extremely affordable 4k (aka UHD) 28" displays coming as companion to your MP or rMBP

[joger]

The Verge has summed up the current available information.

In short (what differs):

1. DELL Dell P2815Q at 599.- USD available 23rd January and only 30 Hz at any port including display port
2. Asus PB287Q at 799.- USD available in Q2 '14 1ms response time per pixel
3. Lenovo ThinkVision Pro2840M at 799.- USD available April '14 with 10 bit support
4. Philips 288P6 at 1,199.- USD in spring '14 also with 10 bit support

What they (seem) to have in common:

• new optimized 28 inch TN display with up to 10 bit / RGB color support 170° vertical and 160° horizontal viewing angle
• some 70-80 W power consumption
• built in speakers (except the DELL)
• 60 Hz support at 3840x2160 pixel (except the DELL with 30 Hz only)
• HDMI and Display port plus USB 3.0 and USB 2.0 connections
• roughly 72 % NTSC color space - aka sRGB
• 3840x2160 pixel native support resulting in 157 ppi
• rather thin design
• 1st affordable below 1 k USD UHD displays

For me the Lenovo Pro2840M seems to be the most attractive offering with a really cool design (reminding me of the Apple Cinema Display 27" (which I own) with a slightly smaller size being 1 inch wider in viewing area offering 3x USB 3.0 plus 2 x USB 2.0 plus HDMI 1.4 plus DP plus mDP.

At the given price target I am sure it's likely to see a street price below making it even more attractive if you happen to own any of the new MACs.

Macs that support 4k (aka UHD):

• Mac PRO late 2013 at 60 Hz and 10 bit per RGB color via DP and 30 Hz via HDMI
• retina Mac Book Pro 13 and 15 inch late 2013 at 30 Hz on mDP and HDMI

The TN panels are a bit of a caveat for quality fetishists not offering the utmost image quality like IPS or IGOZ and a rather small color space of sRGB equivalent.

Some personal remarks:

That said at the given price point I am personally willing to buy an intermediate 4k display and sell it as soon as an affordable wide gamut 4k display appears.

For 799.- USD list price and a possible strew price of maybe 700 USD and equivalent 800 EUR (remember the tax in Europe) it is IMHO a no-brainier if you happen to have a MAC PRO.

The first reviewers stated that the image quality of the Lenovo is stunning. 28 inch seems to be just the right size being able to roughly match at a normal viewing distance the resolution of the human eye. The TN panels are optimized and the viewing angle seems to be larger then previous generations. 10 bit support is great for calibration purposes preventing from posterization effects.

The GPUs in the new Mac PRO support 10 bit / RGB color (differing from the consumer gaming GPUs that are often compared as similar) and I would not wonder if the OS 10.9.x will support 30 bit soon or in Summer 2014 maybe 10.10 will fully support it - my guess is it will be included in one of the next OS maintenance releases.

I am looking forward to the first in depth reviews and I hope I will get my new Mac PRO together with a 4k display - and who knows - maybe Apple is doing a nice 28 inch Cinema Display as well?

Let me know your thoughts

 

[elliotn]

The TN panels are a bit of a caveat for quality fetishists not offering the utmost image quality like IPS or IGOZ and a rather small color space of sRGB equivalent

I thought everyone agreed that TN panels are unusable for photo retouching?

(I was in the Applestore today (Regent St, London) and they have a very nice Sharp monitor hooked up to their new Mac Pro.)

 

[joger]

The TN panels are a bit of a caveat for quality fetishists not offering the utmost image quality like IPS or IGOZ and a rather small color space of sRGB equivalent

I thought everyone agreed that TN panels are unusable for photo retouching?

(I was in the Applestore today (Regent St, London) and they have a very nice Sharp monitor hooked up to their new Mac Pro.)

these are entirely new ones and the first (professional) viewers were stunned - now reason to exclude an all new design before even some reputable guys have reviewed it - we will soon find out more.

At work I have a 22" DELL TN display with LED lighting - calibrated it is quite o.k. and not too far away from my IPS 27" Apple Cinema Display - so if you're satisfied your your iMac or Cinema display there should be room for an open discussion about these new refined panels.

10 bit is at least a very good reason to re-evaluate and rethink!

--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
if you start to fight with a pig you'll end up mud-wrestling - the only difference is the pig will like it

 

[elliotn]

I couldn't care less about 10bit and wide gamut is over-rated.

The two important things for me are viewing angle and screen uniformity.

For the former, an IPS screen is required. For the latter, a screen made by Eizo or Nec.

The resolution of 4K screens is impressive, but its an evolutionary rather than revolutionary development. 3840 pixels instead of 2560 pixels.

If the monitor screen was the final destination for my photography, I'd buy a 4k screen straight away. But my work is destined for print (editorial/gallery), and for the time being I'm quite content retouching on my 27" Eizo.

 

[noirdesir]

I couldn't care less about 10bit and wide gamut is over-rated.

As is retina or cameras with more than 8 MP or CDs over cassette tapes ...

The two important things for me are viewing angle and screen uniformity.

And I have yet to see an example where wide-gamut lead to a smaller viewing angle or screen uniformity.

 

[Mark VerMurlen]

I think that the reason that Apple hasn't come out with their own new 27" or 28" monitor to replace the 27" Thunderbolt Display is because these screen resolutions are not ideal for the Mac. Apple's "retina" technology really only works with 2X resolution factors. Other scale factors are artificially create in Mac OS X by scaling a larger image down or a smaller image up, which results in fuzzy images.

So the current 3840 x 2160 panels display the UI too small at native resolution and too big at 2X retina resolution (1920 x 1080 equivalent). What Apple really needs is a 5120 x 2880 panel so that at 2X retina resolution, it displays the UI at the equivalent of today's 2560 x 1440 Thunderbolt panels. However, none of those exist yet.

I have a retina MacBook Pro that I use at work all day and to me, retina does make a discernible different in the readability of the text and icons on screen. I also have a new Mac Pro on order (6 Core, 32GB RAM, 512GB SSD, D500s), but I'm going to wait to buy a high res monitor for it. Instead what I've done is buy a used Apple 27" LED Cinema Display off Craigslist. When Apple or NEC or some other good brand brings out a 5120 x 2880 panel, I'll replace it with that.

Mark

 

[elliotn]

I couldn't care less about 10bit and wide gamut is over-rated.

As is retina or cameras with more than 8 MP or CDs over cassette tapes ...

The two important things for me are viewing angle and screen uniformity.

And I have yet to see an example where wide-gamut lead to a smaller viewing angle or screen uniformity.

Sure. I have a wide gamut monitor, because the best quality monitors (Nec, Eizo) happen to be wide gamut. But for my purposes the wide gamut is wasted - my pictures don't contain the highly saturated colours that a wide gamut monitor is capable of displaying. I'd be fine with sRGB gamut.

 

[noirdesir]

I couldn't care less about 10bit and wide gamut is over-rated.

As is retina or cameras with more than 8 MP or CDs over cassette tapes ...

The two important things for me are viewing angle and screen uniformity.

And I have yet to see an example where wide-gamut lead to a smaller viewing angle or screen uniformity.

Sure. I have a wide gamut monitor, because the best quality monitors (Nec, Eizo) happen to be wide gamut. But for my purposes the wide gamut is wasted - my pictures don't contain the highly saturated colours that a wide gamut monitor is capable of displaying. I'd be fine with sRGB gamut.

Because you shoot only jpeg and your camera is set to produce sRGB jepgs? Or are you sure that the spectral sensitivity curves of your camera's Bayer filters (+spectral range of the sensitivity of the actual silicon behind those filters) don't allow for a discrimination of colours outside of the sRGB gamut?

And that assumes that boosting colours in post always leads to results that you find unpalatable (because any images which some good starting colour purity can be made to contain colours approaching the limits of the working colour space by increasing saturation).

Really, softproof your images to sRGB and see whether there zero differences to the un-softproof images, because if there are differences that means that your original image contained colours beyond the sRGB gamut.

There is a difference between saying that a larger gamut is not one of your priorities and saying that you would not, everything else equal, prefer a larger gamut.

 

[noirdesir]

I think that the reason that Apple hasn't come out with their own new 27" or 28" monitor to replace the 27" Thunderbolt Display is because these screen resolutions are not ideal for the Mac. Apple's "retina" technology really only works with 2X resolution factors. Other scale factors are artificially create in Mac OS X by scaling a larger image down or a smaller image up, which results in fuzzy images.

So the current 3840 x 2160 panels display the UI too small at native resolution and too big at 2X retina resolution (1920 x 1080 equivalent). What Apple really needs is a 5120 x 2880 panel so that at 2X retina resolution, it displays the UI at the equivalent of today's 2560 x 1440 Thunderbolt panels. However, none of those exist yet.

I have a retina MacBook Pro that I use at work all day and to me, retina does make a discernible different in the readability of the text and icons on screen. I also have a new Mac Pro on order (6 Core, 32GB RAM, 512GB SSD, D500s), but I'm going to wait to buy a high res monitor for it. Instead what I've done is buy a used Apple 27" LED Cinema Display off Craigslist. When Apple or NEC or some other good brand brings out a 5120 x 2880 panel, I'll replace it with that.

The closest you can get today is a 4K 24" monitor which in HiDPI mode gives the working space of a 1980 x 1080 (which is a bit less than normal 24" monitors, usually 1980 x 1080 is used for 23" monitors).

 

[Andrew]

Your comment about your final destination got me tinkling...would/will galleries have screens on the walls instead of prints? If they did use screens would they use a 4K?

Andrew

I couldn't care less about 10bit and wide gamut is over-rated.

The two important things for me are viewing angle and screen uniformity.

For the former, an IPS screen is required. For the latter, a screen made by Eizo or Nec.

The resolution of 4K screens is impressive, but its an evolutionary rather than revolutionary development. 3840 pixels instead of 2560 pixels.

If the monitor screen was the final destination for my photography, I'd buy a 4k screen straight away. But my work is destined for print (editorial/gallery), and for the time being I'm quite content retouching on my 27" Eizo.

 

[elliotn]

I couldn't care less about 10bit and wide gamut is over-rated.

As is retina or cameras with more than 8 MP or CDs over cassette tapes ...

The two important things for me are viewing angle and screen uniformity.

And I have yet to see an example where wide-gamut lead to a smaller viewing angle or screen uniformity.

Sure. I have a wide gamut monitor, because the best quality monitors (Nec, Eizo) happen to be wide gamut. But for my purposes the wide gamut is wasted - my pictures don't contain the highly saturated colours that a wide gamut monitor is capable of displaying. I'd be fine with sRGB gamut.

Because you shoot only jpeg and your camera is set to produce sRGB jepgs? Or are you sure that the spectral sensitivity curves of your camera's Bayer filters (+spectral range of the sensitivity of the actual silicon behind those filters) don't allow for a discrimination of colours outside of the sRGB gamut?

No. I shoot raw with a D800, and of course it can capture colours outside the sRGB gamut - saturated sunsets, neon fashions, psychedelic candy. My point is that these are not my subjects, and I don't want to see those AdobeRGB colours in my prints. I'm coming from a background in colour negatives and c-type prints. I like that retro colour palette and it is well contained within sRGB.

And that assumes that boosting colours in post always leads to results that you find unpalatable (because any images which some good starting colour purity can be made to contain colours approaching the limits of the working colour space by increasing saturation).

Not sure what you mean. But my vibrance and saturation sliders in ACR/Lightroom are nearly always negative.

Really, softproof your images to sRGB and see whether there zero differences to the un-softproof images, because if there are differences that means that your original image contained colours beyond the sRGB gamut.

There is a difference between saying that a larger gamut is not one of your priorities and saying that you would not, everything else equal, prefer a larger gamut.

Sure. Every now and again I'll photograph something which does have extremely saturated colours (typically interiors or textiles), and my client will want to see those colours in a final print (Epson). On these rare occasions the wide gamut of my monitor is useful.

All I'm saying is that wide gamut is not that important unless you're really into strongly saturated colours. Most images, or at least most of my images, sit comfortably within the sRGB space.

 

[elliotn]

Your comment about your final destination got me tinkling...would/will galleries have screens on the walls instead of prints? If they did use screens would they use a 4K?

I hope so.

But I like big prints and it will be a long time before we see 90" displays (with the pixel density of a 30" 4K display).

 

[Andrew]

I can't even imagine how much a matted 90" print would cost...lol

 

[noirdesir]

I couldn't care less about 10bit and wide gamut is over-rated.

As is retina or cameras with more than 8 MP or CDs over cassette tapes ...

The two important things for me are viewing angle and screen uniformity.

And I have yet to see an example where wide-gamut lead to a smaller viewing angle or screen uniformity.

Sure. I have a wide gamut monitor, because the best quality monitors (Nec, Eizo) happen to be wide gamut. But for my purposes the wide gamut is wasted - my pictures don't contain the highly saturated colours that a wide gamut monitor is capable of displaying. I'd be fine with sRGB gamut.

Because you shoot only jpeg and your camera is set to produce sRGB jepgs? Or are you sure that the spectral sensitivity curves of your camera's Bayer filters (+spectral range of the sensitivity of the actual silicon behind those filters) don't allow for a discrimination of colours outside of the sRGB gamut?

No. I shoot raw with a D800, and of course it can capture colours outside the sRGB gamut - saturated sunsets, neon fashions, psychedelic candy. My point is that these are not my subjects, and I don't want to see those AdobeRGB colours in my prints. I'm coming from a background in colour negatives and c-type prints. I like that retro colour palette and it is well contained within sRGB.

And that assumes that boosting colours in post always leads to results that you find unpalatable (because any images which some good starting colour purity can be made to contain colours approaching the limits of the working colour space by increasing saturation).

Not sure what you mean. But my vibrance and saturation sliders in ACR/Lightroom are nearly always negative.

Really, softproof your images to sRGB and see whether there zero differences to the un-softproof images, because if there are differences that means that your original image contained colours beyond the sRGB gamut.

There is a difference between saying that a larger gamut is not one of your priorities and saying that you would not, everything else equal, prefer a larger gamut.

Sure. Every now and again I'll photograph something which does have extremely saturated colours (typically interiors or textiles), and my client will want to see those colours in a final print (Epson). On these rare occasions the wide gamut of my monitor is useful.

All I'm saying is that wide gamut is not that important unless you're really into strongly saturated colours. Most images, or at least most of my images, sit comfortably within the sRGB space.

Your general requirements are quite special. Somehow they feel like a B&W photographer saying he or she couldn't care less about good colours without mentioning that this is because he or she is almost exclusively shooting B&W.

But I still question the wisdom or utility of limiting yourself to only seeing the sRGB gamut. For once, stylistically it is not much different from the gamut your monitor can display, sRGB won't look muted to most people, you can still have very strong colours and generally colourful images. It's not like limiting yourself to the palette Polaroid could produce, or even what colour film did in the eighties. If some of your images have a few spots with colours beyond sRGB (eg, even a small flower), you won't see that until you print, ie, you don't even know about it most of the time.

But most importantly, you limit all your viewing of not only the images you produce but everything else, ie, everything created by others to sRGB. It's one thing to prefer images with less saturated colours, it's another thing saying that this preference would be a good reason to see other people's work also limited to sRGB. Instead of switching your whole monitor to sRGB, just switch it to sRGB for your own work only. If one wants to limit oneself to the capabilities of a certain output media (for you roughly colour negative or cibachrome colours), using softproofing in raw converters (and in other image editors alternatively switching the working space) would be the most straightforward solution. Whereas now, you essentially software everything, including the work of others to sRGB.

To summarise, it is one thing to prefer more muted colours, to concluding that one only rarely profits from a wide gamut monitor and another thing to almost out of spite then limit the monitor to a narrower gamut. It sounds like because you did not want to pay for a wide gamut in your monitor (since you care little about the saturated colours) but had to as their was no 'narrow gamut' monitor with the other high-end characteristics you wanted for your monitor, you are now making a statement by not using the wide gamut if you can avoid it.

 

[joger]

I can't even imagine how much a matted 90" print would cost...lol

just 90 " of paper and some 0,3 USD per inch in ink (just an assumption - could be even less) Combine it with KappaFix (self adhesive aluminum foam board) and you're done at home. I do that regularly for friends and clients.

60 inches is a normal print size for me.

For me the paper is the big cost factor - good paper is rather expensive - easily exceeding 10 USD / ft at 24 inch wide paper - I really like the Hahnemuehle Baryta FB

 

[joger]

Your general requirements are quite special. Somehow they feel like a B&W photographer saying he or she couldn't care less about good colours without mentioning that this is because he or she is almost exclusively shooting B&W.

But I still question the wisdom or utility of limiting yourself to only seeing the sRGB gamut. For once, stylistically it is not much different from the gamut your monitor can display, sRGB won't look muted to most people, you can still have very strong colours and generally colourful images. It's not like limiting yourself to the palette Polaroid could produce, or even what colour film did in the eighties. If some of your images have a few spots with colours beyond sRGB (eg, even a small flower), you won't see that until you print, ie, you don't even know about it most of the time.

But most importantly, you limit all your viewing of not only the images you produce but everything else, ie, everything created by others to sRGB. It's one thing to prefer images with less saturated colours, it's another thing saying that this preference would be a good reason to see other people's work also limited to sRGB. Instead of switching your whole monitor to sRGB, just switch it to sRGB for your own work only. If one wants to limit oneself to the capabilities of a certain output media (for you roughly colour negative or cibachrome colours), using softproofing in raw converters (and in other image editors alternatively switching the working space) would be the most straightforward solution. Whereas now, you essentially software everything, including the work of others to sRGB.

To summarise, it is one thing to prefer more muted colours, to concluding that one only rarely profits from a wide gamut monitor and another thing to almost out of spite then limit the monitor to a narrower gamut. It sounds like because you did not want to pay for a wide gamut in your monitor (since you care little about the saturated colours) but had to as their was no 'narrow gamut' monitor with the other high-end characteristics you wanted for your monitor, you are now making a statement by not using the wide gamut if you can avoid it.

couldn't agree more!

If you want to limit your output just switch off the things you don't need but you're still in a position to switch things on when you change your mind.

I had a funny conversation with a friend who bought a grayscale printer from one of the companies that modifies normal printers with grey inks to produce only b&w prints. So he had a six ink b&w only printer with tailor made paper profiles and I sent him a b&w image for reference.

We printed both with the utmost possible quality settings on both printers (mine is a Z3200) and compared the results. Even though my printer has 12 inks - it has only 4 inks for b&w but the quality easily exceeded on my color printer his b&w optimized printer in all paper-pritner combinations tested. He had posterization issues with some combinations and out of gamut flattening and many other flaws.

It reminds me that you get what you pay for - would I want a low gamut screen just because I use only a part of my wide gamut screen? Surely not - if I want a desaturated images I just slide in my workflow the color slider to less saturated - the rest of the screen stays fully saturated - also the GUI can be eye candy.

Coming back to the new 4k aka UHD displays - I would not want to exclude any of them before we see some proper testing.

Engadget had a first five on some of them and reported a very even lighting and very nice color reproduction - I guess also TN displays see an evolution in quality - but if you want to se the color uniformity look at the colors how they chance when he tilts and move the display

 

[elliotn]

I couldn't care less about 10bit and wide gamut is over-rated.

As is retina or cameras with more than 8 MP or CDs over cassette tapes ...

The two important things for me are viewing angle and screen uniformity.

And I have yet to see an example where wide-gamut lead to a smaller viewing angle or screen uniformity.

Sure. I have a wide gamut monitor, because the best quality monitors (Nec, Eizo) happen to be wide gamut. But for my purposes the wide gamut is wasted - my pictures don't contain the highly saturated colours that a wide gamut monitor is capable of displaying. I'd be fine with sRGB gamut.

Because you shoot only jpeg and your camera is set to produce sRGB jepgs? Or are you sure that the spectral sensitivity curves of your camera's Bayer filters (+spectral range of the sensitivity of the actual silicon behind those filters) don't allow for a discrimination of colours outside of the sRGB gamut?

No. I shoot raw with a D800, and of course it can capture colours outside the sRGB gamut - saturated sunsets, neon fashions, psychedelic candy. My point is that these are not my subjects, and I don't want to see those AdobeRGB colours in my prints. I'm coming from a background in colour negatives and c-type prints. I like that retro colour palette and it is well contained within sRGB.

And that assumes that boosting colours in post always leads to results that you find unpalatable (because any images which some good starting colour purity can be made to contain colours approaching the limits of the working colour space by increasing saturation).

Not sure what you mean. But my vibrance and saturation sliders in ACR/Lightroom are nearly always negative.

Really, softproof your images to sRGB and see whether there zero differences to the un-softproof images, because if there are differences that means that your original image contained colours beyond the sRGB gamut.

There is a difference between saying that a larger gamut is not one of your priorities and saying that you would not, everything else equal, prefer a larger gamut.

Sure. Every now and again I'll photograph something which does have extremely saturated colours (typically interiors or textiles), and my client will want to see those colours in a final print (Epson). On these rare occasions the wide gamut of my monitor is useful.

All I'm saying is that wide gamut is not that important unless you're really into strongly saturated colours. Most images, or at least most of my images, sit comfortably within the sRGB space.

Your general requirements are quite special. Somehow they feel like a B&W photographer saying he or she couldn't care less about good colours without mentioning that this is because he or she is almost exclusively shooting B&W.

But I still question the wisdom or utility of limiting yourself to only seeing the sRGB gamut. For once, stylistically it is not much different from the gamut your monitor can display, sRGB won't look muted to most people, you can still have very strong colours and generally colourful images. It's not like limiting yourself to the palette Polaroid could produce, or even what colour film did in the eighties. If some of your images have a few spots with colours beyond sRGB (eg, even a small flower), you won't see that until you print, ie, you don't even know about it most of the time.

But most importantly, you limit all your viewing of not only the images you produce but everything else, ie, everything created by others to sRGB. It's one thing to prefer images with less saturated colours, it's another thing saying that this preference would be a good reason to see other people's work also limited to sRGB. Instead of switching your whole monitor to sRGB, just switch it to sRGB for your own work only. If one wants to limit oneself to the capabilities of a certain output media (for you roughly colour negative or cibachrome colours), using softproofing in raw converters (and in other image editors alternatively switching the working space) would be the most straightforward solution. Whereas now, you essentially software everything, including the work of others to sRGB.

To summarise, it is one thing to prefer more muted colours, to concluding that one only rarely profits from a wide gamut monitor and another thing to almost out of spite then limit the monitor to a narrower gamut. It sounds like because you did not want to pay for a wide gamut in your monitor (since you care little about the saturated colours) but had to as their was no 'narrow gamut' monitor with the other high-end characteristics you wanted for your monitor, you are now making a statement by not using the wide gamut if you can avoid it.

You've misunderstood me. There's no spite. I run my Eizo in its default wide gamut mode - I never use its sRGB mode.

All I'm saying is that my work doesn't contain the saturated colours that would benefit from a wide gamut display.

As for other people's work, my workstation is just for my own work. If you mean looking at other people's work online, then my experience using the wide-gamut Eizo is entirely negative - psychedelic colours which are surely not the artist's intention. For web browsing I prefer the narrow gamut of my Macbook Air.

 

[MarshallG]

The TN panels are a bit of a caveat for quality fetishists not offering the utmost image quality like IPS or IGOZ and a rather small color space of sRGB equivalent

I thought everyone agreed that TN panels are unusable for photo retouching?

(I was in the Applestore today (Regent St, London) and they have a very nice Sharp monitor hooked up to their new Mac Pro.)

these are entirely new ones and the first (professional) viewers were stunned - now reason to exclude an all new design before even some reputable guys have reviewed it - we will soon find out more.

At work I have a 22" DELL TN display with LED lighting - calibrated it is quite o.k. and not too far away from my IPS 27" Apple Cinema Display - so if you're satisfied your your iMac or Cinema display there should be room for an open discussion about these new refined panels.

10 bit is at least a very good reason to re-evaluate and rethink!

 

[joger]

The TN panels are a bit of a caveat for quality fetishists not offering the utmost image quality like IPS or IGOZ and a rather small color space of sRGB equivalent

I thought everyone agreed that TN panels are unusable for photo retouching?

(I was in the Applestore today (Regent St, London) and they have a very nice Sharp monitor hooked up to their new Mac Pro.)

these are entirely new ones and the first (professional) viewers were stunned - now reason to exclude an all new design before even some reputable guys have reviewed it - we will soon find out more.

At work I have a 22" DELL TN display with LED lighting - calibrated it is quite o.k. and not too far away from my IPS 27" Apple Cinema Display - so if you're satisfied your your iMac or Cinema display there should be room for an open discussion about these new refined panels.

10 bit is at least a very good reason to re-evaluate and rethink!

--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
if you start to fight with a pig you'll end up mud-wrestling - the only difference is the pig will like it

Yes, but 10-bit WHAT?
10-bit 4K60 4:4:4? And do these displays accept that kind of bandwidth (over 19 Gbs; more than the new HDMI 2 can deliver).

ahm - yes

Loading…

www.answers.com

since none of these displays has been tested we have to guess some aspects - but from the paper values it looks nice



There's been lately a new one too from LG - looks nice too



I guess one of these will be mine soon - the advertised price points are a bargain - so even if I would be disappointed - hey - you can sell it and by the next generation - I can probably sell my used 27" Cinema Display almost at the price point of the new Lenovo Pro2840m - that's a no-brainer (and I don't have to buy a new computer with it) ;-)

--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
if you start to fight with a pig you'll end up mud-wrestling - the only difference is the pig will like it

 

[MarshallG]

I wouldn't assume that the gfx card or display supports 4k60 30-bit RGB unless the documentation sprcifically says so. That's the top limit of baseband video resolution today. In not saying it's impossible, just that if the product doesn't clearly say that it supports it, then then product most likely does not.