Slashdot Mirror
Dell Demos 5K Display
An anonymous reader writes: Even though 4k displays are just making their way into consumer affordability, manufacturers are already pushing beyond. Dell has previewed a computer monitor it calls a "5k" display. The resolution is 5120x2880, stuffing 14,745,600 pixels on a 27" screen. For comparison, that's more than seven times the amount of pixels in a 1920x1080 display. Pixel density is 218 PPI, roughly the same as a 15" Retina MacBook Pro. ExtremeTech suggests, "As far as we're aware, no one is actually making 5120×2880 panels, especially not at 27 inches diagonal – so what we're probably looking at is two 2560x2880 panels squished together as a 'tiled display.'" Unfortunately, it's pricy, expected to cost around $2,500. But hopefully it will help drive 4k display prices even further toward mainstream availability.
/. beta is broken on that screen size.
There's just no mainstream reason that kind of pixel density is required. This is change for its own sake.
when will we finally get hihger than 1920*1080 resolution monitors at a decent price ????
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Because that ought to be enough for anybody! :D
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
How about they focus on getting 4k working decently first. Saturates DisplayPort and cuts in and out in major graphics cards, and screen tearing with dual HDMI. I'm sure Dual DisplayPort at 5k will fix it all....
I have a 35" 4K TV that I use as a display for my main computer. I now wish I had spent the extra money to get a 50".
On the 35" the text is too small to read comfortably for any length of time, I don't see how reading on a 27" is going to work unless you increase your font size which reduces the benefits of the higher resolution.
For viewing pictures/diagrams you will get a sharper display, and for some people the AA fonts will be seen as another plus but I think a larger display is needed to get the full value of the resolution.
PS. If it counts, I am 57. I don't need glasses but I know I can't see details like I did in my twenties.
ECP
on newegg.... thats getting downright "4k is here"
I was thinking about getting a Asus PB287Q 28" 4K 60Hz as it has good reviews but was unsure as to whether I can stick with icons and stuff being small. I love the idea of the additional pixels as I always seem to not have enough but I here some programs aren't a good match as they don't scale well.
Anybody use a 4K display for programming / development work? Good or bad idea?
wot no sig
This may not be practical, but I'm still glad to see companies driving bigger displays with higher resolutions. It wasn't that long ago that our cell phones had better resolutions than our 55" TVs. I can't wait to see where technology takes us next!
I was thinking about getting a Asus PB287Q 28" 4K 60Hz as it has good reviews but was unsure as to whether I can stick with icons and stuff being small. I love the idea of the additional pixels as I always seem to not have enough but I here some programs aren't a good match as they don't scale well.
Anybody use a 4K display for programming / development work? Good or bad idea?
This guy thinks so: http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-i...
The Seiki is only 30Hz @ 4k resolution, but at 39" and $339 (compared to the Asus 28", 60Hz at $600), I (hoping, because one is being delivered next week) think its a better deal.
I saw a "Good Guys" circular from the late 1980s yesterday and they had a Motorola "car phone" for sale in there for $1200. IIRC, it must have been a bag phone because I remember they said it was portable from car-car in the ad.
That's like $2500 in today's purchasing power-- can you imagine $2500 these days for an analog-only mobile phone? And what do you suppose calls were back then, 50 cents or more per minute, closer $1/minute in contemporary purchasing power?
About the only thing good about those bag phones was they had more transmit power.
Mine goes to 11.
Proverbs 21:19
"Fuck it. Boys, we're going to 6K!"
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of displays in this country. The Dell 4K was the display to own. Then the other guy came out with a 4K display. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the Dell 4K Turbo. That's a 4K display and an Ethernet port. For connectivity. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened—the bastards went to WiFi. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling 4K displays and Ethernet. Connectivity or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to 5K.
With apologies to The Onion
Anybody use a 4K display for programming / development work? Good or bad idea?
i would LOVE that. I am now using 2 * 1920*1080, and i would gladly trade them in for a 4K. I would love to be able to see more code, multiple windows side by side, and more vertical space would eliminate a lot of scrolling
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Do you have eagle eyes or sit close to the screen? (Yes, and no, in my case.)
Can you see the scan lines and pixels of a normal, good-quality display from a distance greater than the diagonal size of the monitor itself? (I do.)
Have you ever set shell windows to 6 or 8 point fonts so they don't clutter up your screen(s), yet still find them legible? (Also yes for me.)
Are you looking to reduce the WALL OF DISPLAY effect without losing precious real estate? (I have three monitors totaling 6.5 MPix, and wouldn't mind at all if I could reduce that to two [I'd still want a video display for watching across the room] or just one [if the scaling works well enough to do said video]).
If you sound anything like me, then yeah, you probably want this. If you're one of the types that runs a display at something other than its native resolution ALL THE TIME, because everything is too tiny for you, then you almost certainly do NOT want this.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
A lot of folks at work are switching to these and they seem happy.
I'm going for a stand-up desk first. I'll look into the 4k monitor early next year and see how things are then.
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
30Hz is a deal breaker for me. 60Hz or nothing. 30Hz is ok for watching movies apparently but I don't think I could cope with mouse lag.
39" would be nice though and removes the issue of everything being small.
wot no sig
Anyone know the effective resolution and screen size of the Oculus Rift?
Can we envision one day the elimination of external monitors in favor of lightweight and inexpensive versions of Oculus Rift with a form factor closer to that of Google Glass?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
They responded "Well, you know those 4k displays? Well, this display goes up one more!"
http://www.theonion.com/articl...
"What part of this don't you understand? If two blades is good, and three blades is better, obviously five blades would make us the best fucking razor that ever existed. Comprende? We didn't claw our way to the top of the razor game by clinging to the two-blade industry standard. We got here by taking chances. Well, five blades is the biggest chance of all."
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
All good points. I do like stuff small so it would probably be ok for me and I absolutely insist that displays are run at native resolution. It would be nice to see a 4K in operation though before I purchase. More research needed.
wot no sig
A "retina display" might be nice on a laptop or anywhere where need such resolutions (medical applications perhaps?)
I rather get a 60" display, or two even, with that resolution, than a 27" one ... sorry, as a software developer that makes no sense at all.
E.g. if I'm a dispatcher for a set of power plants I loved to have big screens with lots of information. Or as an air traffic controller or weather researcher/service.
Mediocre screen sizes with high resolution are pointless ... you can only make the fonts and icons "so small".
Sure, before you start nitpicking: everything that is purely based on image resolution, everything with image manipulation benefits, but the human limit is reached soon.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yes, it's pricey -- $2500 gets a workable used car off the local Craigslist. However, it's crazy cheap, if you use the time machine in your brain to think about what the equivalent display would have cost (if it existed) one, five, or 20 years ago ...
In fact, $2500 is just about what Silicon Graphics' 1600SW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGI_1600SW) cost when it came out. And that was in 1998 dollars :) (According to this online calculator http://www.usinflationcalculat..., flawed as it is to compare tech items over time by clumsy measures of inflation, that would make it more than $3600 worth of monitor, then.) That is, $3654 *now* has about the purchasing power that $2500 did *then* ...
It is a good example of how that kind of "value of dollar" calculation is a poor measure for technology under rapid developement, though: the backwards calculation is nothing like equivalent. That is, a 17" LCD panel (ignoring things like that today you'd probably want HDMI or other modern input) with 1600x1200 resolution would *not* cost the "dollar equivalent of $2500," which works out to be about $1710 1998 dollars. More like ... what, $100-150? Seems fair; random Amazon hit does even better: http://www.amazon.com/Asus-VE2...
Not to say that "anything in the now is cheap if the equivalent would have cost more at some point in the past when you were facing a different set of constraints" ... things are complicated. But calling this pricey is only true in relation to *other* things that have meanwhile hugely improved. For instance, it might not seem worth the price of 5 of these: http://www.amazon.com/PB278Q-2... ... unless 5K makes sense because it helps you resolve details on an X-ray or some other special purpose.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I got this display -- Asus PB287Q -- for work. It's been absolutely delightful.
That said, I found that at the distance I'm sitting -- about 24" from the display -- The full 4K resolution was way too high and made me have to upscale things pretty regularly. I downgraded to the second-highest resolution (~3200 instead of ~3800 on the horizontal) and it's delightfully usable, and gives me SO MUCH more real estate than the previous monitor (27" Apple Cinema Display -- the standard for my workplace).
One word of warning: On a MacBook Pro Retina, I found that powering via HDMI got me the resolution, but only 30Hz (which for programming I don't care about in the last); my MBPR was a circa-2012 model. when I upgraded to a 2014 model I found that going directly via the DP port (via a mini-DP-to-fullsize-DP cable) let me get 60Hz. Which, still, I don't care about all that much :)
The mouse lag is annoying at first but it's not so bad if you get a high dpi mouse and spend a few weeks getting used to the new setup. I wouldn't play games on it, but it's been awesome for code/productivity at the office.
I've had one [the seiki 39"] for about 9 months now. It's due with our baby in two weeks, because we had such a honeymoon when I first got it.
Depends on which platform you are developing on and what the resolution is. There are basically two setups that work great at the moment:
1) 40" 4K monitor. Works well for all platforms, huge workspace area (40"!). However the PPI is only in the same range as tradional monitors (near 96 PPI).
2) 24" 4K monitor. This gives you a "retina" monitor where the UI scale has to be exactly 200%. This setup gives you absolutely stunning fonts and desktop image (if you pick a 4K one). Unfortunately only OS X has propper support for this. If you try to use the monitor with Windows 7, virtually all applications seem to roll a dice when it comes to font sizes. This includes Microsoft's own flagship products like Office 365. Quite pathetic actually given they all declare thenselves DPI-aware to the OS. The problems go as deep as the DWM window decorations - doesn't anyone at Microsoft have a 4K monitor? :)
Besides this both OS X and Windows 7 seem to have trouble with DisplayPort. On my Windows machine (DP 1.2) the OS makes that "you just plugged in a device" sound every time I turn my monitor on or off, and on my old Mac Mini (DP 1.1) OS X occationally moves all the windows because it thinks for a split second the resolution is lower than what it really is.
Windows 8, for all its flaws, does a pretty good job of dealing with the "small icon/text" issue. What OS would you be using?
I'm thinking Black Friday / Cyber Monday might be a good time to get a 4K monitor.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I've used a 50" seiki as a monitor for about a year and a half, it is actually too big, I have to slightly turn my head too much so I just don't actively use about 2 inches on the one side. I'm not fond of the glossy screen. Otherwise I have no complaints, although the PPI isn't any better than 4x 1920x1080 at least I don't have bezels any more.
I've done a little gaming on it and it worked ok, a little bit of lag but not unplayable for just casual FPS stuff. Keep in mind the 30Hz is over the HDMI, the screen itself is always 120Hz.
I got the 39" for another computer last month(I paid $339 + free shipping and have a $50 rebate coming for a total of $279), Size is about right..everything else is pretty much the same.
They work great for having a bunch of reasonable sized rdp sessions(big enough for couple console sessions, a debugger, ice, etc.) up on different systems while doing development.
OS teams are "working on the problem" to make your fonts readable on ultra-mega-high pixel density displays - with varying success. Back in Windows 95, you could already boost up the base font size, but it wasn't 100% implemented. They're getting better, but still not up to 100%, I think.
Even back in the 1990s, I knew people who would run their displays at lower than native resolution just to get readable font size.
Now, about your 50" display aspirations - I had a dual 30" setup on my desktop for awhile, and it gave me tennis neck, had to turn my head to switch from reading one side to reading the other side... effectively, I wasn't hindered at all when one of the 30" displays went away, it's actually just as quick / easy to pop windows over each other as it is to locate them in a panoramic view - in my experience. Now, if this is a multi-operator setup, then each display can be setup to work with one person, and that can be very powerful....
... a display that actually has the number of kilopixels in width that is advertised.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
+1 Informative
I was quite sure from personal experience that disc type media would sooner or later die, but didn't know that blu-ray was performing so bad!
Instead of reducing your resolution, why not kick up your DPI setting? Shit will render bigger without upscaler blur.
Because linux freetards don't understand that. Have you seen a distribution that can do something like desktop composition on Windows and DPI scale applications that aren't DPI-aware? Do linux freetards give a shit?
He also reduces font size to make text smaller. DPI scaling goes down, too.
Sorry, until Windows fixes it's DPI scaling, there's not much point in having retina-like desktop displays.
Dumb question - why wouldn't I just buy a $1000 4K tv and have 4 monitors worth of space to code on?
http://www.ncix.com/detail/samsung-un40hu7000-40in-4k-60hz-32-94622-1540.htm
I am getting older and maybe my eyesight isn't the best but my 1920 x 1200 monitor will have about the same size pixels as the tv I linked and I have zero complaints with the dual setup I have now ...
Add ~30% more space and no bezels for the win.
Mind you I can't buy a video card that can drive HDMI 2.0 but I can wait a few months ... by then maybe 120Hz version is less expensive and this one is $100 cheaper or better.
My 28 inch 4K display has 158 x 161 DPI which is identical to the 1080P 14 inch display in a Thinkpad T440s ultrabook. It's like having four of those Thinkpad displays glued together seamlessly in a 2x2 array.
Looking at a PDF rendered at 100% page size (a letter page is covered by a letter sheet of paper) looks pretty much like a print out. You don't need a full 300 or 600 DPI since the screen has full color range instead of dithering of laser toner or ink dots.
Most Linux desktop environments are DPI independent for fonts and toolkit controls, but it can be a bit hard to change as such things are often tied to your system theme. Of course, that doesn't help with scaling things like images. For many years now you could get desktop scaling using Compiz, but that requires hardware with good OpenGL support so few distributions use it. The current standard for things like 4K monitors is HiDPI (which Apple is calling Retina for marketing reasons).
The only Linux distribution I know with good support for HiDPI is Linux Mint Cinnamon. It even selects it automatically if it detects that your monitor exceeds a certain number of pixels per inch. The setting is in Settings -> General -> Desktop Scaling. I find that with HiDPI and a some tweaks to the default fonts, only web browsers don't display how I want them to (I prefer a 110% zoom for my web browser). Fortunately, changing the default zoom in Chrome works very well, it can even scale Flash content properly.
Other desktop environments that use Gnome libraries like Unity and Gnome Shell should have HiDPI working soon (if they don't already). It looks like KDE has HiDPI support, but they still have some issues to resolve. I'd expect the new KDE 5 desktop to work well.
I've got 2 x 2560x1440 screens and it's more than enough real estate for anything. I can't see the point of effectively having 4 of them on one screen of the same size. Even modern graphics cards struggle to do decent 3D on what I have, so what on earth is going to work on such a high res display? The only advantage I can see in 3D is less need for AA which might save some cycles...
Plus Windows scaling is so rubbish, and there is still so many non-dpi aware apps out there that many people still (need to) use, that this is a solution waiting for a problem.
I'm a perfectionist but I'm trying to cut back.
It's just a 4K screen with a parity K.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
I have a 39" Seiki 4K monitor (TV) that I mostly love. It's not the best color rendition, but it's hard to beat sheer screen real estate for dev work. My biggest complaint is that at that size, 4K is a similar resolution to existing 30" monitors @ 2560x1600.
I'd love a 5K / 6K display in this size and thought it was probably a few years out. 8K would be nice, but I doubt that will be practical in a 35"-40" size for quite a while longer. I don't need 300+ dpi, but a solid 220 or so would be great.
So at what resolution can I turn anti-aliasing off?
Or how long do I have to point a laser to my eye, so that I don't turn blind but get a built in "anti-aliasing" ?
A lot of folks at work are switching to these and they seem happy.
I'm going for a stand-up desk first. I'll look into the 4k monitor early next year and see how things are then.
I'm getting an adjustable stand/sit desk next week too. :) Going corporate does have some perks.
Definitely if you can wait, do wait. The Seiki tvs will get people to stop overpaying for "monitors", and drop prices all around.
Because Macs absolutely suck donkey balls at scaling things up if you change the DPI settings. Even Windows is worlds ahead of Apple here. That's why Apple had to go "retina" with all their screens, as they had no choice but exactly double the vertical and horizontal resolution of their existing screens so they could scale up legacy applications by a factor of 2. Anything else they couldn't get to work.
FWIW, at work I use 24" 4k monitors with 200% font scaling on Windows 7, and pretty much every application works fine. The only thing which doesn't scale is the command prompt window. Note that I am talking about the old font size selector in Control Panel which has been there for years and years - the first thing to do is to turn off all of that Aero crap.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
It depends what you do. For text-based workflow (Emacs, web browsing, possibly an IDE) 30Hz is fine. I've even gone as low as 12Hz refresh (on an early model IBM T221 connected to a laptop with only a single DVI output) and it was usable. Tip: if you do end up with 30Hz, Nvidia cards let you turn off vsync. This seems to speed up refresh a bit, making the mouse pointer smoother.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com