Dell 6K U3224KB Monitor

[EugW]

Does this monitor support HDCP 2.2 over USB-C? It's not listed in the specs. I only see it listed via DisplayPort and HDMI. If DisplayPart / HDMI only, then I will continue to stick it out with my Huawei MateView 28.2" 3840x2560 3:2 monitor for now, driven by my M1 Mac mini.

When the time comes with more affordable 5K-6K HDMI monitors with full 4K HDCP 2.2 support and decent macOS support, I'll probably get one, along with a Mac mini Pro or Mac Studio to drive it.

BTW, it seems backlight bleed is too common a problem with Dell screens (IPS Black marketing or not), including this high priced 6K monitor judging by this thread. It was also a big and very noticeable problem with 3 different Asus ProArt monitors I tried. The Dell and Asus QA requirements are very low it seems.

Something tells me the Apple side of this is buggy. Even on the M1Max, where it works, this is what it reports.

Too bad there is such a big jump in supported scaled resolutions from 3008xXXXX to 2560xXXXX. Something in between would be so much nicer, such as 2784x1566 offered with Better Display.

with betterdisplay

 

[tornado99]

But it doesn't work that way. Most pixels are still actually "correct". What I mean is, solid background colors remain the same color, etc. It becomes a problem when dealing with things like text. The ever so slight scaling results in a poor-mans anti-aliasing effect. This effect is amplified at the higher resolutions because as things like text get smaller, you need more precision.

For example, I'm currently working on 2x Dell 2720Q's running at their native resolution of 4k. Text is small but manageable. However in the past I've tried to run them scaled at 3360x1890, 3200x1800, and 3008x1692, but I just can't. At 3360x1890, all text feels waxy. It's like I'm using a screen with the worlds worst matte display. It gets better as I use lower resolutions, but then real estate becomes an issue. If I lower it all the way down to 1920x1080, (aka perfect 2x scaling) it looks absolutely beautiful, but is completely useless due to the loss of real estate. I feel like I'm an elderly person trying to use one of those old Jitterbug phones...

I think you are wrong. Text doesn't get smaller, each glyph is represented by more pixels on a retina monitor. The fact that you have to do a very slight fractional scaling on the Dell 6K to get the 4:4:4 chroma mode is negligible when you have many more pixels representing each letter than a low PPI monitor.

Also, I would say that the 2720Q is low PPI. I'm talking about >=185 PPI.

 

[Longplays]

Also, I would say that the 2720Q is low PPI. I'm talking about >=185 PPI.

If I had bad eyesight a low ppi large display would be good.

 

[dbrewood]

Is anyone else getting these USB power warning messages:

The only 'new' USB device plugged into the Mac Mini M2 Pro is the monitor via TB4. I've never seen the warning prior to using the U3224KBA.

Should I look to switch to using 'USB-C to MiniDisplay port' or 'HDMI and a USB-C cable'?

I've not actually had to unplug it at all, but it's a worry, I see it at least once a day. Thoughts would be appreciated, guys.

 

[hardwickj]

I think you are wrong. Text doesn't get smaller, each glyph is represented by more pixels on a retina monitor.

Except as you get closer and closer to the native resolution, that no longer holds true.

I experienced the same thing on an Apple Studio Display. I tried to run it at the highest scaled resolution, and it looked awful. Worse than my 2720Q at its highest scaled resolution. Was an immediate return for me.

Now I'm stuck waiting for a reasonable 8K monitor to come out that I can run at 4K w/ 2x scaling. I've given up on fractional scaling. I realize this doesn't bother most people, but I sit and stare at code all day. The faintly blurry text drives me crazy. If it can't do high resolution w/ proper integer scaling, then I'd rather sit and stare at slightly pixelated text (with no scaling) any day.

Again, this becomes less of a problem as your scaled resolution moves further away from your native resolution. Then "each glyph is represented by more pixels" increasingly holds true. For many/most people, that's fine because they aren't running so close to the native resolution. But I need the real estate, and so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[mushy peas]

For example

I don’t see how your example is the same thing though? Scaling in MacOS like you’re doing is not going to look the same as pixel doubling at a supported resolution, even if the supported resolution is slightly, imperceptibly smaller than native resolution.

I’d be very surprised if anyone can tell any difference between the text at pixel doubled resolutions of 3008x1962 vs 3072 x 1728.

 

[bigoil8886]

Can anyone here comment on the KVM functionality? Mainly, is it as easy as a button press to switch between computers? Also, how many computers can you set it up to switch between, and which connection types can be used with the KVM functionality?

 

[bigoil8886]

Except as you get closer and closer to the native resolution, that no longer holds true.

I experienced the same thing on an Apple Studio Display. I tried to run it at the highest scaled resolution, and it looked awful. Worse than my 2720Q at its highest scaled resolution. Was an immediate return for me.

Now I'm stuck waiting for a reasonable 8K monitor to come out that I can run at 4K w/ 2x scaling. I've given up on fractional scaling. I realize this doesn't bother most people, but I sit and stare at code all day. The faintly blurry text drives me crazy. If it can't do high resolution w/ proper integer scaling, then I'd rather sit and stare at slightly pixelated text (with no scaling) any day.

Again, this becomes less of a problem as your scaled resolution moves further away from your native resolution. Then "each glyph is represented by more pixels" increasingly holds true. For many/most people, that's fine because they aren't running so close to the native resolution. But I need the real estate, and so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

8K Monitor: Dell Ultrasharp UP3218K | Dell USA

Experience realistic images like never before on the award-wining, worldâs first 31.5" 8K monitor featuring Dell PremierColor.

www.dell.com

 

[tornado99]

Except as you get closer and closer to the native resolution, that no longer holds true.

I experienced the same thing on an Apple Studio Display. I tried to run it at the highest scaled resolution, and it looked awful. Worse than my 2720Q at its highest scaled resolution. Was an immediate return for me.

Now I'm stuck waiting for a reasonable 8K monitor to come out that I can run at 4K w/ 2x scaling. I've given up on fractional scaling. I realize this doesn't bother most people, but I sit and stare at code all day. The faintly blurry text drives me crazy. If it can't do high resolution w/ proper integer scaling, then I'd rather sit and stare at slightly pixelated text (with no scaling) any day.

Again, this becomes less of a problem as your scaled resolution moves further away from your native resolution. Then "each glyph is represented by more pixels" increasingly holds true. For many/most people, that's fine because they aren't running so close to the native resolution. But I need the real estate, and so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But again, you're not comparing the same thing. Running the Dell 6K at 6016x3384 virtual pixels scaled up to 6144x3456 physical pixels is not the same as fractional scaling an ASD.

Unless you have the eyes of an eagle I doubt you could actually tell in the first case.

 

[dbrewood]

The KVM when set up can be switched between computers via a keyboard shortcut you can configure.
I’ve stopped using it now as I’ve now sunsetted my older Mac Mini but it worked fine.

 

[hardwickj]

8K Monitor: Dell Ultrasharp UP3218K | Dell USA

Experience realistic images like never before on the award-wining, worldâs first 31.5" 8K monitor featuring Dell PremierColor.

www.dell.com

I'm well aware of the Dell 8k. It's 6+ years old at this point, and given that BOE is expected to mass produce a new 8K panel this year, I'm guessing it's about to be re-released w/ revised interfaces a la the U3224KB. I'm not interested in spending $4k on a monitor that requires me to plug-in 3 cables to my laptop when a 1 cable solution is almost certainly just around the corner.

 

[hardwickj]

But again, you're not comparing the same thing. Running the Dell 6K at 6016x3384 virtual pixels scaled up to 6144x3456 physical pixels is not the same as fractional scaling an ASD.

Unless you have the eyes of an eagle I doubt you could actually tell in the first case.

I have 20/15 vision. It's not that uncommon. I can tell. I'm sorry that bothers you.

 

[mushy peas]

given that BOE is expected to mass produce a new 8K panel this year, I'm guessing it's about to be re-released w/ revised interfaces

AOU are making one too, mini-LED with 4,000 zones and 1,000 nits. Looks good on paper, hopefully we’ll see some monitors announced later in the year.

 

[EugW]

I finally upgraded from my 5K iMac last year to an M1 Mac mini, and a third party 4K+ 3840x2560 28.2" monitor, but this is a temporary solution.

Here's hoping for something that can get to about the 200ish pixel density range at about 29-30" - 5K 29-30" - without breaking the bank. (I would actually prefer not to get 218 ppi, unless Apple starts providing more non-2X scaled resolution options.) I don't need 1600 nits. I'd be happy with say 600 nits HDR or even 500 nits SDR, with full 4K DRM support, preferably over USB-C.

 

[tornado99]

I have 20/15 vision. It's not that uncommon. I can tell. I'm sorry that bothers you.

Each pixel on a Dell 6K is 100 microns wide, slightly wider than a human hair. A shift of 3% of a pixel i.e. 3 microns at a viewing distance of 25cm would require an angular resolution of 0.04 arc minutes. Even an eagle only has ~0.15 arc minutes. Somebody with 20/15 vision can resolve 0.75 arc minutes, so could detect features of size 54 micron at 25cm. Nearly 20 times larger than the shift you claim you could see.

 

[hardwickj]

Each pixel on a Dell 6K is 100 microns wide, slightly wider than a human hair. A shift of 3% of a pixel i.e. 3 microns at a viewing distance of 25cm would require an angular resolution of 0.04 arc minutes. Even an eagle only has ~0.15 arc minutes. Somebody with 20/15 vision can resolve 0.75 arc minutes, so could detect features of size 54 micron at 25cm. Nearly 20 times larger than the shift you claim you could see.

But you can't shift a pixel by 3%. A pixel is a pixel. So when you upscale (whether it's the display doing it's own or macOS scaling) that shift results in a change of how the entire pixel is rendered.

 

[mushy peas]

But you can't shift a pixel by 3%.

You’re not getting what he is saying. Drawing 97% of the image in 100% of the pixel - ie. enlarging the image overall by 3%, is what’s happening here. That is imperceptible. And it’s completely different to your example of MacOS scaling, which is a red herring in this conversation.

 

[hardwickj]

For example, imagine the above were two distinct pixels at 6016x3384. However, when upscaled to 6144x3456, the original image does not align perfectly with the physical layout of pixels, as represented by the purple bar signifying the area that was previously the blue pixel but is now overlapped by what was the red pixel (which represents ~3% of the pixel). In reality, the entire pixel has to be changed. Maybe it's left as blue. Maybe it's toggled to red. Maybe it's blended to form something in between, somewhat like anti-aliasing. How it's changed depends on the method of scaling. Even with macOS, which effectively renders the image at 2x and then downscales it to fit, there is still a compromise. You cannot work around the physical limitations of the pixel.

 

[mushy peas]

But what has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, is that you can’t perceive it, because the adjustment required is not some large purple line, but a 3% difference that not even an eagle could see.

You continue to use metaphors and examples that don’t relate to the actual physical thing someone would be looking at.

So here's a test for you. I created a 6K file in Photoshop and zoomed it in to 700%. 1 of those pixels is 1:1, the others are 3% larger. If it's so noticeable to you, go ahead and tell me which one it is.

 

[bigoil8886]

The KVM when set up can be switched between computers via a keyboard shortcut you can configure.
I’ve stopped using it now as I’ve now sunsetted my older Mac Mini but it worked fine.

I am wondering if there is any way to support switching between 3 computers. I think it would require having 2 upstream USB ports so you could have a mini Displayport input and an HDMI input in addition to the Thunderbolt input. However, maybe there is a way to do 2 Thunderbolt inputs? I'm not sure.

I am also wondering how the KVM features work with multiple monitors and daisy chaining.

 

[poorcody]

I noticed in another thread (link to post) that someone mentioned DSC had been fixed in Sonoma for dedicated GPUs (e.g. AMD GPU in Intel MacBook 16). Has anyone tried this monitor running the Sonoma beta?

 

[dbrewood]

I know nobody seems to be getting the problem, but again today I got:

Is nobody else seeing this issue at all?

 

[MattieHolland]

75% both.

Today I encountered another problem where, after logging in, the left half of the screen appeared noticeably darker than the right half. Problem resolved itself after restarting Mac. Not sure what sort of issue this is.

I had the exact same thing! Multiple times in a few days. Returned monitor. New one has not had this issue.

 

[hardwickj]

But what has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, is that you can’t perceive it, because the adjustment required is not some large purple line, but a 3% difference that not even an eagle could see.

The example was supposed to represent just 2 pixels, the blue box as one, the red as another. The "large purple line" is what represents the 3% difference in that example. And my point was that you can't simple change the area that the purple line represented, you have to change the entire pixel that it overlaps with.

 

[tornado99]

The example was supposed to represent just 2 pixels, the blue box as one, the red as another. The "large purple line" is what represents the 3% difference in that example. And my point was that you can't simple change the area that the purple line represented, you have to change the entire pixel that it overlaps with.

The real size of the blur is dictated by your physical pixel pitch, which in this case is 100 micron, so 3 micron. You're overthinking this, and coming to the wrong conclusion.