7 ms·

ASUS PQ321Q UltraHD Review: Living with a 31.5-inch 4K Display

57 points by sciwiz 13y ago

jacques_chester 13y ago
People with more money than me: kindly buy lots of these so that further generations are developed and costs come down ASAP. I am sick of having to choose between screen estate and PPI. Give me my unicorn.
- dmm 13y ago
  This is a 39" 4k2 display for $699: http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra/dp/B00DOPGO2G/ref=sr_1_1 http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra/d... The main downside seems to be that it only has HDMI 1.4, so you only get 30Hz at 3840x2160. They also have a 50" version for $1,114.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    The larger the screen, the lower the ppi. Wake me up when someone comes out with a 4k 24" er.
    - dmm 13y ago
      The PPI is about 113 in the 39" model. That's not bad.
      - zaphoyd 13y ago
        A standard 2560x1440 27 inch display is 109 though, so all it gives you is a bigger picture. For a TV or digital sign that might be interesting but not for those wanting a workstation desktop with the DPI they've come to enjoy in their smartphone/tablet/laptops. Sign me up also for a 21-24inch 4k display to write code on.
      - Stratoscope 13y ago
        It's not bad, but it's not good either. My ThinkPad display has 141 pixels per inch, and I wish it had a lot higher pixel density than that. Even with my 61-year-old eyes, I can still see the pixels, which tells me they are too big. Of course people have different taste in displays, so what works for me may be different from what works for you. I just like higher-density displays.
        kalleboo 13y ago
        It also depends on how far away you sit. With a large desktop display, you can just put it further away.
        rbanffy 13y ago
        But then your eyes will have to refocus between your screen and your work surface.
    - BadassFractal 13y ago
      That's a good point. I think somewhere around 24" or maybe 27" the size simply becomes unwieldy and you need to start moving your head around, which is to some extend awkward. 4k would be great on that size.
  - jfb 13y ago
    I can't imagine how ghastly that screen will be.
    - dmm 13y ago
      Will be? You can buy it now. It doesn't seem too bad. Look at the amazon reviews. " The scaling is perfect at it's default settings and everything is very crisp & clear. Just don't expect to read anything from the couch unless you increase the DPI scaling and/or font/text size within your OS. The text is quite small!" I was responding to the guy above me. He wanted a reasonably priced 4k display and I showed him one.
      - jfb 13y ago
        I'm pickier than the average bear w/r/t displays, and I have zero confidence in the marginal performance of OEM display electronics and panels. That this is targeted at the TV market just means that there's a bunch of garbage in the signal path that you're paying for even if you can use it as a directly addressable monitor. Amazon reviews are exactly worth the paper they're printed on, in my opinion.
        dmm 13y ago
        The dude wanted a cheap 4k screen and I showed him one. Obviously it isn't going to satisfy everyone. You are free to buy all the $45,000 screens you want.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        jacques_chester 13y ago
        The key phrase, with additional emphasis: > I am sick of having to choose between screen estate and PPI.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
nwh 13y ago
I can only hope that the new Mac Pro is unleashed along with a similarly pixel-rich screen.
mtgx 13y ago
If you really want to use that resolution fully, then you need a much bigger screen to take advantage of it, otherwise everything will be too small. If you want to benefit from the "retina" type of sharpness, then Windows should really show it at an effective 1080p resolution, and Windows sucks at doing that. It only enlarges some icons, and that's about it.
- mscrivo 13y ago
  Maybe you've been missing the Windows 8.1 coverage? Granted, there are still problems, but it's a huge step forward.
  - mtgx 13y ago
    I didn't miss it, and I've criticized it then, too. Apple handles new higher resolutions in a much "cleaner" and more elegant way than Windows, by doing exactly what I said about 4k/UHD being "retina" for 1080p. Windows is basically being patched up with every new higher resolution. It has nothing to do with using higher resolutions as "retina" versions of lower resolutions, or rather they sort of achieve that in a really ass backwards way.
- dmm 13y ago
  It seems like it should be easy though, right? Just turn every 1080p pixel into four pixels and you get 3840x2160.
- glogla 13y ago
  Ideally, whole OS display layer should be independent on physical resolution of the display. That is not an easy thing to patch into OSes that were using pretty similar PPI for last 20 years, especially in legacy applications. That said, Android can do it, Apple did it (though the way they implemented non-integer scaling is costing them a lot of performance [1]) and interestingly enough, web pages can do that too. Linux display system is going through a bit of rebirth after decades of X and should be able of resolution independence as well. So it looks the times ahead will be better. [1]: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6409/13inch-retina-macbook-pro-review/5 http://www.anandtech.com/show/6409/13inch-retina-macbook-pro...
Taek 13y ago
Somehow, we grew content with 1080p television. I'm not sure why, the ($20-80k) 4K televisions that I've seen are substantially more impressive than the 1080p counterparts, even at 12 feet away. Resolution really stalled out on the larger screens, until people realized how nice 'retina' is on the screens that they keep 1 foot away from their face. Smartphones are finally starting to hit resolutions that match the upper limits of the human eye, and people are finally starting to want that on larger screens. I imagine that once monitors have started to max out the human eye, there's going to be a much larger push for higher resolution TVs. I'm still surprised that TV resolution stalled out for so long, but I think that 4K TV will be the future (eventually). The eye is good enough to see that many pixels.
miga 13y ago
Sounds great, I also like Retina, but lackings of current HDMI standard are equally discouraging as a 3D session with Samsung monitor against Samsung glasses nowadays. At least until the make it work out of the box, and compatible. BTW Is there any indication that next HDMI standard will be able to standardize both 4K _and_ 3D, while keeping performance above 60fps?
- tjoff 13y ago
  HDMI is for the living room. It has nothing to do in a computer other than for the rare case that you would like to connect a computer to a TV. Displayport is vastly superior and, unlike HDMI, there is actually some use for >60fps with displayport (something that is wasted on TV content anyway).
  - qq66 13y ago
    Unfortunately, DisplayPort is the absolute worst physical connector design I've ever had to use.
    - tjoff 13y ago
      It's pretty much the same as HDMI but with the added bonus of hooks that keeps it in place? Reducing the main complaint about the HDMI connector.
      - qq66 13y ago
        Those hooks have required me three times to extract a partially broken connector from a DisplayPort jack with needlenose pliers. I have never had a HDMI cable loosen.

57 points by sciwiz 13y ago

People with more money than me: kindly buy lots of these so that further generations are developed and costs come down ASAP. I am sick of having to choose between screen estate and PPI. Give me my unicorn.

dmm 13y ago
This is a 39" 4k2 display for $699: http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra/dp/B00DOPGO2G/ref=sr_1_1 http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra/d... The main downside seems to be that it only has HDMI 1.4, so you only get 30Hz at 3840x2160. They also have a 50" version for $1,114.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  The larger the screen, the lower the ppi. Wake me up when someone comes out with a 4k 24" er.
  - dmm 13y ago
    The PPI is about 113 in the 39" model. That's not bad.
    - zaphoyd 13y ago
      A standard 2560x1440 27 inch display is 109 though, so all it gives you is a bigger picture. For a TV or digital sign that might be interesting but not for those wanting a workstation desktop with the DPI they've come to enjoy in their smartphone/tablet/laptops. Sign me up also for a 21-24inch 4k display to write code on.
    - Stratoscope 13y ago
      It's not bad, but it's not good either. My ThinkPad display has 141 pixels per inch, and I wish it had a lot higher pixel density than that. Even with my 61-year-old eyes, I can still see the pixels, which tells me they are too big. Of course people have different taste in displays, so what works for me may be different from what works for you. I just like higher-density displays.
      - kalleboo 13y ago
        It also depends on how far away you sit. With a large desktop display, you can just put it further away.
        rbanffy 13y ago
        But then your eyes will have to refocus between your screen and your work surface.
  - BadassFractal 13y ago
    That's a good point. I think somewhere around 24" or maybe 27" the size simply becomes unwieldy and you need to start moving your head around, which is to some extend awkward. 4k would be great on that size.
- jfb 13y ago
  I can't imagine how ghastly that screen will be.
  - dmm 13y ago
    Will be? You can buy it now. It doesn't seem too bad. Look at the amazon reviews. " The scaling is perfect at it's default settings and everything is very crisp & clear. Just don't expect to read anything from the couch unless you increase the DPI scaling and/or font/text size within your OS. The text is quite small!" I was responding to the guy above me. He wanted a reasonably priced 4k display and I showed him one.
    - jfb 13y ago
      I'm pickier than the average bear w/r/t displays, and I have zero confidence in the marginal performance of OEM display electronics and panels. That this is targeted at the TV market just means that there's a bunch of garbage in the signal path that you're paying for even if you can use it as a directly addressable monitor. Amazon reviews are exactly worth the paper they're printed on, in my opinion.
      - dmm 13y ago
        The dude wanted a cheap 4k screen and I showed him one. Obviously it isn't going to satisfy everyone. You are free to buy all the $45,000 screens you want.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        jacques_chester 13y ago
        The key phrase, with additional emphasis: > I am sick of having to choose between screen estate and PPI.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

nwh 13y ago

I can only hope that the new Mac Pro is unleashed along with a similarly pixel-rich screen.

mtgx 13y ago

If you really want to use that resolution fully, then you need a much bigger screen to take advantage of it, otherwise everything will be too small. If you want to benefit from the "retina" type of sharpness, then Windows should really show it at an effective 1080p resolution, and Windows sucks at doing that. It only enlarges some icons, and that's about it.

mscrivo 13y ago
Maybe you've been missing the Windows 8.1 coverage? Granted, there are still problems, but it's a huge step forward.
- mtgx 13y ago
  I didn't miss it, and I've criticized it then, too. Apple handles new higher resolutions in a much "cleaner" and more elegant way than Windows, by doing exactly what I said about 4k/UHD being "retina" for 1080p. Windows is basically being patched up with every new higher resolution. It has nothing to do with using higher resolutions as "retina" versions of lower resolutions, or rather they sort of achieve that in a really ass backwards way.
dmm 13y ago
It seems like it should be easy though, right? Just turn every 1080p pixel into four pixels and you get 3840x2160.
glogla 13y ago
Ideally, whole OS display layer should be independent on physical resolution of the display. That is not an easy thing to patch into OSes that were using pretty similar PPI for last 20 years, especially in legacy applications. That said, Android can do it, Apple did it (though the way they implemented non-integer scaling is costing them a lot of performance [1]) and interestingly enough, web pages can do that too. Linux display system is going through a bit of rebirth after decades of X and should be able of resolution independence as well. So it looks the times ahead will be better. [1]: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6409/13inch-retina-macbook-pro-review/5 http://www.anandtech.com/show/6409/13inch-retina-macbook-pro...

Taek 13y ago

Somehow, we grew content with 1080p television. I'm not sure why, the ($20-80k) 4K televisions that I've seen are substantially more impressive than the 1080p counterparts, even at 12 feet away. Resolution really stalled out on the larger screens, until people realized how nice 'retina' is on the screens that they keep 1 foot away from their face. Smartphones are finally starting to hit resolutions that match the upper limits of the human eye, and people are finally starting to want that on larger screens. I imagine that once monitors have started to max out the human eye, there's going to be a much larger push for higher resolution TVs. I'm still surprised that TV resolution stalled out for so long, but I think that 4K TV will be the future (eventually). The eye is good enough to see that many pixels.

miga 13y ago

Sounds great, I also like Retina, but lackings of current HDMI standard are equally discouraging as a 3D session with Samsung monitor against Samsung glasses nowadays. At least until the make it work out of the box, and compatible. BTW Is there any indication that next HDMI standard will be able to standardize both 4K _and_ 3D, while keeping performance above 60fps?

tjoff 13y ago
HDMI is for the living room. It has nothing to do in a computer other than for the rare case that you would like to connect a computer to a TV. Displayport is vastly superior and, unlike HDMI, there is actually some use for >60fps with displayport (something that is wasted on TV content anyway).
- qq66 13y ago
  Unfortunately, DisplayPort is the absolute worst physical connector design I've ever had to use.
  - tjoff 13y ago
    It's pretty much the same as HDMI but with the added bonus of hooks that keeps it in place? Reducing the main complaint about the HDMI connector.
    - qq66 13y ago
      Those hooks have required me three times to extract a partially broken connector from a DisplayPort jack with needlenose pliers. I have never had a HDMI cable loosen.