fuzzy too. Will 4K solve that? Not even close. Will it be much much better than what we have now? Yes!
  Stop blocking progress with your negative whining about arcs and distinguishability. I may not be able to argue against your science and maths, but science always loses out to reality. Look at the blocks and fuzziness in this message and dare to tell me that I am wrong.
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
6. Re:Where's The Content? by EvilSS · 2014-05-30 04:39 · Score: 2
  
  All that aside, seems like it would make for a really nice PC monitor.
  It probably seems that way because it is a PC monitor.
  
  --
  I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
7. Re:Where's The Content? by Hadlock · 2014-05-30 04:45 · Score: 2
  
  Netflix? House of Cards and all of their new original series are shot and displayed in 4K if your device and display support it.
  
  Also, there's a much higher quality Samsung 4K display for $50 more, that is probably the model you want.
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
8. Re:Where's The Content? by ColdWetDog · 2014-05-30 04:53 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Inch. Away. From. The. Screen.
  Slowly.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
9. Re:Where's The Content? by strikethree · 2014-05-30 07:21 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Nah. I am not trying to be a douche but I am undoubtedly succeeding. *sigh* Such is life. Here is where I am coming from:
  While the Commodore Amiga 500 was not my first computer, it was the one that brought me very deeply into computing. I first hooked it up to an NTSC television set. The fonts were extremely jagged and the images were extremely blurry. I should probably add that the color was absolutely terrible too. But it worked. I fell deeply in love with my Amiga 500. It was the most awesome computer on the planet. It had a flat 32 bit memory space and preemptive multitasking. It was god compared to the standard IBM PC and Microsoft DOS.
  I eventually was able to afford to buy a used "real" monitor for it. Essentially the same resolution but much higher quality. The fonts were still jagged though.
  Through the years, I have upgraded my monitors continuously, with one of the best monitors being the Apple 30 inch Cinema Display running at something like 3560x1600 or somesuch. A _very_ nice monitor. Currently, I am using a Samsung 48 inch 1920x1080 screen as a display.
  One thing that was common across ALL of the displays is that curves never looked like continuous curves and fonts always looked blocky. It is possible that problem may not be resolution, but I doubt it. I look at photographs of handwriting, images that should show continuous curves, and it still does not look "right". Either it is fuzzy or the pixels intrude.
  Maybe I put my face too close to the monitor. Maybe I just expect too much. Maybe I notice things that other people do not notice. Regardless, No matter how much anti-aliasing I use in Grand Theft Auto IV, lines that are not perfectly vertical or horizontal have a staircase effect. No matter what type of font hinting I use, fonts seem blocky and or fuzzy. Perhaps 1920x1080 is enough and I just want too much.
  4K screens look gorgeous. I look at them at the Sony store in the mall. My eyes are still drawn to the imperfections in the red headed girl's hair (in the demo) despite the fact that it is mathematically and scientifically impossible to see them. *shrug*
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
10. Re:Where's The Content? by cheater512 · 2014-05-30 08:33 · Score: 2
  
  Erm isn't pixel pitch a factor of resolution and physical size?
  So your 24" 1080p monitor has a smaller pixel pitch than your 50" 1080p TV, but if you got a 50" 1080p 'monitor' it would have the exact same pitch as the TV.
11. Re:Where's The Content? by pla · 2014-05-30 08:49 · Score: 2
  
  Apart from pitch size, panel quality, color accuracy, setting fine-tuning and viewing angle size? Not really, no :)
  
  On color, I have to agree with you. The Seiki 4k panels have horrible color (though as you also point out, that comes mostly from the lack of fine tuning capabilities). If you want a 4k display for doing graphic design work, yeah, you'll want to blow $3000+ on a it; for programming, not so big of a deal.
  
  For the rest - At 4k, pitch size means almost nothing. Two feet away (my typical distance), you can't really make out individual pixels. The pixels themselves could count as mathematical point sources of light, effectively a pitch size of zero, and it would look identical. For quality, I don't know what to say, I've had zero problems with it, NO dead pixels, no crappy buttons or connectors snapping off... No frills, of course, but a reasonably well-built product. For viewing angle, "as close to 180 as matters". I can get far enough away from center that the foreshortening becomes unbearable before I exceed the viewing angle. :)
12. Re:Where's The Content? by cayenne8 · 2014-05-30 09:53 · Score: 2
  
  Hell, I just want one for a nice High Resolution computer monitor!!!
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Please quit conflating TV's and monitors. by wbr1 · 2014-05-30 03:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

The burst of HD purchases, and the resultant gimmicks were largely for home TV use. The display reviewed is spoken of being used as a display device for a computer. More specifically for PC gaming. The two are NOT the same. Please quit comparing them.
I may have use of a 4k monitor. I doubt I will ever need a 4K tv, even if source material were readily available. My rarely watched 1080p does just fine. Most consumers would likely agree. For TV/Movie viewing 4k IS a gimmick.

--
Silence is a state of mime.
1. Re:Please quit conflating TV's and monitors. by timeOday · 2014-05-30 03:25 · Score: 2
  
  I disagree that 4k TVs are a gimmick, particularly as they get bigger. Football and soccer would look GREAT on an 80 inch 4k TV. It will change how the games are shot, so you can really get a sense of what everybody is doing instead of following the ball so closely.
  Granted, for now the bitrate rather than resolution is the limiting factor, since cable/satellite/broadcast signals aren't even 1080p, they're 1080i or 720p with inadequate bitrates. But the quality of video through Netflix / Amazon Prime right now was almost unimaginable when youtube launched, less than 10 years ago(!) with 320x240 video only, and it seemed doomed to crash the Internet.
  I also play split-screen games on my TV with my son and it would be great for that, although not with the current generation of consoles.
2. Re:Please quit conflating TV's and monitors. by Hadlock · 2014-05-30 05:17 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Football and soccer would look GREAT on an 80 inch 4k TV. It will change how the games are shot, so you can really get a sense of what everybody is doing instead of following the ball so closely.
  Football is shot at close angles specifically to tell a narrative; they will not and are required not to show the full field during a play. This is the view that coaches get on a closed loop. It is available to the public, but only 4 hours after the game ends and you have to pay a special subscription to get it.
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
Samsung UD590 is nice... by RyanFenton · 2014-05-30 03:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

I got it recently, and it's got 4k at 60FPS, in a 28" size - great for programming.
Review link
Just to try it, I was able to get all the single-player PC Ultima games running in about half the screen real estate:
ALL THE ULTIMAS
It's around $600 when its on sale, so I think it just about matches the model slashvertised here.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Sweet, now we just need to wait for OS Support by Austerity+Empowers · 2014-05-30 03:34 · Score: 3, Informative

I believe Apple just pushed a patch to mavericks with better 4k support. http://au.ibtimes.com/articles...
OSX is not ready by timeOday · 2014-05-30 03:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

I jumped the gun a while ago and got the Dell P2815Q, which is one of those that only do 4K at 30 hz. I can confirm this is not adequate for a large number of uses :)
What surprised me is the poor OSX support for 4K. Windows can scale everything (although I had to manually add a display mode to the NVidia advanced settings to even get 1080p!?), but OSX cannot. I am running it on a recent MacBook Pro 15" with discrete graphics.
The problem is that you cannot chose to run at a lower resolution. Display preferences lists ONLY the native resolution. Using QuickRes (a 3rd party add-on for more resolution choices), none of the lower resolutions work, at least until you go all they way down to 1080p
In particular, you cannot use HiDPI on an external display (where the application sees a lower resolution, but the OS renders fonts at full resolution). (No, it does not help to enable HiDPI with Quartz Debug, nor with the QuickRes "Enable HiDPI" button). So the menus and all applications are absolutely tiny.
You could adjust the size of everything on a per-application basis, but then they won't look right when you're working on the laptop display, unless you use something like QuickRes to run the laptop display at its native resolution. I guess I will try that for a few days. So I mainly use my older, power-hungry 2550x1600 30" displays.
If I could just select the highest of the HiDPI resolutions available for the laptop display in the System Preferences, and mirror *exactly* that to this display, I would be a happy camper. You can't do that.
I understand an upcoming release will improve support with HiDPI on external displays. But as it stands, I could not recommend a 4K display for a Mac - or a Mac for a 4K display.
1. Re:OSX is not ready by omnichad · 2014-05-30 04:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I thought that 10.9.3 addressed this (Not quite two weeks old). Might be time for you to try again.
Re:Sweet, now we just need to wait for OS Support by houstonbofh · 2014-05-30 03:37 · Score: 2

Ran both Windows 7 and Ubuntu on a Seiki 4k with no problem. (Well, other than finding a video card that supported it at a reasonable price...)
Re:A boon for CAD, hopefully by harrkev · 2014-05-30 03:54 · Score: 2

I often work on fancy PCB designs and can always use more resolution and a bigger screen, within limits. There's no point in having a screen so wide that my head is always moving like at a tennis match.
But more resolution makes editing quicker and easier.
Bah. You PC board wusses. Try doing physical design on a custom ASIC (note my sig).
More pixels definitely helps. I have been using a 30" 2560x1600 (Dell for about $1200), but more pixels for half the money seems like a great deal! The down side is less glass itself, so the pixels are smaller. My old eyes would probably have a hard time staring at text at that resolution. Yes, I know that I can change fonts, but I am a strong believer in more monitors in general. You can have the layout on the big glass, and terminal and/or EMACS windows on the side monitors. Now THAT is a productivity boost. The problem is that with your side monitors having a significantly different pixel density from the main monitor make having an ideal font size impossible. Either too big on the side monitors or too small on the big, central monitor.

--
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Re:Sweet, now we just need to wait for OS Support by Ost99 · 2014-05-30 04:11 · Score: 2

Both Linux and Windows 8.1 deals just fine with 4k.
Requires a decent graphics card with drivers that actually work, but other than that there's no problem.

--
---- Sig. gone.
Re:Sweet, now we just need to wait for OS Support by EvilSS · 2014-05-30 04:36 · Score: 2

Which if it follows the support for multiple monitors means that windows 14 and Ubuntu 24 should have good support for it. ETA for Mac is unknown.
I have a 4K monitor and Windows 8.1 handles it just fine. The only problem I have is that I have on 4K and one 1080p and Windows seems to have issues getting the dpi correct. 8.1 supports per-monitor DPI but it won't let you set the DPI manually for each monitor, it tries to figure it out and fails. It will either get the 1080p right, and the 4K will make me feel like I need to get my eyes examined, or the 4K looks perfect and the 1080p looks like I already had my eyes examined and was found legally blind.

--
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-05-30 07:15 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion
But is the end near for 1366x768 laptop garbage by guacamole · 2014-05-30 07:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

I really don't understand how retailers and manufacturers are still getting away with selling $700-800 laptops with those awful 1366x768 or 720p displays. A few times I was looking for a basic laptop with entry level CPU and memory, and a 14-15 inch screen with nice resolution at an affordable price at Fry's or BestBuy. But the sales people always direct me at loaded models that cost +1000 to get that screen.
1. Re:But is the end near for 1366x768 laptop garbage by thegarbz · 2014-05-30 16:07 · Score: 2
  
  This! In in the market for a new laptop at the moment. I don't have many requirements but 1080p or better is one of them. I your a reallyhigh res external display using an iPad screen for under $100. Why can't I get that option on a laptop? I can get that option on a laptop?