3 ms·

Doesn't change anything at all. It's a shame that they are selling that. And it costs 1600€! It's insane.

by naoqj 5y ago

nohr 5y ago
That renders your complain null and void, what's wrong with you?
Rebelgecko 5y ago
Are there any alternatives you'd recommend? When last I looked I was surprised how limited the options were for 2160p + higher refresh rates (I guess maybe cables/ports/GPUs need time to catch up?)
- ninkendo 5y ago
  Unfortunately there are no monitors sold by any company other than Apple (and LG for that one 5K display they made specifically _for_ apple) that have a “retina” pixel density, which I would define as >200 PPI. (The Studio Display’s is 218.) Every ginormous “4k2k” or whatever display is just that: ginormous, so the actual pixel density is much lower, and is comparable to a typical (smaller, 1440p, etc) display. I suspect this is because the fabrication of the LCDs is tuned to a particular pixel size, so if a company wants to make a 4K monitor, they scale existing LCD production up to a large enough size that they can get it 2160 pixels tall (by however wide), and that’s the size of the display. They can advertise having both a large display (which people like) and 4K (which people like), so there’s no downside to the manufacturers. But if you want actual high pixel density, 200+PPI, your options are basically an Apple monitor (LG’s apple-sold display notwithstanding), or a smartphone. (I’d love to be proven wrong on this! My holy grail monitor is 200+ppi, 120+Hz, large (27”+), and ideally ultrawide, but alas, such a thing doesn’t exist.)
  - maherbeg 5y ago
    Agh yeah that is my dream monitor as well. There are some 5k2k ultrawides that get close but the reviews aren't positive :(
  - dbttdft 5y ago
    It turns out, for basic computer use cases, like scrolling on a website, motion clarity matters. My holy grail (for something usable from current PCs) is - fast pixel response (CRTs are close, but the light to dark transitions fail) - strobing, or a refresh rate that is high enough such that there is no blur (240Hz still doesn't fix this) - at least 100Hz or so (perhaps only because I haven't used stuff over 144Hz enough yet) - non glossy without grainy artifacts - retina pixel density - no viewing angle issues - *at least* as good contrast as a 90% dead CRT I got in the trash - no bloatware in the monitor or whatever they do that adds tons of input lag for no reason - no local dimming type artifacts that (obviously) local dimming causes, but more importantly what the alpha OLEDs have - low minimum brightness. most LCDs even at the lowest settings are far too bright - the option of warm color temperatures - perfectly flat screen, and pixel sharpness, for the sake of being fair (but the latest CRTs almost pass) - no backlight bleed
    - rowanG077 5y ago
      Microled, if it pans out, should technically be able to hit that.
      - dbttdft 5y ago
        Maybe OLED will already be good enough no? I haven't read up much yet on it, but I learned yesterday that the ABL feature I feared (which causes the image brightness to change substantially based on the content on screen) might be disableable on something like the LG CX OLED.
  - scottrblock 5y ago
    I think the Dell 8k 32" is pretty close to what you want — https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-8k-monitor-up3218k/apd/210-alez/monitors-monitor-accessories https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-8k-m.... It's certainly not cheap! edit: in case anyone knows, I see this monitor "requires two DisplayPorts" for full 8k. Does anyone know if I can plug two display ports into a docking station, and one cord out of the docking station into my 14" m1 mbp? Ideally this would also charge the mbp. Is this possible? If I were to buy such an expensive monitor, I really only want one cord.
    - StillBored 5y ago
      I'm sure you can get it to work at some lower res/refresh rate than what its designed for. But that monitor is DP 1.4 dual link because it needs more than the 32Gbit one gets out of a single DP 1.4 cable to run at 60Hz. So if your happy with 8K@30Hz and your mac can provide DP 1.4 it might work with a single cable. And from what I know of Mac's your probably out of luck except for the latest M1 models which support TB4 and the higher data rate DPs. That said, the easiest way to get this working is probably to get one of the TB->PCIe expander chassis and plug in an external GPU and let it drive the display. Desktop PC's/workstations still have their place, and driving multiple high resolution monitors is one of them. PS: Been drooling over that monitor for the past couple years as an upgrade to my dell 5K's I picked up when apple released their first standalone 5k monitor and more than a few high end mac users apparently ebay'ed their dell monitors to get the apple version. Their loss, my gain... :) Hey apple, why don't you release a 8K monitor? Lol. (PS: There are a couple other manufactures putting that panel in monitors (viewsonic for one), so its not just dell, and a bunch of 8K tv's if you want higher resolution).
      - scottrblock 5y ago
        thanks, "TB->PCIe expander chassis" wasn't on my radar at all! I'm holding out that apple will release something better than the Studio Display in the next 6-9 months and make some of this a bit easier.
  - arvinsim 5y ago
    Yup. The closest thing we can get is just 4k 144hz. But will have to sacrifice some clarity for fractional scaling in MacOS.
  - shalmanese 5y ago
    > I suspect this is because the fabrication of the LCDs is tuned to a particular pixel size, so if a company wants to make a 4K monitor, they scale existing LCD production up to a large enough size that they can get it 2160 pixels tall (by however wide), and that’s the size of the display. They can advertise having both a large display (which people like) and 4K (which people like), so there’s no downside to the manufacturers. There are plenty of 13" 1440p laptop panels being made. You just have to mate 4 of them together to make a 26" 5K display and yet this isn't done. Hell, I'd just settle for someone selling 13/15" 1440p/4K panels in a cheap, thin bezel enclosure with a VESA mount on the back for $250 - $400 a pop and I could make my own 5K/6K display for cheaper than what they're selling for.
howinteresting 5y ago
Are you saying that it is a shame companies are selling 110ppi monitors?! 110ppi (27 inches/16:9 at 1440p) has been the standard non-retina resolution for a long time. It's what I have on my desk right now as an ultrawide -- I'd be interested in getting a higher-res one but there isn't really one that has a high enough refresh rate.
- naoqj 5y ago
  Non-retina is a thing of the past. It should be relegated to monitors that cost 200€.
  - ubercow13 5y ago
    Just like non-VRR is a thing of the past, non-120+Hz is a thing of the past, etc.
  - howinteresting 5y ago
    I can claim equally without evidence that non-120+Hz is a thing of the past.
  - nick__m 5y ago
    Non-curved 60Hz monitors are a thing of the past they should be relegated to monitors that cost 200$. That was an easy comment to make! Do you realize that other peoples have different preferences than you do and they are equally valid.
  - noahtallen 5y ago
    Maybe it should be, but it’s not actually a thing of the past. I would bet hard cash that a higher number of recently released expensive monitors ($1000+) don’t have retina than those that did. There is still a massive market for people willing to make the trade off in another direction (like higher refresh rate or going ultrawide) rather than retina. Obviously it’d be amazing if what you said is true, because both retina and HRR are very nice to have
  - account42 5y ago
    There are so many other dimensions that can be more important. 110 dpi is fine for me now - my next upgrade will focus on contrast and black level instead.

Doesn't change anything at all. It's a shame that they are selling that. And it costs 1600€! It's insane.

by naoqj 5y ago

Doesn't change anything at all. It's a shame that they are selling that. And it costs 1600€! It's insane.

nohr 5y ago

That renders your complain null and void, what's wrong with you?

Rebelgecko 5y ago

Are there any alternatives you'd recommend? When last I looked I was surprised how limited the options were for 2160p + higher refresh rates (I guess maybe cables/ports/GPUs need time to catch up?)

ninkendo 5y ago
Unfortunately there are no monitors sold by any company other than Apple (and LG for that one 5K display they made specifically _for_ apple) that have a “retina” pixel density, which I would define as >200 PPI. (The Studio Display’s is 218.) Every ginormous “4k2k” or whatever display is just that: ginormous, so the actual pixel density is much lower, and is comparable to a typical (smaller, 1440p, etc) display. I suspect this is because the fabrication of the LCDs is tuned to a particular pixel size, so if a company wants to make a 4K monitor, they scale existing LCD production up to a large enough size that they can get it 2160 pixels tall (by however wide), and that’s the size of the display. They can advertise having both a large display (which people like) and 4K (which people like), so there’s no downside to the manufacturers. But if you want actual high pixel density, 200+PPI, your options are basically an Apple monitor (LG’s apple-sold display notwithstanding), or a smartphone. (I’d love to be proven wrong on this! My holy grail monitor is 200+ppi, 120+Hz, large (27”+), and ideally ultrawide, but alas, such a thing doesn’t exist.)
- maherbeg 5y ago
  Agh yeah that is my dream monitor as well. There are some 5k2k ultrawides that get close but the reviews aren't positive :(
- dbttdft 5y ago
  It turns out, for basic computer use cases, like scrolling on a website, motion clarity matters. My holy grail (for something usable from current PCs) is - fast pixel response (CRTs are close, but the light to dark transitions fail) - strobing, or a refresh rate that is high enough such that there is no blur (240Hz still doesn't fix this) - at least 100Hz or so (perhaps only because I haven't used stuff over 144Hz enough yet) - non glossy without grainy artifacts - retina pixel density - no viewing angle issues - *at least* as good contrast as a 90% dead CRT I got in the trash - no bloatware in the monitor or whatever they do that adds tons of input lag for no reason - no local dimming type artifacts that (obviously) local dimming causes, but more importantly what the alpha OLEDs have - low minimum brightness. most LCDs even at the lowest settings are far too bright - the option of warm color temperatures - perfectly flat screen, and pixel sharpness, for the sake of being fair (but the latest CRTs almost pass) - no backlight bleed
  - rowanG077 5y ago
    Microled, if it pans out, should technically be able to hit that.
    - dbttdft 5y ago
      Maybe OLED will already be good enough no? I haven't read up much yet on it, but I learned yesterday that the ABL feature I feared (which causes the image brightness to change substantially based on the content on screen) might be disableable on something like the LG CX OLED.
- scottrblock 5y ago
  I think the Dell 8k 32" is pretty close to what you want — https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-8k-monitor-up3218k/apd/210-alez/monitors-monitor-accessories https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-8k-m.... It's certainly not cheap! edit: in case anyone knows, I see this monitor "requires two DisplayPorts" for full 8k. Does anyone know if I can plug two display ports into a docking station, and one cord out of the docking station into my 14" m1 mbp? Ideally this would also charge the mbp. Is this possible? If I were to buy such an expensive monitor, I really only want one cord.
  - StillBored 5y ago
    I'm sure you can get it to work at some lower res/refresh rate than what its designed for. But that monitor is DP 1.4 dual link because it needs more than the 32Gbit one gets out of a single DP 1.4 cable to run at 60Hz. So if your happy with 8K@30Hz and your mac can provide DP 1.4 it might work with a single cable. And from what I know of Mac's your probably out of luck except for the latest M1 models which support TB4 and the higher data rate DPs. That said, the easiest way to get this working is probably to get one of the TB->PCIe expander chassis and plug in an external GPU and let it drive the display. Desktop PC's/workstations still have their place, and driving multiple high resolution monitors is one of them. PS: Been drooling over that monitor for the past couple years as an upgrade to my dell 5K's I picked up when apple released their first standalone 5k monitor and more than a few high end mac users apparently ebay'ed their dell monitors to get the apple version. Their loss, my gain... :) Hey apple, why don't you release a 8K monitor? Lol. (PS: There are a couple other manufactures putting that panel in monitors (viewsonic for one), so its not just dell, and a bunch of 8K tv's if you want higher resolution).
    - scottrblock 5y ago
      thanks, "TB->PCIe expander chassis" wasn't on my radar at all! I'm holding out that apple will release something better than the Studio Display in the next 6-9 months and make some of this a bit easier.
- arvinsim 5y ago
  Yup. The closest thing we can get is just 4k 144hz. But will have to sacrifice some clarity for fractional scaling in MacOS.
- shalmanese 5y ago
  > I suspect this is because the fabrication of the LCDs is tuned to a particular pixel size, so if a company wants to make a 4K monitor, they scale existing LCD production up to a large enough size that they can get it 2160 pixels tall (by however wide), and that’s the size of the display. They can advertise having both a large display (which people like) and 4K (which people like), so there’s no downside to the manufacturers. There are plenty of 13" 1440p laptop panels being made. You just have to mate 4 of them together to make a 26" 5K display and yet this isn't done. Hell, I'd just settle for someone selling 13/15" 1440p/4K panels in a cheap, thin bezel enclosure with a VESA mount on the back for $250 - $400 a pop and I could make my own 5K/6K display for cheaper than what they're selling for.

howinteresting 5y ago

Are you saying that it is a shame companies are selling 110ppi monitors?! 110ppi (27 inches/16:9 at 1440p) has been the standard non-retina resolution for a long time. It's what I have on my desk right now as an ultrawide -- I'd be interested in getting a higher-res one but there isn't really one that has a high enough refresh rate.

naoqj 5y ago
Non-retina is a thing of the past. It should be relegated to monitors that cost 200€.
- ubercow13 5y ago
  Just like non-VRR is a thing of the past, non-120+Hz is a thing of the past, etc.
- howinteresting 5y ago
  I can claim equally without evidence that non-120+Hz is a thing of the past.
- nick__m 5y ago
  Non-curved 60Hz monitors are a thing of the past they should be relegated to monitors that cost 200$. That was an easy comment to make! Do you realize that other peoples have different preferences than you do and they are equally valid.
- noahtallen 5y ago
  Maybe it should be, but it’s not actually a thing of the past. I would bet hard cash that a higher number of recently released expensive monitors ($1000+) don’t have retina than those that did. There is still a massive market for people willing to make the trade off in another direction (like higher refresh rate or going ultrawide) rather than retina. Obviously it’d be amazing if what you said is true, because both retina and HRR are very nice to have
- account42 5y ago
  There are so many other dimensions that can be more important. 110 dpi is fine for me now - my next upgrade will focus on contrast and black level instead.