16 ms·
Dell’s 32-inch 8K UP3218K Display Now for Sale
- qntty 10y ago4k is 4096p, I would expect 8k to be 8192p, but it's only 7680p.
- markild 10y agoLong story short, it depends..[0] In most cases, I'd guess that most people mean 3840×2160. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Renaud 10y ago4K UHD is 3840 × 2160. 8K UHD is 7680 × 4320.
- simonh 10y ago4k refers to approximately four thousand horizontal pixels. 1080p refers to 1080 vertical pixels. So how many 'k' and how many 'p' a display is/has aren't comparable figures.
- theandrewbailey 10y agoThe 'p' stands for progressive scan, not the dimension being measured (neither does 'k').
- simonh 10y agoI know that and 'k' just means thousands, but in context they still indicate which dimension is being referred to. 'p' is never used to refer to horizontal dimension metrics and I've never seen 'k' on it's own with a number used to indicate vertical resolution. Not without that being explicitly stated anyway.
- qntty 10y agoThanks, this was my confusion.
- ianburrell 10y ago4K is 2160p. Digital theater 4K is 4096x2160 but UHDTV 4K is 3840x2160. 8K is 4320p. UHD 8K is 7680×4320.
- bitL 10y agoDCI 4k is 4096x2160, UHD 4k is 3840x2160. If you buy EIZO/LG for video/photo editing, you get DCI, the rest is UHD.
- Keyframe 10y ago280 ppi! At around 800 ppi you don't need to do AA anymore. So, around 32k at same size.
- dpark 10y agoWhy would you need AA at 280ppi? At sane viewing distances, I would imagine that 99% (maybe 100%) of the population lacks the visual acuity to benefit from >280ppi. Where does your 800ppi claim come from?
- Keyframe 10y agoYeah, it depends on viewing distance, of course. there was a calculation which from 800 came out as a number, which I forgot and can't produce atm. I remember the output. Same as in print when printing fine detail, such as maps, no less than 800 dpi ever (not related, but there was also a calculation which I forgot, but remember the output).
- dpark 10y agoPrint and monitors aren't directly comparable. Print needs higher DPI because people will literally hold a map up to their face to look at fine detail. You just zoom a digital map instead. If you aren't holding your face up to your monitor, you don't need 800dpi. The original iPhone "retina" display was 326ppi and that was assuming a 12 inch viewing distance. For monitor viewing distance, you'll be 20 or more inches away, making 280ppi plenty for the vast majority of people.
- redm 10y agoI'm using multiple 32" 4K monitors, and while the additional definition might be "nice," I certainly can't work with any "smaller" text. I wish Dell would produce 8K monitors in a much larger format, like 48".
- seanalltogether 10y agoForgive my ignorance since I've been on Mac for so long, but does windows still not do UI scaling?
- maxxxxx 10y agoWindows 7 is still pretty bad. Maybe windows 10 is better
- dbg31415 10y agoIt sort of is, in that it sort of works... but scaling on Windows 10 still introduces a bunch of UX issues. Especially if you pair a Retina laptop with a 1080p external and try and use both side by side.
- ReverseCold 10y agoDPI scaling is pretty good, only time it's an issue is when people use older versions of qt or Windows forms (?) which shouldn't be an issue for many people.
- penagwin 10y agoForgive me, but windows 7's last large update (Service Pack 1) was "February 22, 2011; 6 years ago" according to wikipedia. As this was before high resolution monitors really took off at all, you can see why windows 7 doesn't have great support. I can't say anything about windows 10's support (The highest I have is 1080p)
- maxxxxx 10y ago
- Tepix 10y agoDo you think that the market will sooner or later move to 8K monitors? I'm not so sure. At a normal viewing distance a 100dpi monitor is already decent. A UHD monitor is just great. You have to get very close to see individual pixels. I'd say doing AA is no longer required even then. 8K seems overkill for most purposes. Sure, there is a niche that can take advantage of it, but I don't see advantages for the mass market. Same as with SACD, CD tech is simply good enough for pretty much everyone so SACD never took off. I write this despite being a high dpi junkie, I bought a ViewSonic VP2290b (IBM T221 clone, 3840x2400 22") back in 2006 and dealt with a huge hassle of 4 DPI inputs for years.
- exprA 10y ago>At a normal viewing distance a 100dpi monitor is already decent. No it isn't.
- wazoox 10y agoYou'll see, it'll do perfectly in a couple of decades. Most people wear glasses nowadays, and those who don't will at some point in the future.
- mixmastamyk 10y agoNope, I'm "old" and wear glasses and my small 4k monitor (~250dpi) was a significant improvement.
- ec109685 10y agoActually, my eyes are more sensitive to low resolution as they get worse. The blurry of the text compounds with natural blurriness of eyes.
- dpark 10y agoWearing glasses doesn't reduce the need or desire for higher resolution monitors. Maybe uncorrectable vision problems do, but if your glasses get your eyes close to 20/20, you'll benefit from higher resolution just like people with natural 20/20 vision. And as another poster pointed out, the blurriness of the screen may compound with the natural blurriness of uncorrectable vision loss.
- adamnemecek 10y agoCan't wait for AR/VR to make monitors obsolete.
- Tepix 10y agoThose displays will need huge improvements in effective pixel density (after optics) as well.
- thinkmassive 10y agoFTA: "It’s worth noting that Raja Koduri, SVP of AMD’s Radeon Technology Group, has stated that VR needs 16K per-eye at 144 Hz to emulate the human experience, so we're still a way off in the display technology reaching consumer price points at least." Dual 16k @ 144Hz Granted, phones are ahead of desktop displays in pixel density, and that seems more applicable to VR displays.
- dx034 10y agoI still can't imagine that they would replace displays at work for anyone who regularly interacts with a team. VR is not good for collaboration. Just as an extension if you need to shut out the world around you. But it'll be hard to tell your company that you suddenly need 8K displays and VR.
- usaphp 10y ago> "Linus from LinusTechTips should be happy, as they just invested in a pair of 8K video cameras. Time to submit my own acquisition request" I have never understood what's the point of investing in such an expensive and new tech for videos for YouTube, most of the tech channel videos on YouTube will be non relevant really fast so it's not like you are future proofing...in two years from now still very few people will have 8k screens, and cameras will cost at least 50% less. Storing 8k videos will increase storage costs and processing bandwidth too.
- ihuman 10y agoI don't think they're rendering 8K video to youtube. They're probably just using 8K raw footage for editing, and then outputting the final version as 4K.
- sp332 10y agoIn fact they edit most of the video in 1080p because it's easier and faster. Then they upscale to 4k when they send it to YouTube because the extra bandwidth they get for the 4k stream makes a noticeable difference. They keep close-ups and B-roll in 4k because it's easier to edit anyways, and it looks really nice.
- bitL 10y agoFor editing you usually use proxy low-res versions of your 4k/8k/16k content to get optimal speed and then just do the final rendering at your result resolution.
- penagwin 10y agoI don't really remember but I think that they had a video where they talked about it. I think one of the conclusions was that youtube's own compression loses a lot of the quality improvements, and as it can be more difficult in general to work with/encode they do a lot in 1080p
- ioquatix 10y ago
- vinayan3 10y agoHopefully, they drop the price on the 32'' 4K monitor to under $1,000. That'd be a great deal.
- ReverseCold 10y agoThere are 32" 4k monitors (IPS, 60Hz, 4ms response) for $600 or less from LG already.
- stagger87 10y agoCan you please provide a link? They are not showing up on the LG website or Amazon. If anyone else knows of a 32" 4k monitor for 500 USD or less, share a link. For me 32" is smallest size I can get away with 100% scaling at 4k.
- rini17 10y agoI have bought this one in December, there's 1 bad pixel but otherwise am satisfied. http://www.ebay.com/itm/QNIX-NEW-32-UHD3216R-REAL-4K-MINE-3840X2160-60Hz-IPS-UHD-Monitor-AMD-FreeSync-/131906201627?hash=item1eb638e81b http://www.ebay.com/itm/QNIX-NEW-32-UHD3216R-REAL-4K-MINE-38...
- eugenekolo2 10y agoPersonally don't see the point. I was disappointed w/ 4K monitors when half of my applications didn't scale well for them. I imagine even less things will scale well for an even less popular resolution.
- eveningcoffee 10y agoIs it with matte finish?
- nickparker 10y ago>It’s worth noting that Raja Koduri, SVP of AMD’s Radeon Technology Group, has stated that VR needs 16K per-eye at 144 Hz to emulate the human experience This is tangential to this thread, but can anyone in here explain the state of the art in eye tracking? Actually rendering 16k quality for my peripheral vision seems insane to me, so I'm really interested in the barriers between today's tech and a good foveated headset.
- mastax 10y agoEvery year at CES, e3, etc. there are vendors with pretty good eye tracking headsets. APIs for foveated rendering are in place already. I'd imagine it'll be in the next generation of headsets.
- yourapostasy 10y agoI didn't think the civilian state of the art in foveated rendering is sufficiently good enough to fool our vision processing into believing it is seeing a "real" view, even in our peripheral vision, without head fatigue after say, 4 hours continuous usage, but I don't follow the field that closely because a couple years ago I thought that refinement level was so far away. A quick Google seems to reinforce that perception. I only hear PR puff pieces of military-grade gear that good now, like the F-35 helmet that is supposed to be light years ahead of anything civilians can get their hands on. Can anyone in the field give a précis on what is the state of the art?
- VikingCoder 10y agoGee, and I always thought 15.5K and 143 Hz was enough.
- dsr_ 10y agoWell... if you have 20/20 vision, you can resolve about one arc-minute. (That's at your fovea. Everywhere else, not so great. But we will probably find it easier to render everything than track your eyei saccades and re-render fast enough to fool them.) Your field of vision is about 180 degrees wide (not really) and about 135 degrees vertically (full eye movement). So: 60 arc-minutes to a degree, 180 wide: 10800 pixels. 60 * 135 wide: 8100 pixels. An 8192x4096 is not there, but a 16384x8192 is. Now double that so you can get stereo vision (though really there's a lot of overlap that's going to be hard to arrange), update it 100 times a second in 48 bit color... 420 billion bits per second. Double that if you believe that we need 200Hz updates.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y agoInteresting that it uses two DisplayPort 1.4 inputs. I guess HDMI 2.1 isn't ready yet?
- riobard 10y agoAny current gfx cards featuring HDMI 2.1?
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y agoOh, right, there's a chicken-and-egg problem there.
- ryanmarsh 10y agoSo can I drive this from a 15" touchbar MBP?
- mpg33 10y agoholy shit...look at the size of the taskbar
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- sarreph 10y ago> "By then, 16K might exist, back at the $5000 price point. Maybe." I appreciate the author saying 'maybe' because I can't, off the top of my head, understand why 16K would add any benefit over 8K... Aren't we at 'retina' with 4/8K anyway? EDIT: at a 32" resolution...
- zanny 10y agoRetina is determined by view distance and visual acuity. You can get retina on any 4k tv right now at several meters of view distance (hell, you can get "retina" on old 1080p tvs when you are sufficiently far enough away), but if you stood right in front of it it would be obviously pixilated anywhere from 30"+ resolution. Same applies to desktop monitors and phones. The reason phone screens pushed high DPI first was because you were much closer to the screen to make it fill your view.
- Xcelerate 10y agoSometimes I feel like I'm the only person who is really excited about these resolution improvements. When the MacBook Pro Retina came out in 2012, the only reason I bought it was because of the display. I had never used a Mac before then. Going from 4K to 8K for a 32" monitor may seem like a small improvement, but it is a subtle sensory improvement that just makes using a computer more pleasant. Until displays reach 1/60th of an arc minute from standard viewing distances (roughly the discerning power of the human eye under assumptions on contrast), I will always want higher resolution. Other than resolution improvements, it would be nice if someone would attempt an HDR light field display. This would ultimately lead to a monitor that is indistinguishable from a window.
- seanmcdirmid 10y agoFrankly, a 4K 32" monitor is quite crappy...4K works at 24" or so, but above that you begin to see pixels if you use it as a standard monitor (arms length) rather than a TV (a few feet away). 8K is fairly reasonable for 32", putting it in 200+ PPI area (279.73 to be precise), meaning it could be used as a real monitor...but...it's a bit big for me (27" is kind of a stretch already). I would like to see OLED's at this size/resolution, which would accomplish something similar.
- acchow 10y agoFrankly, a 4K 32" monitor is quite crappy.. The Apple Cinema display is 2560×1440 (1440p) at 27" and plenty of people use that. That was a pretty standard resolution for 27-30" screens before 4K became popular. Most people would find 2160p (i.e. 4k) at this screen size to be really nice.
- bitL 10y agoI have 3x 4k monitors, one 31.5" DCI 4k, one 28" UHD 4k and a 55" UHD TV (that also reports itself as DCI capable). Frankly, 8k at 31.5" is kinda pointless unless you have eyes of an eagle or are working glued to your monitor. As a tech demo from Dell, it's cool!
- 0xCMP 10y agoI agree. I couldn't use my 4k Dell monitor with anything but my mbp on OS X because I couldn't read much on Windows. Windows does not do display scaling very well. I imagine 8k is not the easiest to use on Windows and there do not seem to be any Apple products with the right amount of power to use a display like this correctly (i.e. With the same power you'd put on a custom machine running Windows.).
- hmottestad 10y agoGreat reason to use a Mac. It's a great example of how Apple just figured it out and made it "just work".
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- lucaspiller 10y agoWindows 10 works mostly ok for me (27" UHD), I just set the scaling to 175% and everything scales nicely (if a program doesn't fully support scaling then, it's usually scaled up but blurry). It's supposedly a per-monitor setting, but I haven't tried it. Linux is the real pain - most things only support integer scaling for UI elements and 200%/2x makes it feel a bit big to me.
- m0ngr31 10y agoThe trick I've found for Linux with 4K is set it to 200% and then decrease the font size to .8 or .7.
- kuschku 10y ago> Linux is the real pain - most things only support integer scaling for UI elements and 200%/2x makes it feel a bit big to me. That’s actually only the fault of Gnome. All KDE and Qt programs support fractional DPI scaling – with a different ratio per screen. Don’t blame all Linux programs if it’s only Gnome that’s broken. The environment variable used is QT_SCREEN_SCALE_FACTORS=DisplayPort-2=1.75;HDMI-A-0=1.08;
- mark_l_watson 10y agoI might be tempted if it used a USB-C input and was compatible with my MacBook. I recently bought from Apply the LG ultradef monitor they recommend for the MacBook, and while the LG + MacBook combination is great, even a larger higher resolution screen would be great.
- mixmastamyk 10y ago16:9 is suboptimal for me. I usually like one extra display in portrait orientation for code and web pages. My current 16:9 24" 4k display in portrait is too tall---have to move my head up and down a lot, and too skinny---hard to put two windows side by side comfortably. Have to fiddle with overlapping windows a lot. In landscape it would be too short, and I rarely watch movies on my desktop. One movie trailer a quarter approximately, so optimizing for that use case is absurd. I would prefer a fatter 16:10 instead, and was happy with the 22" 1920x1200 that was replaced, though I love the increased resolution of the new monitor.
- portugee 10y agoThis is the single reason why I have not made the switch to 4k displays. I simply cannot give up my existing 24" 16:10 monitors.
- tqkxzugoaupvwqr 10y agoI use two 24" 4K displays and scale the image to look like 2560x1440 per monitor (macOS). It took a while to get used to the smaller UI, but I love the amount of space I get. Edit: The rendered viewport per monitor is 5120x2880 (=2560x1440 Retina), so everything is sharp.
- DaiPlusPlus 10y ago4K should be seen as qualitative upgrade over 1920x1080, and I know the pain of trying to work with that few vertical pixels. However 2560x1440 is still 16:9 but the 1440 pixels is enough for me. So my upgrade path will be to 5K (5120x2880).
- jdietrich 10y agoIf you care about aspect ratio, your monitor is too small. On a sufficiently large and sufficiently high-resolution monitor, the edges of the display no longer define the viewport; you just draw the windows at whatever aspect ratio you like. We have pixels to burn these days.
- 10y ago
- HurrdurrHodor 10y agoThat article says I can get 4K for 350. More interested in that than the 8K, anybody got a link in Europe?
- anoother 10y ago2-3 years ago I got a 28" 4k TN panel for ~£280. Then a 24" 4k IPS for ~£200. This year 2 27" 4k IPSs for ~£350 each (both LGs, the first one a better model but cheaper because pre-Brexit-vote). Prices have gone up from my POV. In answer to your question: https://www.overclockers.co.uk/monitors/by-type/4k-ultra-hd?sSort=3 https://www.overclockers.co.uk/monitors/by-type/4k-ultra-hd?... -- under £300 for 24" 4k IPS. OCUK is a UK subsidiary of Caseking (de), so I'd be surprised if similar prices weren't available across Europe. In all the above experience, I've found Acer to be very good (3 monitors, 2 excellent and 1 with pixel defects), Benq to be poor (multiple returns before I gave up and bought something cheaper) and LG to be absolutely flawless.
- btown 10y agoI highly recommend the $370 28" https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-PB287Q-3840x2160-DisplayPort-Monitor/dp/B00KJGY3TO https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-PB287Q-3840x2160-DisplayPort-Mon... - we've standardized on them at our office, and if you have a graphics card that can sustain 4K at 60Hz, it's amazing for coding and other work.
- bartvk 10y agoI've got this one hanging off of a 2016 MacBook Pro. It's a TN panel. https://www.amazon.de/dp/B00WUACE4S https://www.amazon.de/dp/B00WUACE4S
- intrasight 10y agoThe image on the screen in that article certainly looks better than the monitor I' using ;)
- bo1024 10y agoRight? And I also don't understand this side-by-side comparison. If I'm viewing the image on a 1080p screen (say), then why can I tell the difference between these images? What is the comparison supposed to be showing?
- tgb 10y agoThe comparison images are zoomed in, though they should specify how much. Presumably by a factor of four.
- bhauer 10y agoGive me a 50+ inch 8K concave OLED desktop display with a matte surface and I will pay a huge premium. My predictions aren't holding up [1]. I feel too many customers are satisfied with small form-factor and/or are tolerant of using multiple displays and suffering the inconvenience of bezels. [1] http://tiamat.tsotech.com/ideal-desktop-displays http://tiamat.tsotech.com/ideal-desktop-displays
- intrasight 10y agoOr even 42" flat OLED. They'll come soon enough.
- peeters 10y agoWhat's the use case where bezels are inconvenient? For me I want natural delineation of workspace. Being able to snap applications to 3 physical boundaries makes it easier for me to organize my work, vs one massive display where every window is floating arbitrarily. I'm not saying those are the only two options, I'm just curious what the downside is, specifically with productivity use. I feel like if I had a 50" concave display, I'd want my window manager to have some kind of logical organization similar to what I'd have with multiple monitors anyway.
- RussianCow 10y agoFor one, you can't actually expand something across multiple screens. Depending on the kind of work you do (especially anything visual like graphics), the bezels may be a deal-breaker. Personally, I also just prefer having one large monitor because my head doesn't need to move.
- dpark 10y agoWhat kind of "huge" premium are you talking about here? Because your projections were wildly incorrect. You proposed a target price of $1200 for a 50-inch 8k display with a target date of a year ago. Instead Dell is selling a 32-inch 8k display for $5000, and still not actually shipping. I'd imagine that if Dell started selling what you're describing, the price range would be $30k or more at this point.
- 10y ago
- JohnTHaller 10y agotl;dr: US$4999, 7680 × 4320 resolution, 1300:1 contrast, 31.5" IPS, 60Hz refresh, 2 × DisplayPort 1.4 to handle the bandwidth
- rsync 10y agoOne last spec: it is indeed 16:9. Which is unfortunate.
- nwah1 10y ago8K doesn't excite me. I want a monitor with 4K, FreeSync, over 144hz, running on Displayport-over-USB type C... and ideally powered only by USB. This seems like it will be possible one day.
- j_s 10y agoPer HN's own doctorpangloss 1 week ago: The Dell P2715Q is the best deal on a high DPI display https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13901752#13902158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13901752#13902158 HN's skwirl, right as I posted this: (27", 163ppi) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13949827 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13949827 I don't think anyone is beating https://amzn.com/dp/B00PC9HFO8 https://amzn.com/dp/B00PC9HFO8 at $540. If you found this info useful, this is a referral link you could choose of your own free will (no pressure from me!): http://amzn.to/2nvx9XP http://amzn.to/2nvx9XP
- metaphor 10y agoDell specifies[1] 87W (typical) to 125W (max), with 89.5W in Energy Star mode. Has anyone ballpark-estimated power requirement to generate the video signals driving such a monitor? Also, any idea what DP cable lengths will be pragmatically limited to at such a resolution? P.S. The naivete of this type[2] of marketing tactic never fails to blow my mind away...as perceived from an inferior Dell U2415. [1] http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-8k-monitor-up3218k/apd/210-alez/monitors-monitor-accessories http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-8k-monitor... [2] http://i.dell.com/das/xa.ashx/global-site-design%20WEB/2a9f39a0-0d5c-0c11-0730-f51153f16311/1/OriginalPng?id=Dell/Product_Images/Peripherals/Output_Devices/Dell/Monitors/UP_Series/UP3218K/pdp/dell-monitor-up3218k-pdp-03.jpg http://i.dell.com/das/xa.ashx/global-site-design%20WEB/2a9f3...
- whafro 10y agoI guess that points to a chance that a USB-C 5A cable at 20V or something could soon power something like this. If that cable were carrying the DP signal, that'd be rad.
- metaphor 10y ago8K@60Hz appears to be the end-game bandwidth limit[1] of DP over USB-C, although I suspect the pragmatic reality of the situation will ultimately be driven by cable length limits. I'm really struggling to wrap my mind around how sensibly pushing 100W of power out of a wee little USB-C port on a laptop might look though. [1] https://www.displayport.org/what-is-displayport-over-usb-c/ https://www.displayport.org/what-is-displayport-over-usb-c/
- Matthias247 10y agoAfaik the Displayport Alternate mode of USB-C is limited to Displayport 1.2, which means 4k@60Hz max. For that reason the external Apple/LG 5k displays use the Thunderbolt3 mode of USB-C instead of Displayport. It could also be possible that faster displayport alternate modes could be possible, but are just not available on current-gen transceivers.
- 10y ago
- erickhill 10y agoFrom our human eyeball's perspective, aren't we getting to a point of diminishing returns? I just wish Apple had made a retina Cinema display and left it at that (they have the tech, it's in the 5K iMac).
- kolbe 10y agoI think 32" 4k is too dense for most people, but maybe a 40" screen could work. I have 20/40 vision, so my eyesight has long been surpassed.
- orbitur 10y agoUntil the last year Apple didn't make any devices that could actually reasonably drive a 5k monitor (save the iMac of course), and that's ignoring the connectivity problem.
- ChuckMcM 10y agoThat is a lot of pixels. And quite an improvement over the 16 lines of 64 characters on a converted television that the first computers had. The article points out the challenge though, all that memory that needs to from where it is into the pixels on the screen at a rate fast enough to not annoy you with repaint lag. Which reminds me that the real 'winner' in this space will be if someone can put 300 ppi where ever you are looking in a larger field of view and leave the rest at 100ppi and 50ppi.
- angus-prune 10y agoThat'd be a fascinating piece of tech. I'd bet against it being achieved before GPU's have caught up with the requirements though.
- Grimes23 10y agoFoveated rendering has already been demonstrated at GDC this year, it's expected to be included in the next generation of vr headsets, and there are already some attachments for your monitor you can buy now. http://www.tobii.com/ http://www.tobii.com/
- idanoeman 10y agoWow, that's a really interesting idea. Unfortunately any amount of lag and you get 100dpi for a fraction of a second, and then suddenly it sharpens to 300dpi... like your eyes are constantly refocusing outside of your control.
- metaphor 10y agoAny engineers familiar with DSC 1.2 care to comment on how the required compression to support 8K@60Hz over DP 1.4 could presumably manifest undesirable artifacts (for lack of a better analogy) which would run counter to the reasons that would make this high-end display attractive from a productivity perspective? I initially thought this would be a vanilla lossless frame transaction, but that's apparently not the case. If imperfections aren't perceivable at 32", I'm curious how they'll visually manifest (if at all) as display size scales up. Wiki[1] notes that DSC is visually lossless per ISO/IEC 29170-2 test method, but I'm neither familiar with DSC nor the ISO/IEC standard. What are the practical implications of calibrating against a $200+ colorimeter accessory that Dell is so intent on adding to your cart? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Display_Stream_Compression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Display_Stream_Com...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- modzu 10y agomeanwhile, 60hz...
- TheRealPomax 10y ago8k but no Rec.2020 gamut support... that's actually incredibly disappointing.
- ww520 10y agoNow if only Microsoft could fix that Remote Desktop resolution scaling problem, things would be so much better. Remote Desktop to a hi-res machine shrinks everything to unviewable level.
- gurkendoktor 10y agoI don't need a super-high DPI display, but 3440x1440 @2x is almost 7K, and that sounds like a natural upgrade from the existing 21:9 34" displays. It's a pity that most operating systems aren't designed for huge screens - Windows' start menu is always in the bottom-left corner, for example.
- ezoe 10y agoI brought 27 inch 4K display recently and instantly regret I hadn't purchased 4K display 3 years ago. Back then, 4K display was still way too expensive. Although I could buy one, I didn't think spending half the price of good laptop computer for a 4K display doesn't worth the money. I was wrong. 4K display greatly improved my productivity. I should have purchased a few of them already.