Guru3D.com Forums

Go Back   Guru3D.com Forums > General Chat > Frontpage news
Frontpage news Perhaps you have some news to report or want to check out the latest Guru3D headlines and comment ? Check it in here.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Samsung releases 28-Inch 4K Monitor UD590
Old
  (#1)
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
 
Hilbert Hagedoorn's Avatar
 
Videocard: AMD | NVIDIA
Processor: Core i7 4770K
Mainboard: Z77
Memory: 8GB
Soundcard: X-Fi - GigaWorks 7.1
PSU: 1200 Watt
Default Samsung releases 28-Inch 4K Monitor UD590 - 03-31-2014, 21:02 | posts: 21,538 | Location: Guru3D testlab

Samsung has released an Ultra HD monitor today, the UD590. The product features Samsung's UHD 4K display technology. The monitor's stunning screen offers the ultimate viewing experience for photo en...

Samsung releases 28-Inch 4K Monitor UD590
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#2)
maize1951
Member Guru
 
maize1951's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA 660 Ti 3GB
Processor: Intel i5-3570 3.4 GHZ
Mainboard: ASUS Sabertooth Z77
Memory: Corsair DDR3 8GB
Soundcard: Creative FATAL1TY recon
PSU: CORSAIR 750 watt modular
Default 03-31-2014, 22:43 | posts: 79 | Location: Belmont, Michigan

$700.00 for an 28 inch 4K monitor shows that the prices for 4k monitors is getting more reasonable.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3)
signex
Ancient Guru
 
signex's Avatar
 
Videocard: AMD R7950 1100/1300
Processor: i7 860@3,7GHz /w HT on
Mainboard: MSI P55-GD65
Memory: 4x2GB Corsair 1400Mhz
Soundcard: Onboard
PSU: Nexus RX-8500 850W
Default 03-31-2014, 22:51 | posts: 5,252 | Location: Netherlands

Yea man, can't wait for that!

I could have afforded one a month ago damn, but then i would have had a crappy PC now tho haha.

And it wouldn't run 4K good at all...
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
Wanny
Ancient Guru
 
Wanny's Avatar
 
Videocard: GTX670 FTW
Processor: i7 3770k 4.5GHz H100i
Mainboard: GA-Z77X-UD5H
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X 1866mhz
Soundcard: Xonar DX w/ Z-5500
PSU: XFX PRO750W XXX
Default 03-31-2014, 22:57 | posts: 7,439 | Location: Canada, Quebec

Don't forget you need titan Z.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#5)
Loobyluggs
Maha Guru
 
Loobyluggs's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA 670 FTW
Processor: Intel 3770k
Mainboard: Asus P8z77-v pro
Memory: DDR3 16GB Corsair
Soundcard: Creative Labs Recon 3D
PSU: Corsair
Default 03-31-2014, 23:11 | posts: 1,303 | Location: UK

I'm gonna say this for the people in the cheap seats: that's not 4K, that's quad HD.

It's more like 4xHD, because last time I checked 3840 lines does not equal 4 thousand.

This: link is 4K. You can tell, because the resolution is 4096 2160

nice monitor though...
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
thatguy91
Ancient Guru
 
Videocard: HIS R9-280x Iceq X2 Turbo
Processor: i5-3570K
Mainboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme6
Memory: DDR3-2400 2x8GB
Soundcard: ALC898 + Microlab FC-730
PSU: Enermax Platimax 750W
Default 03-31-2014, 23:20 | posts: 4,156 | Location: Australia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loobyluggs View Post
I'm gonna say this for the people in the cheap seats: that's not 4K, that's quad HD.

It's more like 4xHD, because last time I checked 3840 lines does not equal 4 thousand.

This: link is 4K. You can tell, because the resolution is 4096 2160

nice monitor though...
Actually 3840x2160 is 4K! It retains the 16:9 aspect ratio, 4096x2160 does not. The term '4K' doesn't explicitly imply 4096x2160, it's just an imprecise marketing term.

For HD (1920x1080), you don't really go around saying 2K do you? Yet, if you look at just the term 2K and 4K, it would suggest to people that didn't know any better that 3840x2160 is only twice as high of a resolute as 1920x1080, where in fact it is four times the resolution.
   
Reply With Quote
4k
Old
  (#7)
fry178
Member Guru
 
fry178's Avatar
 
Videocard: GTX750ti/2GB
Processor: i7-3770K
Mainboard: Asus ROG Maximus V Gene
Memory: DDR3-2133/2x4GB
Soundcard: Xonar DSX/Logitech 2.1Thx
PSU: Seasonic Platinum 750w
Default 4k - 03-31-2014, 23:29 | posts: 87 | Location: Maryland

Yes it is a called 4k screen. Just because its not running the cinemascope aspect ratio used in theaters, doesn't change that.
One of the reasons why sony calls there tvs 4k UltraHD, to separate them from the 4k resolution in theaters.

Doubt it is a native/one panel screen, they still go for around 2500-3000$.

And what is samsung doing 4k wise, besides making panels.
They dont shoot 4k nor have they any other background with it, but claiming to be the leader?!
Like apple trying to sell me a car. Not gonna happen...
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
yasamoka
Ancient Guru
 
Videocard: 7970CF @ 1100/1375 H2O
Processor: 5820K @ 4.3GHz 1.25V H2O
Mainboard: MSI X99S SLi Plus
Memory: 2x4GB Crucial DDR4-2133
Soundcard: Audio-GD NFB-11.32 +DT880
PSU: CM Silent Pro Hybrid 1300
Default 03-31-2014, 23:29 | posts: 3,356 | Location: Lebanon

For those who are going "awww yiss" now, remember that this is a 28" TN panel.

Want 4K urgently and can put up with TN at huge sizes? Sure.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
Loobyluggs
Maha Guru
 
Loobyluggs's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA 670 FTW
Processor: Intel 3770k
Mainboard: Asus P8z77-v pro
Memory: DDR3 16GB Corsair
Soundcard: Creative Labs Recon 3D
PSU: Corsair
Default 03-31-2014, 23:30 | posts: 1,303 | Location: UK

Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguy91 View Post
Actually 3840x2160 is 4K! It retains the 16:9 aspect ratio, 4096x2160 does not. The term '4K' doesn't explicitly imply 4096x2160, it's just an imprecise marketing term.

For HD (1920x1080), you don't really go around saying 2K do you? Yet, if you look at just the term 2K and 4K, it would suggest to people that didn't know any better that 3840x2160 is only twice as high of a resolute as 1920x1080, where in fact it is four times the resolution.
Um, aspect ratios have nothing to do with resolution.

It's either:

2160P, Quad HD, Ultra HD - take your pick tv manufacturers, but don't come at me with 4K or I'll spend every day in your shops telling your staff they are wrong, or play dumb and say it doesn't make sense. Repeatably. Over and over again. Whilst shaking my head...and using a calculator and showing it to your staff. Maybe I'll roll my eyes and mumble/mutter under my breath.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
deusex
Master Guru
 
deusex's Avatar
 
Videocard: GeForce GTX 690
Processor: Core i7 3960X
Mainboard: MSI Big Bang X-Power II
Memory: 32 GB RAM DDR3
Soundcard: Sound Blaster XFi Gamer
PSU: PC P&C silencer MK3 1200
Default 03-31-2014, 23:34 | posts: 225 | Location: NYC

Very tempting..... will see what reviews will say.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#11)
zimzoid
Maha Guru
 
zimzoid's Avatar
 
Videocard: ASUSdc2 780Sli-Asus Swift
Processor: i7 4930K/Corsair H110
Mainboard: Asus Rampage IV Black Ed
Memory: GSkillRipjawsZ4x4 2133mhz
Soundcard: SB Zx Denon Klipsch 5.1
PSU: CM V1200w Platinum
Default 03-31-2014, 23:43 | posts: 931 | Location: New Zealand

No dvi input, 1ms is nice but it's only a TN hence the cheapish price. Waiting for Asus to release that 1440p display @ 144hz that should do me fine
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#12)
signex
Ancient Guru
 
signex's Avatar
 
Videocard: AMD R7950 1100/1300
Processor: i7 860@3,7GHz /w HT on
Mainboard: MSI P55-GD65
Memory: 4x2GB Corsair 1400Mhz
Soundcard: Onboard
PSU: Nexus RX-8500 850W
Default 03-31-2014, 23:45 | posts: 5,252 | Location: Netherlands

Aren't these panels using some kind of IPS panel?

It's a weird name, i can't remember, i've heard the Asus has it and has 1ms response time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yasamoka View Post
For those who are going "awww yiss" now, remember that this is a 28" TN panel.

Want 4K urgently and can put up with TN at huge sizes? Sure.
If it does use TN, it won't look good with that size.

Last edited by signex; 04-01-2014 at 00:04.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
darkshadow5k5
Master Guru
 
Videocard: Sapphire R9-290 TRI-X
Processor: i5 4670k @ 3.8ghz
Mainboard: MSI z87-g43
Memory: 8gb ddr3 1600 pc12800
Soundcard: Creative audigy2zs, z5500
PSU: OCZ Fatality 750w
Default 03-31-2014, 23:53 | posts: 195 | Location: amsterdam

Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguy91 View Post
Actually 3840x2160 is 4K! It retains the 16:9 aspect ratio, 4096x2160 does not. The term '4K' doesn't explicitly imply 4096x2160, it's just an imprecise marketing term.

For HD (1920x1080), you don't really go around saying 2K do you? Yet, if you look at just the term 2K and 4K, it would suggest to people that didn't know any better that 3840x2160 is only twice as high of a resolute as 1920x1080, where in fact it is four times the resolution.
You couldn't be more wrong, 4K originated from cinema and film, UHD is for consumers.
Aspect ratios have nothing to do with it, in fact cinema always had a different aspect ratio than consumer appliances: 16:9 (1.78:1) vs 2.35:1.

4k content is 4096x not 3840x.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremetech
Almost every TV or monitor that you see advertised as 4K is actually UHD. There are some panels out there that are 40962160 (aspect ratio 1.9:1), but the vast majority are 38402160 (1.78:1). If you displayed 4K content on one of these 4K displays you would get letterboxing (black bars) down the left and right side of the screen.
Here, educate yourself a bit.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14)
Denial
Ancient Guru
 
Denial's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 980
Processor: i7-3770K
Mainboard: ASUS Maximus 5 Formula
Memory: 16GB Corsair DDR3 2133
Soundcard: ZxR & HD800 Lyr/PC350SE
PSU: Seasonic 1000w
Default 03-31-2014, 23:58 | posts: 7,243 | Location: Above Earth in a Big Rocket Ship

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkshadow5k5 View Post
You couldn't be more wrong, 4K originated from cinema and film, UHD is for consumers.
Aspect ratios have nothing to do with it, in fact cinema always had a different aspect ratio than consumer appliances: 16:9 (1.78:1) vs 2.35:1.

4k content is 4096x not 3840x.


Here, educate yourself a bit.
Why did you tell him to educate himself when he posted exactly what was in the article?
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#15)
thatguy91
Ancient Guru
 
Videocard: HIS R9-280x Iceq X2 Turbo
Processor: i5-3570K
Mainboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme6
Memory: DDR3-2400 2x8GB
Soundcard: ALC898 + Microlab FC-730
PSU: Enermax Platimax 750W
Default 04-01-2014, 00:06 | posts: 4,156 | Location: Australia

Geez take a chill pill people! . I did say imprecise marketing term, and that is exactly what it is. In monitor sense, 4K is 3840x2160, it retains 16:9. The 4K comes from 3840 being close to 4000. It's not unlike the imprecise marketing of drives. In no reference to 4K in reference to monitors have I seen it as anything else than 3840x2160.

Yes, I do know it's not proper 4K in the cinema sense, but who cares? It's not as if the extra 256 horizontal pixels will make a drastic difference to picture quality. Even though 2160p is more precise, people see it as twice the resolution, not 4x. By saying 4K, from a marketing perspective it sounds more impressive. Yes it's not correct, but so many marketing things aren't precise.

Last edited by thatguy91; 04-01-2014 at 00:15.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#16)
Loobyluggs
Maha Guru
 
Loobyluggs's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA 670 FTW
Processor: Intel 3770k
Mainboard: Asus P8z77-v pro
Memory: DDR3 16GB Corsair
Soundcard: Creative Labs Recon 3D
PSU: Corsair
Default 04-01-2014, 00:25 | posts: 1,303 | Location: UK

Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguy91 View Post
In monitor sense, 4K is 3840x2160, it retains 16:9.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I must be missing something you are not saying about aspect ratios and resolution.

1920x1080 is a television resolution that migrated to computer screens because it's cheaper to bulk purchase that resolution from the panel manufacturers of LCD tech. The actual computer/monitor resolution is 1920x1200...so what we got here is history repeating itself with the first monitors using the panel tech available for televisions.

And...if you divide 16 by 9, you get the actual aspect ratio; 1.78:1
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#17)
Rich_Guy
Ancient Guru
 
Rich_Guy's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSi Gaming 290X 1080/1250
Processor: i7 920 D0
Mainboard: Biostar Tpower x58
Memory: 6GB Corsair DDR3
Soundcard: Xonar DX - Logi. X-530s
PSU: Corsair AX860w
Default 04-01-2014, 00:29 | posts: 9,430 | Location: UK

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...php?t=18590039
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#18)
zimzoid
Maha Guru
 
zimzoid's Avatar
 
Videocard: ASUSdc2 780Sli-Asus Swift
Processor: i7 4930K/Corsair H110
Mainboard: Asus Rampage IV Black Ed
Memory: GSkillRipjawsZ4x4 2133mhz
Soundcard: SB Zx Denon Klipsch 5.1
PSU: CM V1200w Platinum
Default 04-01-2014, 00:39 | posts: 931 | Location: New Zealand

Quote:
Originally Posted by signex View Post
Aren't these panels using some kind of IPS panel?

It's a weird name, i can't remember, i've heard the Asus has it and has 1ms response time.



If it does use TN, it won't look good with that size.
Its a TN here you go> http://www.samsung.com/levant/consum...D590DS/ZN-spec
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#19)
signex
Ancient Guru
 
signex's Avatar
 
Videocard: AMD R7950 1100/1300
Processor: i7 860@3,7GHz /w HT on
Mainboard: MSI P55-GD65
Memory: 4x2GB Corsair 1400Mhz
Soundcard: Onboard
PSU: Nexus RX-8500 850W
Default 04-01-2014, 00:41 | posts: 5,252 | Location: Netherlands

Quote:
Originally Posted by zimzoid View Post
Ah thanks, well then it's not worth the money imo.

Colors/blacks will look pretty bad with that kind of size.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#20)
Anarion
Ancient Guru
 
Anarion's Avatar
 
Videocard: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970
Processor: Intel Core i7 3770K
Mainboard: ASUS P8Z77-V
Memory: G.SKILL RipjawsX 16 GB
Soundcard: Sound Blaster Zx + HD 595
PSU: Corsair AX760
Default 04-01-2014, 01:59 | posts: 11,084 | Location: Finland

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loobyluggs View Post
Don't take this the wrong way, but I must be missing something you are not saying about aspect ratios and resolution.

1920x1080 is a television resolution that migrated to computer screens because it's cheaper to bulk purchase that resolution from the panel manufacturers of LCD tech. The actual computer/monitor resolution is 1920x1200...so what we got here is history repeating itself with the first monitors using the panel tech available for televisions.

And...if you divide 16 by 9, you get the actual aspect ratio; 1.78:1
16:10 is rather dead physical aspect ratio (I also got rather annoyed since some games even forced black bars). It was quite common when first 1920x1xx0 monitors popped up but these days they are rather uncommon. I am quite sure that we will barely see those screens any more. As far as I can see, history is not repeating itself. It is more like the opposite. On PC resolution equals aspect ratio mainly because screen that does not do pixel perfect output would be rather useless in many situations. For TV's it does not matter much.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#21)
darkshadow5k5
Master Guru
 
Videocard: Sapphire R9-290 TRI-X
Processor: i5 4670k @ 3.8ghz
Mainboard: MSI z87-g43
Memory: 8gb ddr3 1600 pc12800
Soundcard: Creative audigy2zs, z5500
PSU: OCZ Fatality 750w
Default 04-01-2014, 02:06 | posts: 195 | Location: amsterdam

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denial View Post
Why did you tell him to educate himself when he posted exactly what was in the article?
Why? Maybe because of:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguy91 View Post
Actually 3840x2160 is 4K! It retains the 16:9 aspect ratio
So UHD is 4k now because it retains the 16:9 aspect ratio?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguy91 View Post
It retains the 16:9 aspect ratio, 4096x2160 does not.
Oh no wait, It's not that UHD is 4K, it's that actual 4K isn't because it's not 16:9.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguy91 View Post
The term '4K' doesn't explicitly imply 4096x2160, it's just an imprecise marketing term.
Actually 4K does explicitly imply a resolution of 4096x, just because some hip marketing bureau says otherwise doesn't mean they are right; yes it is an imprecise marketing term, which is exactly why it explicitly implies something else because as quoted earlier, actual 4K content will not fill a UHD display.
You'd need something like an LG 31MU95....now isn't it curious they have to advertise it as real 4K?

I guess we are going to see 4K and real 4K as different standards now, so asinine.

Last edited by darkshadow5k5; 04-01-2014 at 02:10.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#22)
ElementalDragon
Ancient Guru
 
ElementalDragon's Avatar
 
Videocard: eVGA GeForce GTX 760 ACX
Processor: Core i5 4670K
Mainboard: Asus Z87I-Deluxe
Memory: 16GB G.Skill RipJawsX
Soundcard: on-board
PSU: Seasonic 650W
Default 04-01-2014, 02:21 | posts: 8,744 | Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loobyluggs View Post
Don't take this the wrong way, but I must be missing something you are not saying about aspect ratios and resolution.

1920x1080 is a television resolution that migrated to computer screens because it's cheaper to bulk purchase that resolution from the panel manufacturers of LCD tech. The actual computer/monitor resolution is 1920x1200...so what we got here is history repeating itself with the first monitors using the panel tech available for televisions.

And...if you divide 16 by 9, you get the actual aspect ratio; 1.78:1
..... i'm sorry, but to say that they switched to 1920x1080 from 1920x1200 because it's "cheaper to bulk purchase" makes me even more skeptical of every comment you've made here.

To start with, saying that aspect ratio has nothing to do with resolution is kind of odd.... 1920x1200 = 16:10 (1.6:1).... 1920x1080 = 16:9 (1.78:1). Aspect ratio technically has EVERYTHING to do with the resolution.

With that being said, the main reason there aren't very many, if any, TRUE 4K TV's, is because ultra-wide TV's aren't really the biggest sellers. How many of those... what were they.... LG CinemaWide displays do you think they probably sold? Probably not too many, since the whole idea of those didn't seem to last long.

Anyway... back to my original point. HDTV's were expensive as hell when they first came out, and to get a 1080p TV was even more drastically expensive. Take for instance the 50" Samsung plasma TV my parents have in the living room. Was purchased quite a few years ago.... think it cost like $3,000-5,000.... only 720p. Now you can get like 80" LED-baclit LCD's for that much.

On top of that.... the reason it's ridiculous to say that PC monitors made the transition because it was cheaper to purchase in bulk is because, quite simply, there was absolutely NO market for a SMALL 1080p TV for quite some time. Even now, they're not all that sought after. Take, for example, every flatscreen TV on Bestbuy.com.....

75 TV's total that are 27" or smaller..... 33 of those are 1080p.
86 TV's 28"-32" in size.... 23 of which are 1080p

The numbers only start to tip heavily in 1080p's favor once you get above 32".

30 TV's 33"-39".... 28 are 1080p.
51 TV's 40"-45".... 45 are 1080p.
63 TV's 46"-49".... all are 1080p.

So how exactly is it cheaper for manufacturers to buy sub-30" panels... even by today's standards for consumer demand.... if significantly less than half of the TV's in that segment are even using 1080p panels?

On top of this... monitor still probably won't be worth the money, because it will still probably be just like every other budget "4K" monitor. Supports the resolution, but only at 30hz.

Darkshadow: Yea... they reveal a 31" true 4K monitor... and still have no details on pricing or availability. Any bets that it probably never sees a store/e-tailer shelf?

Last edited by ElementalDragon; 04-01-2014 at 02:26.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#23)
Fox2232
Maha Guru
 
Videocard: Acc7970 XL2420T @120Hz
Processor: i5-2500k@4.5GHz NH-D14
Mainboard: MSI Z68A-GD80[g3]
Memory: 4x4GB 1600MHz 9,9,9,24
Soundcard: Essence ST / AKG K-701
PSU: FSP Gold series 750W
Default 04-01-2014, 07:10 | posts: 1,609 | Location: EU, CZ, Brno

lenovo one this month should be 700$ too. Has a lot of features, quite different to this one.
But this PiP looks interesting a bit. If it took 2x 1080p via DP and 2x 1080p via 2x HDMI then you could set up 4 screen eyefinity group and send in 120Hz via each cable if electronics and screen was capable to deliver.

Color question, just because it's TN does not mean it's that bad, color is not bad thing about TN. Bad thing is viewing angle which change color representation as you move around.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#24)
Lane
Ancient Guru
 
Videocard: 2x HD7970 - EK Waterblock
Processor: I7 4930K H2o EK Supremacy
Mainboard: Asus X79 Deluxe
Memory: G-Skill C9 2133mhz 16GB
Soundcard: X-FI Titanium HD + SP2500
PSU: CM 1000W
Default 04-01-2014, 07:31 | posts: 5,661 | Location: Switzerland

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElementalDragon View Post
.
On top of this... monitor still probably won't be worth the money, because it will still probably be just like every other budget "4K" monitor. Supports the resolution, but only at 30hz.

?
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/17...r-for-just-700

Its 38202160 @ 60Hz it seems ( DP needed anyway )... But well there's different question about the 10bits, outside PLS and IPS, not so much TN who support the 10bit. ( let alone, i think Nvidia gpu's still dont support it natively ).

Last edited by Lane; 04-01-2014 at 07:48.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#25)
Loobyluggs
Maha Guru
 
Loobyluggs's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA 670 FTW
Processor: Intel 3770k
Mainboard: Asus P8z77-v pro
Memory: DDR3 16GB Corsair
Soundcard: Creative Labs Recon 3D
PSU: Corsair
Default 04-01-2014, 10:24 | posts: 1,303 | Location: UK

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElementalDragon View Post
..... i'm sorry, but to say that they switched to 1920x1080 from 1920x1200 because it's "cheaper to bulk purchase" makes me even more skeptical of every comment you've made here.
The reduction in resolution (even by a small amount) resulted in a reduction at the manufacturing level by the panel manufacturers, not the monitor producers. Their production lines were configured more for 1080p than the larger 1200p because the demand for 1080p was higher than the demand for 1200p. We can start pointing fingers as to the why, but my money is on the broadcast standards people and entertainment content providers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElementalDragon View Post
To start with, saying that aspect ratio has nothing to do with resolution is kind of odd.... 1920x1200 = 16:10 (1.6:1).... 1920x1080 = 16:9 (1.78:1). Aspect ratio technically has EVERYTHING to do with the resolution.
My comment is in reference to a comment that poster made - I still do not know what 4K has to do with 16:9 in reference to their reference

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElementalDragon View Post
With that being said, the main reason there aren't very many, if any, TRUE 4K TV's, is because ultra-wide TV's aren't really the biggest sellers. How many of those... what were they.... LG CinemaWide displays do you think they probably sold? Probably not too many, since the whole idea of those didn't seem to last long.
Genuine 4096 lines would not require the aspect ratio to be 2.35:1, and LG has announced a 105 Inch 4K tv - although I suspect that it's really for Hotels, exhibitions, departure lounges etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElementalDragon View Post
Anyway... back to my original point. HDTV's were expensive as hell when they first came out, and to get a 1080p TV was even more drastically expensive. Take for instance the 50" Samsung plasma TV my parents have in the living room. Was purchased quite a few years ago.... think it cost like $3,000-5,000.... only 720p. Now you can get like 80" LED-baclit LCD's for that much.
This is LCD tech, not Plasma, although I kinda get your point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElementalDragon View Post
On top of that.... the reason it's ridiculous to say that PC monitors made the transition because it was cheaper to purchase in bulk is because, quite simply, there was absolutely NO market for a SMALL 1080p TV for quite some time. Even now, they're not all that sought after. Take, for example, every flatscreen TV on Bestbuy.com.....

75 TV's total that are 27" or smaller..... 33 of those are 1080p.
86 TV's 28"-32" in size.... 23 of which are 1080p

The numbers only start to tip heavily in 1080p's favor once you get above 32".

30 TV's 33"-39".... 28 are 1080p.
51 TV's 40"-45".... 45 are 1080p.
63 TV's 46"-49".... all are 1080p.

So how exactly is it cheaper for manufacturers to buy sub-30" panels... even by today's standards for consumer demand.... if significantly less than half of the TV's in that segment are even using 1080p panels?
As mentioned, it's about the panel production lines and a lower cost of manufacture due to the reduction in pixels required to make the tech.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElementalDragon View Post
On top of this... monitor still probably won't be worth the money, because it will still probably be just like every other budget "4K" monitor. Supports the resolution, but only at 30hz.

Darkshadow: Yea... they reveal a 31" true 4K monitor... and still have no details on pricing or availability. Any bets that it probably never sees a store/e-tailer shelf?
HDMI 2.0 is either available as a firmware upgrade or simply a new cable - then you got 60Hz.

btw to all: Dell call their monitor range Ultra HD Press Link
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright (c) 1995-2014, All Rights Reserved. The Guru of 3D, the Hardware Guru, and 3D Guru are trademarks owned by Hilbert Hagedoorn.