is this a good time to get a 4K monitor?

rebel99

Senior Member
Messages
4,025
Solutions
4
Reaction score
677
Location
CA, US
i just ordered an intel 174401 cpu, an azus z87 pro mobo, a samsung evo 500GB ssd, and crucial balistix 16G dram memory sticks. i'll be using this desktop for photo editing only, no games, games bore me ;-) now, i think this is a transitional time for 4K monitors (a horrible time) so i am confused which way to go. i don't like to be the 1st trying sucker for 4K monitors and pay through the nose for it. i am really drawn to nec 272 monitor that will probably match the 4k monitors for a while and then some ;-) what would you guys do? please give me some idea if you care. thanks in advance for your input.

cheerz.
 
think this is a transitional time for 4K monitors (a horrible time) so i am confused which way to go. i don't like to be the 1st trying sucker for 4K monitors and pay through the nose for it.
Sounds like you answered your own question, not wanting to pay through the nose.

A 4k computer screen will show many a web based photo very small because web based photos are often at a 640 x 480 resolution which will not take up much of a percentage of a 4k screen. My advice? Ask again in 5 years.
 
4K (or more specifically UHD) is real, and possible. As you say you aren't into games, you can even drive 4K directly from your Core i7 CPU without a graphics card.

I created this thread with some screen shots of a Dell 2414 UHD monitor run from a Core i7 4770K on a Z87 motherboard with no graphics card.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52771357

The image quality is so much better, I can no longer see the individual pixels! The difference is obvious in pictures, video, and even in text.

Roland.
 
IMHO, no it's not a good time to buy. It's still a new technology, and you'll pay dearly for the "early adopter" price.

Right now the sweet spot in higher res monitors are 27" 2560x1440 variants. B&H had the 27" HP model (forget the exact number) on sale for $450 before Christmas. Wished I had the cash.
 
i just ordered an intel 174401 cpu, an azus z87 pro mobo, a samsung evo 500GB ssd, and crucial balistix 16G dram memory sticks. i'll be using this desktop for photo editing only, no games, games bore me ;-) now, i think this is a transitional time for 4K monitors (a horrible time) so i am confused which way to go. i don't like to be the 1st trying sucker for 4K monitors and pay through the nose for it. i am really drawn to nec 272 monitor that will probably match the 4k monitors for a while and then some ;-) what would you guys do? please give me some idea if you care. thanks in advance for your input.

cheerz.
Ihad been looking at moving the NEC PA272 but man the new 24" UHD Dell.... I think I will give that one a try. UHD is so amazing for photos and it seems like the Dell also has a 14bit 3D LUT. I hope it really does and that there are not all sorts of sneaky little gotchas with the Dell. I think I'll give it a try though in Feb.
 
IMHO, no it's not a good time to buy. It's still a new technology, and you'll pay dearly for the "early adopter" price.

Right now the sweet spot in higher res monitors are 27" 2560x1440 variants. B&H had the 27" HP model (forget the exact number) on sale for $450 before Christmas. Wished I had the cash.

--
My sites:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
Yeah but then you are comparing a low end 27" to a high-end 24" (that HP compared to the 24" UHD Dell which seems like it has a full 14 bit 3D LUT and all) so the price difference isn't quite as extreme as it seems. Compare it to the NEC PA272 which also has 3D LUT and then the prices are similar, so it's 27" vs 24" but UHD.

One might also say that do you want to dump $$$$$ onto an HD screen now that they are just about done with and UHD is here?
 
IMHO, no it's not a good time to buy. It's still a new technology, and you'll pay dearly for the "early adopter" price.

Right now the sweet spot in higher res monitors are 27" 2560x1440 variants. B&H had the 27" HP model (forget the exact number) on sale for $450 before Christmas. Wished I had the cash.
 
New technology is almost always introduced to the market using what is called Skim Marketing. There will always be a small number of early adopters that will pay almost anything for new technology, and line up all night just for the privilege of paying an ultra premium price. So, that is the general approach. Ultra high price and skim off as many buyers as you can at that price, lower it a bit, skim off some more, and so on. The true price really only emerges once demand drops right off and/or another technology is released to the market.

I would suggest the 4K monitor is at about the second level of skim, and probably only because they are not selling. 3D TV's have been a bust, and I'm not so sure that 4K may not go the same way. There is such a thing as going overboard with technology. On the HiFi audio side CD's blew away the market for quality and started at a high price, but now you can buy a basic player for $20. On a technical basis they were replaced by SACD players which offered Super Audio CD quality. They never really sold, and have almost become extinct. Instead we now have downloaded MP3 like files which should be called Super Low Quality CD's, and the kids gobble it up.

Could be wrong, but I suspect 4K will not take off, and will go the way of 3D and SACD. At some point that may mean low prices, or it could just mean no product.
 
It's this model, and still on sale. Damn...now wish I really had the cash :)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...d_XW476A8_ABA_ZR2740W_27inch_LED_Backlit.html
Why mess around with piddly displays like that.

How about this new 110 inch 4k display from Samsung? Only $150,000:



4baecb7d-1d44-4362-8c90-02398aa403f1-big.jpg


A little more info here:

 
New technology is almost always introduced to the market using what is called Skim Marketing. There will always be a small number of early adopters that will pay almost anything for new technology, and line up all night just for the privilege of paying an ultra premium price. So, that is the general approach. Ultra high price and skim off as many buyers as you can at that price, lower it a bit, skim off some more, and so on. The true price really only emerges once demand drops right off and/or another technology is released to the market.

I would suggest the 4K monitor is at about the second level of skim, and probably only because they are not selling. 3D TV's have been a bust, and I'm not so sure that 4K may not go the same way. There is such a thing as going overboard with technology. On the HiFi audio side CD's blew away the market for quality and started at a high price, but now you can buy a basic player for $20. On a technical basis they were replaced by SACD players which offered Super Audio CD quality. They never really sold, and have almost become extinct. Instead we now have downloaded MP3 like files which should be called Super Low Quality CD's, and the kids gobble it up.

Could be wrong, but I suspect 4K will not take off, and will go the way of 3D and SACD. At some point that may mean low prices, or it could just mean no product.
Ron,

I agree with everything you said. My wife and I bought ourselves a little Christmas present:

SONY KDL-55W900A

The picture is incredible, the 2D is practically 3D and the 3D is off the charts. The comparable SONY 4K 55" set would have cost almost twice as much and I'm not sure how much difference I would have noticed. So, yes, 4K may be state-of-the-art, but until it becomes affordable, its market is relatively small.

I saw a report on TV the other night about a new technology being developed where the picture is projected onto a plane of micro water droplets, literally a floating, invisible screen. The drops are so small they probably evaporate before falling onto a surface. Amazing!

Regards,

Stan
 
I would suggest the 4K monitor is at about the second level of skim, and probably only because they are not selling. 3D TV's have been a bust, and I'm not so sure that 4K may not go the same way. There is such a thing as going overboard with technology. On the HiFi audio side CD's blew away the market for quality and started at a high price, but now you can buy a basic player for $20. On a technical basis they were replaced by SACD players which offered Super Audio CD quality. They never really sold, and have almost become extinct. Instead we now have downloaded MP3 like files which should be called Super Low Quality CD's, and the kids gobble it up.

Could be wrong, but I suspect 4K will not take off, and will go the way of 3D and SACD. At some point that may mean low prices, or it could just mean no product.

I imagine 4K will take off and be the norm in 5 years. 3D went bust because it was a gimmick and nobody liked wearing the goofy glasses. 4K offers a quality difference easily seen over HD by anyone who looks at it, and when prices get down to mass market levels then nobody will think twice.

SACD died because nobody listens to CDs anymore. A great technology at the wrong time.
 
SACD died because nobody listens to CDs anymore. A great technology at the wrong time.
The question is why? SACD has extremely high quality like the 4K monitor. Nobody wanted it and now listen to low quality compressed digital audio. They didn't hear or care about the difference.
 
4K offers a quality difference easily seen over HD by anyone who looks at it...
That statement is wide open to debate in a world where more and more content is viewed on portable devices and even most "large" displays are in the range of 40-50" and viewed from 8 feet or more.
 
think this is a transitional time for 4K monitors (a horrible time) so i am confused which way to go. i don't like to be the 1st trying sucker for 4K monitors and pay through the nose for it.
Sounds like you answered your own question, not wanting to pay through the nose.

My advice? Ask again in 5 years.
My prediction is that ultra hd monitors will be the standard w/in 2 years. It might be many more years before most people have switched, but it seems to me that pixel pitches in the 200's will be the norm for new monitors very soon.

I am not really interested as I think that my 27" Dells 108ppi look just fine.
 
IMHO, no it's not a good time to buy. It's still a new technology, and you'll pay dearly for the "early adopter" price.

Right now the sweet spot in higher res monitors are 27" 2560x1440 variants. B&H had the 27" HP model (forget the exact number) on sale for $450 before Christmas. Wished I had the cash.

--
My sites:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
Yeah but then you are comparing a low end 27" to a high-end 24" (that HP compared to the 24" UHD Dell which seems like it has a full 14 bit 3D LUT and all) so the price difference isn't quite as extreme as it seems. Compare it to the NEC PA272 which also has 3D LUT and then the prices are similar, so it's 27" vs 24" but UHD.

One might also say that do you want to dump $$$$$ onto an HD screen now that they are just about done with and UHD is here?
It's this model, and still on sale. Damn...now wish I really had the cash :)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...d_XW476A8_ABA_ZR2740W_27inch_LED_Backlit.html

It's hardly a "low end" display. Maybe not the best money can buy but more than capable of serving pro image editing duty.

--
My sites:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
It doesn't have any sort of internal LUT, never mind a 14bit 13D as far as I can tell. And I don't think it has a screen uniformity compensator. I'm not even sure it allows for sRGB emulation for non-color managed programs. So I don't think it's fair to compare to the Dell UHD 24" which might be more fairly compared to NEC PA (although the Dell might not be quite that high end).
 
New technology is almost always introduced to the market using what is called Skim Marketing. There will always be a small number of early adopters that will pay almost anything for new technology, and line up all night just for the privilege of paying an ultra premium price. So, that is the general approach. Ultra high price and skim off as many buyers as you can at that price, lower it a bit, skim off some more, and so on. The true price really only emerges once demand drops right off and/or another technology is released to the market.

I would suggest the 4K monitor is at about the second level of skim, and probably only because they are not selling. 3D TV's have been a bust, and I'm not so sure that 4K may not go the same way. There is such a thing as going overboard with technology. On the HiFi audio side CD's blew away the market for quality and started at a high price, but now you can buy a basic player for $20. On a technical basis they were replaced by SACD players which offered Super Audio CD quality. They never really sold, and have almost become extinct. Instead we now have downloaded MP3 like files which should be called Super Low Quality CD's, and the kids gobble it up.

Could be wrong, but I suspect 4K will not take off, and will go the way of 3D and SACD. At some point that may mean low prices, or it could just mean no product.
Really? It won't take off just like high PPI screens 'haven't' taken off in the phone and tablet world?

We will see, but I think you will be proven radically wrong.

What is so magically about the current res? Did you say the same thing when 640x400 was hi-res mode? When 1024x768 was? All of these including 1920x1080 are way below what the eye can see and what people are used to from looking at books and magazines and printouts.

Yeah early adopters do pay more, but the 4k premium seems to be a lot less crazy high than say the first 50" 1080p LCD went for where you had the price drop by a factor of nearing 10 in like two years. If that happened this new Dell would sell for like $200 in 2 years and I don't see anything close to happening, not if it really does have the 14bit 3D LUT and uniformity compensator and all (that I suspect it does, but still can't get a clear answer on).
 
I would suggest the 4K monitor is at about the second level of skim, and probably only because they are not selling. 3D TV's have been a bust, and I'm not so sure that 4K may not go the same way. There is such a thing as going overboard with technology. On the HiFi audio side CD's blew away the market for quality and started at a high price, but now you can buy a basic player for $20. On a technical basis they were replaced by SACD players which offered Super Audio CD quality. They never really sold, and have almost become extinct. Instead we now have downloaded MP3 like files which should be called Super Low Quality CD's, and the kids gobble it up.

Could be wrong, but I suspect 4K will not take off, and will go the way of 3D and SACD. At some point that may mean low prices, or it could just mean no product.
I imagine 4K will take off and be the norm in 5 years. 3D went bust because it was a gimmick and nobody liked wearing the goofy glasses. 4K offers a quality difference easily seen over HD by anyone who looks at it, and when prices get down to mass market levels then nobody will think twice.

SACD died because nobody listens to CDs anymore. A great technology at the wrong time.

--
My sites:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
I think 3D failed no because of the glasses, which are pretty small and light, but because home 3D isn't nearly as good as in the theater, much more ghosting and eye-strain. I love 3D at our local IMAX but at home, on my Samsung LCD, it's often a struggle, it's sort of cool, but the ghosting can be nasty at times and it seems to cause strain in the way 3D at the theater does not. Once they get other tech going (and 4k displays could help, they could deliver passive, theater-like 1920x1080p 3D I believe) it might come back a bit. Although I think 2D delivery of TV content will certainly remain quite popular.
 
SACD died because nobody listens to CDs anymore. A great technology at the wrong time.
The question is why? SACD has extremely high quality like the 4K monitor. Nobody wanted it and now listen to low quality compressed digital audio. They didn't hear or care about the difference.
That is true and I do fear a bit about video. Netflix, netflix, all the masses do is download that crap and waste the entire bandwidth of the internet doing so and make broadband prices nasty, all to get crappy audio and video. And then they complain that HDTV looks barely better than SD. Yeah, well stop with the nasty streamed garbage and try some blu-rays. But Block Buster just stopped renting discs since everyone does nasty Netflix. (Netflix also stinks since they remove titles all the time, you view whatever version of a movie they feel like giving you, if a studio deal goes into a mess maybe some content disappears for years, no chance for extras or commentaries, etc. etc.) And yet Netflix has taken over.

That said, I still think 4k for HDTVs will eventually take over and become standard, eventually.

For photo displaying these high res monitors and HDTVs make an instant difference for everyone. I think 4k will become standard pretty fast for monitors among photographers and eventually for everyone if maybe at a just slightly slower rate than it has for tablets and phones.
 
4K offers a quality difference easily seen over HD by anyone who looks at it...
That statement is wide open to debate in a world where more and more content is viewed on portable devices and even most "large" displays are in the range of 40-50" and viewed from 8 feet or more.
For anyone who actually wants a good visual experience (doesn't insist on viewing all video on the screen of a phone or sit way far back and have the HDTV make up like a postage stamp portion of your FOV) it sure as heck will offer a quality difference easily seen though.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top