Dell 4K Displays

[Paris Remillard]

Hey, I just saw this posted on another forum. Thought I'd share it over here.

http://www.gearlog.com/2007/05/dell_shows_off_superslim_displ.php

Up to 4K, only half an inch thick, and available later this year. Not too shabby.

[Emanuel A.]

Nice info.

BTW, check your PM box please.

EDIT -- Thanks for your PM. Much appreciated.

[Hrvoje Simic]

Now that looks like a next-gen display.

[Tom Lowe]

Where does it say 4K?

[Adrian T.]

Where does it say 4K?

It says "up to 4x the current HDTV resolutions". Whatever that means... :unsure:

[Robert P. Hogue]

Hey, I just saw this posted on another forum. Thought I'd share it over here.

http://www.gearlog.com/2007/05/dell_shows_off_superslim_displ.php

Up to 4K, only half an inch thick, and available later this year. Not too shabby.
If Dell is coming out with a 4k capable monitor, Apple is probably going to do so very soon, but details are probably heavily embargoed.

[PaulClements]

That looks sweet, though I don't think (As Tom indicates) it'll be 4k. They say four times HDTV, so...

If it's 4 x 720p then that'd be 3686400 pixels, about a third of 4k 16:9 (9434880 pixels)

If it's 4 x 1080p then that'd be 8294400 so just shy of that elusive 4k mark: 3840x2160

I think my maths is correct, feel free to check over it and put me in my place if I'm wrong.

[Tom Lowe]

hmmm... so 1080 x 4 is roughly 4K? i thought it was like 6 x times more or something like that for 4K, but i won't attempt the math.

[maximose]

I'm not real knowledgeable in this area, but it seems 4k in your face would be over kill. Wouldn't you need a larger surface area to really notice the fine detail?

[Chris Kenny]

I'm not real knowledgeable in this area, but it seems 4k in your face would be over kill. Wouldn't you need a larger surface area to really notice the fine detail?

It all comes down to how much of your field of view the image fills, which is, of course, determined both by how big the screen is and how far away you are.

As a general rule you need to sit within about two screen heights to see the resolution of 4K. With a 30" 16:9 screen, that means about two feet. That's not an unreasonably close distance for a computer screen.

[Tom Lowe]

so if this is for real -- a dell 4k monitor -- this is some of the best news i have heard lately!!

[Paris Remillard]

Yeah, yeah, I know....4k-ish.

Actually, I was guessing that it'd be 3840x2160. So, no not really full 4k. But closer than anything else out there so far. You people are such sticklers : )

[J. Bernard Vallon]

I think using a 4k moniter in an editing suite would be awesome and here is why:

Instead of sitting at a desk looking at a screen(s), you would need to sit back from it to see the whole damn thing...like 10 ft back. To see detail, youd stand up and walk forward. It would be kinetic, like painting a mural. Youd do most of your color correction on your feet like in Minority Report, but without those cool gloves...(jim, please invent cool gloves).

[Poi Boy]

I'm all for the cool gloves !
Aloha
-A

[Paris Remillard]

>color correction on your feet like in Minority Report, but without those cool gloves<

I think this has been posted somewhere on this site before and it's going a bit off topic, but this is some cool sh**. I'd love to be able to edit and CC like this. At 4k rez or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89sz8ExZndc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysEVYwa-vHM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcKqyn-gUbY

[IAN SUN]

I think the reference to 4K relates to the capacity of "Display Port" that DELL is reportedly pushing as a new standard, not necessarily the monitor.
Would be sweet if they were to bring out a 4K monitor at DELL prices (like my 24" 1920*1200 Ultrasharp) but somehow I doubt it.
I don't think they will beat RED to market with 4K displays.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

No guarantees that the Dell display in this picture has any higher resolution than current displays. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's using one of the new Samsung LED backlit panels that were shown at CES. They're super-thin and would allow for displays not much more than 1/2" in thickness to be constructed from them. Samsung demonstrated two QWUXGA panels (4x 1920x1200 = 3840x2400) thus far and they also had a 46" panel with 4096x2560 shown last fall -- but it was much thicker. I'd bet money that the display in that picture was a 24" 1920x1200 unit.

The 4K displays are coming and not just from RED. I'd say late this year or early next year is going to be real interesting. ChiMei is providing 4K panels to Westinghouse for a 50" display and LG has a few 4K entries of their own.

[Jason Murphy]

I think the reference to 4K relates to the capacity of "Display Port" that DELL is reportedly pushing as a new standard, not necessarily the monitor.
Would be sweet if they were to bring out a 4K monitor at DELL prices (like my 24" 1920*1200 Ultrasharp) but somehow I doubt it.
I don't think they will beat RED to market with 4K displays.

I think you're right there, Bro Anansi. It's a very poorly worded article; not at all clear whether or not the 4x HD spec refers to the monitor or the new Display Port, but I'm inclined to agree that it's the port spec. Not nearly so cool to have the port max out a little below 4K. But I do believe this is what they're talking about.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The Display Port spec isn't final yet, but lat time I looked, it was essentially a quad-channel DVI at a faster rate + digital audio + USB2 all in one cable. That's like HDMI on steroids. So a single DisplayPort interface could run full 4K if that's the case -- and theoretically do it at up to 60Hz, higher resolutions or up to 120Hz could be done with two cables...

The competing interface - UDC, whichis being pushed by Apple and some others, looks promising too, but it's not quite as far along.

[Ken Corben]

I'd guess that a 4K 30" display next to a 1080 30" display (side by side comparison) will not do much for the viewer/editor especially given the different price points.

4K projected on a big screen is where one will see the difference...

[Tom Lowe]

You know, this really puts me in a bind, because now I am going to be tempted to shoot and edit and master at 4K, since people will have 4K monitors/TVs in the near future. The problem is, I want to shoot a lot of overcranked scenes, and right now I can only do that 1080p RGB on the RED. :(

[Stephen Gentle]

I love that glass look, although the speakers aren't so hot... I'd love a RED monitor that looked like that...

[vanguy]

I'm not real knowledgeable in this area, but it seems 4k in your face would be over kill. Wouldn't you need a larger surface area to really notice the fine detail?

I did the math on this once. The average limit of human acuity is 1 arcminute.
[massive calculations]
This works out to a viewing angle of about 61 degrees for 4K, so you'd have to sit closer than the width of the screen to your monitor.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

This works out to a viewing angle of about 61 degrees for 4K, so you'd have to sit closer than the width of the screen to your monitor.

Er... Whatever. I can sit 4ft from my 100dpi 30" displays and still see the pixels. Yes, I do have good eyes, but 4K in a desktop display size would serve a few good uses.

First of all, 4K in a 30" display size would be roughtly 160 ppi or not even double the density that us 30" display users are already used to. That would be a welcome thing to get this pixel size down.

Interfaces with resolution independence are on the way, 4K makes perfect sense for such a thing. The uses for 4K for vector images, CADD, etc.. are numerous, but just imagine the super-smooth, crisp lines and details a 4K image could provide in a desktop size.

More resolution is a good thing. Or at least until we need magnifying glasses to see the pixels. And for people with near 20/20 vision or better, we're not near that point yet.

OTOH, 4K on a desktop is still different than 4K as a large projection. It's going to be difficult to do certain operations on RED footage (like color grading) without projecting the image to a large screen... If that is the intended way to view the final project, that is. Colors look different when projected on a large space than they do up close on a small screen. Suddenly that snappy red tie some guy is wearing becomes a terrible distraction when it's on a 15ft screen when it was kinda neat on the 42" HDTV monitor. OK, not the best example.

Anyway, I can see desktop displays easily reaching 4K or a bit more in the next couple years as a real standard, not just something special from RED and a few select vendors, but a real standard for content creation and desktop publishing work.

[Simon Blackledge]

Working on SD on a 30" ACD is hard enough thanks!!...lol

so small!!!

[david farland]

I've got a Nvidia 7800 GTX driving 2 x 24" Dells (1920x 1200 x 60Hz).
It has internal memory of 256MB and memory I/O of 54GB/sec.

I see the latest Nvidia 8800 Ultra has internal memory of 768 MB and memory I/O of 103 GB/sec.

I reckon 2 of these should be able to drive a 4K screen with similiar lcd specs (or better latitude) than my old 24" dells.

For every degree of vision your eyes can resolve 60 dots (pixels-not accutance). I think I worked a while back about if I had a 52" 4K screen, then I'd need to be about 5ft minimum back from it. Man I'd love two of these. One for all those timeline /effects/effects edit windows and one for the monitor. and multicam display on a 4K x 52" display. How cool's that!
You'll need remote adj./on/off buttons for the 4K monitor because it'll be 2 metres from you.

Cheers,

[RayFrisby]

Any ideas what type of card you'd need to run a 4 K monitor, I suppose my X1900XT wouldn't be able to run it. I was just wondering if a 4K display could be hooked up to say a blackmagic decklink pro PCI-E card for monitoring.

[Shane Betts]

I'm not real knowledgeable in this area, but it seems 4k in your face would be over kill. Wouldn't you need a larger surface area to really notice the fine detail?

Actually the most important thing for accurate post (not talking colour grading) is to be able to view an unscaled image, with each pixel on the monitor displaying the corresponding pixel of the image. That way, anything the camera can resolve, the monitor does too. A one pixel by one pixel problem stands out like... well, you know:-)

As soon as you have to scale you lose that fidelity and you're seeing an artificial representation of the image, constructed by the monitor's electronics.

Lack of 4k displays is the achilles heel of 4k aquisition in terms of post but, as Peter Jackson has said, if you want it to look like 35mm, use 2k (monitoring solutions already available) and add grain.

Hopefully this I/O standard Dell are touting is already in the hands of Apple, Blackmagic Design and AJA so they'll have cards ready as soon as the displays arrive.

[Jeremy Hughes]

Where's Apple's answer?

[Poi Boy]

Apple is overdue for upgrades, I'm sure it won't be long.
Aloha
-A

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

More resolution is a good thing. Or at least until we need magnifying glasses to see the pixels. And for people with near 20/20 vision or better, we're not near that point yet.

Yeah reminds me of those Christie Digital Projectors they use for some presentations and for Regal Cinemas' "The Twenty" stuff before movies. Talk about freakin' terrible. I can't stand that. The resolution is so bad I can see all of the pixels. I also have 20/12 vision (after Lasik surgery), one eye is 20/10, the other 20/15, so at points my vision is almost twice as good as someone with what they think of as "perfect vision" or whatever you would call 20/20. It's funny to me because before, I would have killed to see 20/20, now I think that is pretty bad actually. I mean if I could only see 20/20 I'd feel like I had bad vision. I guess it's all relative. I'd rather have 20/5, which is from what I understand the theoretical limit of human vision if properly corrected, though I think people have only gotten to 20/8 so far, I could be wrong.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Yeah, those 480P LCD projectors that Regal uses are terrible. At least I'm thinking they're 480P... The pixel pitch on them is inexcusably bad... It's worse than looking through a screen door.

I've got really good eyes too... I'm not sure where my vision would score right now, but I did test at about 20/12 at my last eye exam -- a couple years ago. I know my vision isn't as good as it was 10 years ago and it drives me insane at times. But then people are still amazed at me when I read a computer screens and news print from across a room. I'm probably still about 20/15. I've never had any correction to my eyes, they've always been good... My wife had lasik a couple years ago and she sees as well as I do now, maybe better. Amazing stuff... Makes me wonder why so many people still choose to struggle daily with less than perfect vision or fumbling with glasses or contacts, many times they only need minor correction too.