Dell 24" 4k monitor

[SHood]

Information has started to leak on this monitor. Pricing will likely be close to $2k. What is interesting is that the pixel density will be 183 pixels/inch. This is approaching the resolving capability of our eye sight. The pixel peepers will be disappointed.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7556/dell-leaks-details-of-a-24-uhd-4k-3840x2160-monitor-the-up2414q

--
My Flickr Birds

 

[Ron AKA]

I don't find current monitor resolution to be an issue. You can easily increase the size of the image on your monitor until you run out of resolution in the image. Much easier than trying to look at your screen with a magnifying glass to see the detail.

 

[CSMR]

Current 1920*1200 24" monitors have very low ppi, with obvious pixellation. I would not recommend 24" monitors for this reason. Image editing can be OK but text display is terrible even with cleartype.

It's great then that they are bumping this up, but 4k is going too far, with extra cost and processing power needed.

1440p would be a good resolution for this screen size.

 

[Mark H]

Current 1920*1200 24" monitors have very low ppi, with obvious pixellation. I would not recommend 24" monitors for this reason. Image editing can be OK but text display is terrible even with cleartype.

It's not really all 'that' bad...

Remember 15" 800x600 monitors, they were just 67 PPI.

Remember 17" 1024x768 monitors, they were just 75 PPI.

Remember 19" 1280x1024 monitors, they were just 86 PPI.

So a 24" 1920x1200 display have 94 PPI is significantly higher/better than any of the above.

It's great then that they are bumping this up, but 4k is going too far, with extra cost and processing power needed.

1440p would be a good resolution for this screen size.

A 24" 3840x2160, at 185 PPI - that's certainly quite a dramatic improvement - the increase in pixel density/area (i.e. Pixels per Square Inch, 'PPI^2'), which is a much more 'meaningful' metric, is almost 4x higher compared to the 24" 1920x1200 resolution.

24" 1920x1200 = 8,900 'PPI^2'

24" 3840x2160 = 33,700 'PPI^2'

I think its all a great, and inevitable, move in the right direction - but the price for any early adopters is (as always) exorbitant.

 

[SHood]

Less than I thought it might be. Dell will also be coming out with a non-professional 28" 4k monitor for less than $1k (likely $999 ). My guess is that the 28" will be an 8-bit screen.

http://dcse.dell.com/us/en/gen/peripherals/dell-up2414q/pd.aspx?refid=dell-up2414q&s=gen

http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/02/dell-ultrasharp-4k-monitors/

--
My Flickr Birds

 

[Ron AKA]

My 1920x1200 24" display does just fine on both text and images. I see no reason for anything different. High PPI displays are for cell phones.

 

[raminolta]

Less than I thought it might be. Dell will also be coming out with a non-professional 28" 4k monitor for less than $1k (likely $999 ). My guess is that the 28" will be an 8-bit screen.

http://dcse.dell.com/us/en/gen/peripherals/dell-up2414q/pd.aspx?refid=dell-up2414q&s=gen

http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/02/dell-ultrasharp-4k-monitors/

I am much more interested in the 32" UHD (4k). Unfortunately, the $3500 price tag is too steep for me. $1400 is reasonable and I was willing to pay that much for the 32" version but the 24" version does not interest me. I guess the 32" is inevitably more expensive because it because there is less demand for it; lower production level increases manufacturing costs. On the other, many people would have been interested if the price wasn't so high hence, giving up on it and going for the smaller less expensive option. It reminds me of the famous egg and chicken.
24" monitors have probably become the most popular monitor size nowadays since they are largest yet most affordable ones (optimal size/price ratio) with prices ranging from $200 to $400 for some of the special purpose ones (10bit wide gamut). 30" monitors are still expensive beyond what typical consumer wants to pay ($1000-$1500). While technology-wise and material-wise the price difference shouldn't be that high.

 

[rebel99]

Less than I thought it might be. Dell will also be coming out with a non-professional 28" 4k monitor for less than $1k (likely $999 ). My guess is that the 28" will be an 8-bit screen.

http://dcse.dell.com/us/en/gen/peripherals/dell-up2414q/pd.aspx?refid=dell-up2414q&s=gen

http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/02/dell-ultrasharp-4k-monitors/

I am much more interested in the 32" UHD (4k). Unfortunately, the $3500 price tag is too steep for me. $1400 is reasonable and I was willing to pay that much for the 32" version but the 24" version does not interest me. I guess the 32" is inevitably more expensive because it because there is less demand for it; lower production level increases manufacturing costs. On the other, many people would have been interested if the price wasn't so high hence, giving up on it and going for the smaller less expensive option. It reminds me of the famous egg and chicken.
24" monitors have probably become the most popular monitor size nowadays since they are largest yet most affordable ones (optimal size/price ratio) with prices ranging from $200 to $400 for some of the special purpose ones (10bit wide gamut). 30" monitors are still expensive beyond what typical consumer wants to pay ($1000-$1500). While technology-wise and material-wise the price difference shouldn't be that high.

i am in the process of building a good desktop pc and the monitor is probably the most component of my system because i am a photographer and post processing and printing my ultimate goal. i was seriously considering getting the NEC 27", the one that includes calibration software and hardware that goes for about US $1500.00. now i can see in this discussion that much better monitors are rolling out to the market and i was hoping if you or anyone else has a better suggestion which monitor to get?

cheerz.

 

[glasswave]

i am in the process of building a good desktop pc and the monitor is probably the most component of my system because i am a photographer and post processing and printing my ultimate goal. i was seriously considering getting the NEC 27", the one that includes calibration software and hardware that goes for about US $1500.00. now i can see in this discussion that much better monitors are rolling out to the market and i was hoping if you or anyone else has a better suggestion which monitor to get?

cheerz.

I am very happy with my u2713h's (one landscape, one portrait) w/14bit hw lut and hw calibration. I don't think they are better than the NEC, but at $750 each w/the calibrator for $240, it was certainly cheaper.

 

[Mark H]

My 1920x1200 24" display does just fine on both text and images. I see no reason for anything different. High PPI displays are for cell phones.

Nah - and decent tablets; and laptops; and now, gradually, TVs and desktop monitors too.

I'm currently using a 2560x1600 30" monitor which equates to a fairly average 100 PPI display resolution (actually 101.6 PPI, to be precise) - and I can still see some pixelation/jaggies on fonts/diagonals etc (even where using 'ClearType'), and the resolution limitations when viewing full screen digital photos.

Whilst it's certainly far from being 'essential' - it would still be very 'desirable' to further reduce/eliminate such resolution limitations.

If, as and when, equivalent sized 32" 4K displays eventually get down to more reasonable prices (I won't be holding my breath) then I will almost certainly be 'wanting' one

 

[technic]

i am in the process of building a good desktop pc and the monitor is probably the most component of my system because i am a photographer and post processing and printing my ultimate goal. i was seriously considering getting the NEC 27", the one that includes calibration software and hardware that goes for about US $1500.00. now i can see in this discussion that much better monitors are rolling out to the market and i was hoping if you or anyone else has a better suggestion which monitor to get?

If you are not in a hurry to buy, just wait until the Dell is available. If it doesn't have obvious flaws (e.g. screen uniformity, buzzing, surface glare etc.) it is VERY attractive at $1400 IMHO, compared to the high end 24-27 inch IPS monitors that are close to that price.

I have been looking for a good photography monitor for some time now and it's tough. The market has been stagnant for years, almost zero improvement over the last five years or so and only a gradual decline in prices for the lower end stuff ($300-500 price range). The NEC PA series are really good and I was also close to pulling the trigger on one of those, but when Dell offers much higher resolution with good factory calibration for just a bit more money, why would one still buy the NEC?

For me the 24" is plenty big, and I know many users who don't want 27 or 30 inch monitors because you need more workspace (and sit further from the monitor for optimal viewing). Even if my current PC system doesn't support 4K resolutions I would still go for such a new standard (use lower resolution initially, and change the PC if necessary). Keep in mind that Windows has problems with using such high resolutions, not everything will work well with it - but some of the most important photography applications will work fine.

Something similar is happening for TV screens. Televisions with 40-50 inch 4K display are now available for way below $ 1000, while the big names were asking $ 6000-8000 less than a year ago for their first 4K displays. Competition is good

 

[CSMR]

rebel99 wrote: i am in the process of building a good desktop pc and the monitor is probably the most component of my system because i am a photographer and post processing and printing my ultimate goal. i was seriously considering getting the NEC 27", the one that includes calibration software and hardware that goes for about US $1500.00. now i can see in this discussion that much better monitors are rolling out to the market and i was hoping if you or anyone else has a better suggestion which monitor to get?

27" monitors currently have good resolution, 1440p. Not only are they larger than 24" monitors but they have a higher ppi than current 24" screens (108.8ppi vs 94ppi for 24" 1920*1200).

Sure the resolution will be improved in future, but probably not for years: it is already good and we can be happy with it, unlike 24" monitors.

 

[technic]

rebel99 wrote: i am in the process of building a good desktop pc and the monitor is probably the most component of my system because i am a photographer and post processing and printing my ultimate goal. i was seriously considering getting the NEC 27", the one that includes calibration software and hardware that goes for about US $1500.00. now i can see in this discussion that much better monitors are rolling out to the market and i was hoping if you or anyone else has a better suggestion which monitor to get?

27" monitors currently have good resolution, 1440p. Not only are they larger than 24" monitors but they have a higher ppi than current 24" screens (108.8ppi vs 94ppi for 24" 1920*1200).

Sure the resolution will be improved in future, but probably not for years: it is already good and we can be happy with it, unlike 24" monitors.

sounds like you just purchased and 'old tech' 27" display and are suffering from denial ...

why is 3 extra inches more important than a huge increase in ppi?

 

[CSMR]

rebel99 wrote: i am in the process of building a good desktop pc and the monitor is probably the most component of my system because i am a photographer and post processing and printing my ultimate goal. i was seriously considering getting the NEC 27", the one that includes calibration software and hardware that goes for about US $1500.00. now i can see in this discussion that much better monitors are rolling out to the market and i was hoping if you or anyone else has a better suggestion which monitor to get?

27" monitors currently have good resolution, 1440p. Not only are they larger than 24" monitors but they have a higher ppi than current 24" screens (108.8ppi vs 94ppi for 24" 1920*1200).

Sure the resolution will be improved in future, but probably not for years: it is already good and we can be happy with it, unlike 24" monitors.

sounds like you just purchased and 'old tech' 27" display and are suffering from denial ...

why is 3 extra inches more important than a huge increase in ppi?

A huge increase in ppi is not important: there are diminishing returns. Definitely the current 24" resolution is inadequate, but 4k is overkill as I have said, and comes with costs. You probably need a discrete graphics card to power this monitor.

The difference between 24" and 27" is significant, a 26% increase in real estate. Once resolution is sufficiently great that pixellation is not a problem, the only important aspects are size and quality (color, uniformity, etc.).

On 27" 1440p, pixellation is not a problem in my experience. I find most PC monitors too low in ppi but 27" 1440p is very acceptable. Increasing the res beyond this would only be a minor visual improvement.

 

[glasswave]

My 1920x1200 24" display does just fine on both text and images. I see no reason for anything different. High PPI displays are for cell phones.

Nah - and decent tablets; and laptops; and now, gradually, TVs and desktop monitors too.

I'm currently using a 2560x1600 30" monitor which equates to a fairly average 100 PPI display resolution (actually 101.6 PPI, to be precise) - and I can still see some pixelation/jaggies on fonts/diagonals etc (even where using 'ClearType'), and the resolution limitations when viewing full screen digital photos.

Whilst it's certainly far from being 'essential' - it would still be very 'desirable' to further reduce/eliminate such resolution limitations.

Yes, it'd be nice to forgo anti aliasing and have razor thin line display capability on our monitors, but we need the OS and apps to support it properly.

I am running a 27" (16:9) at about 108 ppi, it took some getting used to after my 24" (16:10) at 96, because all my interface type and icons/menus/tools shrank significantly. I don't think I'd like to go much smaller. In fact, on my 15.6" 1080p laptop, 141ppi is too dense for comfortable use and I usually have it set to 1600x900 (117.68).

Adjusting clear type text size is no real substitute for tiny type and icons/menus/tools. We need to OS to support ultra high densities with scalable interface sizes and graphics apps that allow us to control aliasing. Gaming sw add additional complications. It seems like the HW is ready, but the SW is not just yet.

 

[glasswave]

rebel99 wrote: i am in the process of building a good desktop pc and the monitor is probably the most component of my system because i am a photographer and post processing and printing my ultimate goal. i was seriously considering getting the NEC 27", the one that includes calibration software and hardware that goes for about US $1500.00. now i can see in this discussion that much better monitors are rolling out to the market and i was hoping if you or anyone else has a better suggestion which monitor to get?

27" monitors currently have good resolution, 1440p. Not only are they larger than 24" monitors but they have a higher ppi than current 24" screens (108.8ppi vs 94ppi for 24" 1920*1200).

Sure the resolution will be improved in future, but probably not for years: it is already good and we can be happy with it, unlike 24" monitors.

sounds like you just purchased and 'old tech' 27" display and are suffering from denial ...

why is 3 extra inches more important than a huge increase in ppi?

Aspect ratio is an important consideration as well. Going from a 16:10, 24" screens to a 27" 16:9 was quite an adjustment for me. More so, in fact, due to aspect ratio than pixel density. I adapted to the 10% pixel density increase quite quickly, but am still dissatisfied w/the 16:9 aspect for general graphics use. While the extra 240 vertical pixels was nice, 3:2 landscape images simply do not fit as well (photoshop), nor do tabloid or two page layouts (illustrator). While timeline based app like video (Premiere) or audio editors are suited quite well to 16:10, it's to wide vs tall for 3d graphics apps like Maya and Max.

These problems are especially exacerbated on my portrait monitor, were seldom do I work with images or layout that can take advantage of my portrait monitor and display top to bottom.

Ideally, I think the old 4:3 aspect was a great ratio for general computer use and if I could get modern 32" IPS panels in 4:3, I'd be in heaven.

 

[technic]

The difference between 24" and 27" is significant, a 26% increase in real estate. Once resolution is sufficiently great that pixellation is not a problem, the only important aspects are size and quality (color, uniformity, etc.).

On 27" 1440p, pixellation is not a problem in my experience. I find most PC monitors too low in ppi but 27" 1440p is very acceptable. Increasing the res beyond this would only be a minor visual improvement.

I easily see pixels on 27" screens (just like on 24") and would prefer NOT to see pixels. The move to 4K is just as big IMHO as the move to 'Retina' type screens on current tablets.

Agree that color, uniformity etc. CAN be more important (if these properties are flawed). But I assume the 24" Dell will perform pretty well there, given the factory calibration and price level. Will be interesting to see how the 4K Dell compares to a NEC PA242W ;-)

 

[CAcreeks]

Agreed we need OS and app support...
but unless you switch to Mac OS X, you aren't going to get that in the near future.

Best solution is probably to run Windows on one smaller monitor, and reserve the big one exclusively for editing.

Jesper the Swede says Linux is behind Mac OS X with regard to supporting very high resolution, but it seems that everything I use can go large. Maybe this is a function of GTK+ toolkit. Possibly Jesper is using KDE with Qt.

 

[Ron AKA]

Agreed we need OS and app support...
but unless you switch to Mac OS X, you aren't going to get that in the near future.

Actually the Mac can't even support 10 bit color. It would be regressive to move to a Mac from Windows 7 or 8.

 

[glasswave]

Agreed we need OS and app support...
but unless you switch to Mac OS X, you aren't going to get that in the near future.

Actually the Mac can't even support 10 bit color. It would be regressive to move to a Mac from Windows 7 or 8.

Not really, the word is not yet out on the advantages of 10bit color editing. While Windows systems have a clear price advantage over Macs, the Apple platform is just as good for photo editing as is Windows.