4K Apple Displays

[goMac]

4K wouldn't be aimed at normal users. If you're a video professional mastering 4K content you'd want to see every pixel, regardless of viewing distance and blah blah blah.

It's also interesting for retina displays, but there would be some questions about pixel visibility there.

 

[venom600]

4k isn't even really out yet, I'm not sure how you can criticize distribution.

He can criticize distribution because there is no feasible way to move 4K video around currently, and there wont be for the foreseeable future. Even H.265 will still use massive amounts of data. The most logical medium would be an upgraded BluRay Disc (like the BDXL format), because with the average internet speed in the US being below 5mbps and bandwidth caps in place, streaming over the internet won't work either.

I think it will take a while before broadcasters get on board with 4K I agree. 1080p broadcasts are already heavily compressed, and pretty mediocre quality as it is. I have no hope for them to broadcast in 4k anytime soon. But I do think motion picture studios will begin to release films in 4K first. It will be slow going for a while, but I think it will pick up and be more available. I'd estimate 2 more years before it's even worth it to get a 4K system. But that's just a guess.

First, there are no 1080p broadcasts at all. It is part of the ATSC standard, but no one in the US broadcasts in it. In fact, many broadcasters (ABC, ESPN, Fox, etc) don't even use 1080i.... they broadcast everything in 720p.

Second, 4k broadcasts would take more than just "broadcasters getting on board." It would require new, vastly superior compression technology and as a result, would be incompatible with every current television in use. The public at large would revolt.

 

[goMac]

He can criticize distribution because there is no feasible way to move 4K video around currently, and there wont be for the foreseeable future. Even H.265 will still use massive amounts of data. The most logical medium would be an upgraded BluRay Disc (like the BDXL format), because with the average internet speed in the US being below 5mbps and bandwidth caps in place, streaming over the internet won't work either.

I'm not sure it's even been established there is consumer demand for 4k. Distribution is a non issue if no one is buying it.

 

[portishead]

He can criticize distribution because there is no feasible way to move 4K video around currently, and there wont be for the foreseeable future. Even H.265 will still use massive amounts of data.

Do some research - h.265 uses around half the bandwidth of h.264 and is the compression is also better.
Source: http://www.extremetech.com/computin...eration-video-codec-live-up-to-expectations/2

The most logical medium would be an upgraded BluRay Disc (like the BDXL format), because with the average internet speed in the US being below 5mbps and bandwidth caps in place, streaming over the internet won't work either.

4k isn't ready yet, so average bandwidth is a useless benchmark for future technology. It's ridiculous to think someone with a 5mbit connection is going to have a solid 4k streaming experience.

First, there are no 1080p broadcasts at all. It is part of the ATSC standard, but no one in the US broadcasts in it. In fact, many broadcasters (ABC, ESPN, Fox, etc) don't even use 1080i.... they broadcast everything in 720p.

Yeah I threw the p in there on accident. DVCPro 720p is what most of the source material is for 720 broadcasts.

Second, 4k broadcasts would take more than just "broadcasters getting on board." It would require new, vastly superior compression technology and as a result, would be incompatible with every current television in use. The public at large would revolt.

"broadcasters getting on board" pretty much sums that up. I don't see it happening for a long time. Revolt is a pretty ignorant term to use here. They could have a 4k feed for a separate broadcast, and down convert to 1080i or 720p or something for atsc. There's a lot of things they can do. I'm sure there's people in a room discussing this now. But as I said, it's a little premature and we're a few years away.

----------

After having used 27" monitors (first an 27" iMac, then a 27" TBD) for close to three years, I'm now back using a 20" (Alu) ACD. My main reason was that 27", at my viewing distance (2 ft, as dictated by my table) gave me excruciating neck pains.

Love the anecdotals. If only all display manufacturers took your advice and only made 20" monitors. Seriously though, get a new table, they aren't that expensive.

 

[mcarling]

I've seen an ASUS PQ321Q 31.5" 3840x2160 monitor connected to a 2012 Mac Pro and it looked great! Text was beautifully sharp, screen real estate was obviously expansive, and the responsiveness was good enough to play the recent Star Trek film.

 

[deconstruct60]

One thing I'd like to add:
....My main reason was that 27", at my viewing distance (2 ft, as dictated by my table) gave me excruciating neck pains.

That may have been from up/down placement (relative to eye level) as oppose to any left/right shifting the screen was adding to your scans.

Too high is tough to compensate for with an Apple monitor. Too low has some workarounds.

In short, I even though you might get a 4K display for as low as 400 €/$ by 2016, it will be a highly mixed blessing.

Not really mixed. A 21.5" 4K (i.e., 3840x2160 ) would "solve" the problem of a non-portable sized screen at shorter desktop distances. Not sure the pixel density will be at $300-400 levels by 2016, but shouldn't be too much of a problem. [ 21.5" monitors now are in the $150-200 range so so 4K + a quality backlight solution at $400 prices should work in next couple of years. ]

 

[theSeb]

Here is a nice article/review. If it does not convince you why you want a 4k monitor, then nothing will.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7157/asus-pq321q-ultrahd-4k-monitor-review

 

[tamvly]

I used to be a fan of Apple monitors. I have a 30" ACD for my 5,1 MP that I have had for quite a while. It's fine. But an NEC PA271 opened my eyes (play on words definitely intended). I think it is a better monitor - it has multiple inputs and renders colors much more accurately.

Even if Apple has a 4K monitor I am likely to look elsewhere.

 

[brand]

I used to be a fan of Apple monitors. I have a 30" ACD for my 5,1 MP that I have had for quite a while. It's fine. But an NEC PA271 opened my eyes (play on words definitely intended).

Definitely not a play on words.

 

[namethisfile]

i don't get the hooplaa with 4k, either. for consumers a 50" 4k tv will look the same. a 4k computer monitor is also meh. and 4k gaming needs triple or quadriple gpus in order for the game to run smoothly. and then there is microstutter to consider.

i think the only people that care about 4k are content creators, such as filmmaker or whathaveyou.

also, digital theaters care about 4k because projecting a film that big needs the most resolution that they can get. so a film shot in 4k will look crisp in a theater.

an apple 4k lcd monitor?

i would rather have an lcd monitor that is like a crt. trillions of colors, 360 viewing angles, multiple refresh rates, supports multiple resolutions via hardware. so, yeah, this hypothetical lcd screen can support 4k, 2k, 1k, 0k. ok? get it? play on numbers?

 

[tamvly]

Well said.

 

[theSeb]

i don't get the hooplaa with 4k, either. for consumers a 50" 4k tv will look the same. a 4k computer monitor is also meh.

It's ok if you want to believe that, but it's simply not true. I find some people's attitude to new technology to be comical.

 

[carlgo]

More rez is better. Always has been.

4K monitors will clatter out of production equipment at a high rate, very profitable for all.

 

[Umbongo]

i don't get the hooplaa with 4k, either. for consumers a 50" 4k tv will look the same. a 4k computer monitor is also meh. and 4k gaming needs triple or quadriple gpus in order for the game to run smoothly. and then there is microstutter to consider.

i think the only people that care about 4k are content creators, such as filmmaker or whathaveyou.

also, digital theaters care about 4k because projecting a film that big needs the most resolution that they can get. so a film shot in 4k will look crisp in a theater.

an apple 4k lcd monitor?

i would rather have an lcd monitor that is like a crt. trillions of colors, 360 viewing angles, multiple refresh rates, supports multiple resolutions via hardware. so, yeah, this hypothetical lcd screen can support 4k, 2k, 1k, 0k. ok? get it? play on numbers?

Having used 2560x1600 flanked with two 1600x1200 rotated vertically and also 3x2560x1440; together with spending some time using the Eizo FDH3601 and new Sharp PN-K321 both of which are 4K displays I can see the future is 4K for those who utilize a large workspace for productivity. Which is likely the majority of users on this sub-forum.

The hardware, and software at application and OS level needs to advance a fair bit, but 4K at 30"+ is a delight over those other configs. I'll be moving to one and two, hopefully matching, smaller displays positioned vertically as soon as it's a sub£3,000 solution.

 

[theSeb]

Having used 2560x1600 flanked with two 1600x1200 rotated vertically and also 3x2560x1440; together with spending some time using the Eizo FDH3601 and new Sharp PN-K321 both of which are 4K displays I can see the future is 4K for those who utilize a large workspace for productivity. Which is likely the majority of users on this sub-forum.

The hardware, and software at application and OS level needs to advance a fair bit, but 4K at 30"+ is a delight over those other configs. I'll be moving to one and two, hopefully matching, smaller displays positioned vertically as soon as it's a sub£3,000 solution.

Indeed. I am not even sure why this is a discussion on a technical forum. It's as if the very mention of the word 4K brings out a scared and angry response, similar to when people saw the first car.

 

[brand]

It's as if the very mention of the word 4K brings out a scared and angry response, similar to when people saw the first car.

I doubt you were there when people say the first car.

 

[theSeb]

I doubt you were there when people say the first car.

Is that what I said? No, it isn't. At least try to improve your basic reading comprehension skills before posting yet another pedantic comment and rolling your eyes. I would start off at the chapter titled, "Similes and metaphors are fun". Until then we simply won't be able to communicate, so please refrain from quoting my posts.

 

[GermanyChris]

Kudos to deconstruct60 for another stellar dissection.

One thing I'd like to add:
- After having used 27" monitors (first an 27" iMac, then a 27" TBD) for close to three years, I'm now back using a 20" (Alu) ACD. My main reason was that 27", at my viewing distance (2 ft, as dictated by my table) gave me excruciating neck pains.

I happened to meet a doctor who specializes on workplace ergonomics, and related disorders, and he was really worried. To paraphrase him:
" At the office, we have larger and larger monitors, but our viewing distance has not changed, and the sector of optimal sharpness is just a 10-15 degree cone from the centerline of our eye, so we can't really see sharply as big an area as our new monitors, so we're moving our heads and craning our necks more and more, and I see the results at my practice.
In our private lives, we sit and stare at minuscule high-resolution screens, and we do that in a position which is even less natural. For the first time ever, I'm seeing more RSI's related to smartphone use, than mouse use."

In short, I even though you might get a 4K display for as low as 400 €/$ by 2016, it will be a highly mixed blessing.

RGDS,

I did too the first day after buying my 30" so I bought on of those ikea lifting table things just under 3 feet wide. I leave the table a bit off the wall then pust the foot another 2 or 3 inches off the back. It's help a lot

 

[ValSalva]

I've seen an ASUS PQ321Q 31.5" 3840x2160 monitor connected to a 2012 Mac Pro and it looked great! Text was beautifully sharp, screen real estate was obviously expansive, and the responsiveness was good enough to play the recent Star Trek film.

Yes. One can throw up a bunch of charts of pixel densities and viewing distances but the real proof will be in viewing these displays.

I have a 30" NEC display on my Mac Pro. I can see pixels and fuzzy text at normal viewing distances. It's not horrible but it's clearly not as good as my 15" rMBP. I'm pretty sure a 4K display will look drastically better. Prices will come down (eventually) and these higher density displays will become the new standard.

 

[namethisfile]

Is that what I said? No, it isn't. At least try to improve your basic reading comprehension skills before posting yet another pedantic comment and rolling your eyes. I would start off at the chapter titled, "Similes and metaphors are fun". Until then we simply won't be able to communicate, so please refrain from quoting my posts.

not worth it.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

I don't understand the argument against 4k displays.

Open a large excel spreadsheet on a 1080 and 4k display and tell me there isn't a difference.

 

[Umbongo]

I don't understand the argument against 4k displays.

Open a large excel spreadsheet on a 1080 and 4k display and tell me there isn't a difference.

Or open 4 on a 4K display and 4 on a 1080

 

[Julien]

I don't understand the argument against 4k displays....

There is always opposition to change. In 5 years UHD (3840×2160) will be ubiquitous and 7680×4320 UHD will be the new controversy. In 10 years I hope we are near resolution independent. You will order your display (and TV's) by DPI and size and they will be OLED printed to your spec.

 

[comatory]

i think the ability to connect 4K to newMP right now is aimed at pro video market - ability to output to reference monitors and such.

i cant see retina TB display to become mainstream anytime soon because of the price but if the price of the panels go down, maybe in 7-8 years it will be the new standard but seriously dont see the benefit now (not enough content, difference negligible for standard desktop use).

as I said before its great for Pros working with photos and video/3D but for the rest of the people, not really. its not like the situation that was 10 years ago when people were switching from 15/17 inch CRTs to ****** LCDs with the same or worse resolution, the quality is much better now and only some folks will really benefit from the added pixels. to untrained eye, watching 4K video on 2560x1400 or true 4K display will look pretty much the same.

 

[Julien]

...i cant see retina TB display to become mainstream anytime soon because of the price but if the price of the panels go down, maybe in 7-8 years it will be the new standard but seriously dont see the benefit now (not enough content, difference negligible for standard desktop use)....

7-8 years You might want to change that to 7-8 months

$699 39" UHD display you can buy today (so how much could the panel cost???)

BDA finalizing UHD Blu-ray spec

Sony UHD media player (with preloaded movies) you can buy today (caveat: only works with Sony TV's) for under $700

Red Redray UHD player you can buy today

HDMI 2.0 spec about to be announced

I'll bet we get Thunderbolt 2.0 Macs before the end of this year and an Apple UHD display.