1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Dell announces UltraSharp Ultra HD monitor range

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 3 Dec 2013.

  1. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    12,402
    Likes Received:
    1,814
  2. Horizon

    Horizon Dremel Worthy

    Joined:
    30 May 2008
    Posts:
    765
    Likes Received:
    10
    16:10, then we'll talk.
     
  3. Maki role

    Maki role Dale you're on a roll... Staff

    Joined:
    9 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    1,653
    Likes Received:
    97
    That "budget" one sounds like a great option. I've been meaning to grab a monitor upgrade for quite a while, this hits the spot nicely.
     
  4. the_kille4

    the_kille4 Chaos will rule da world.eventually

    Joined:
    28 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    215
    Likes Received:
    5
    There's a typo and misinformation in the article. First of all the size of the smallest screen is 23.8 inches. Also the 28 inch model is a P series so that is why it's alot cheaper than the smaller ultrasharp.
     
  5. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    12,402
    Likes Received:
    1,814
    If there's a typo, it's not on my part. I quote Dell's official press release as emailed, which you can verify against Business Wire's published copy:
    However, I note that Dell has now corrected the release - so I'll go update the article. Thanks for the heads-up!
    It's a P-series rather than UP-series, yes, but it's still an UltraSharp: its official name, as stated in the article and confirmed in the updated press release, is the UltraSharp 28 Ultra HD Monitor.
     
    Last edited: 3 Dec 2013
  6. Guinevere

    Guinevere Mega Mom

    Joined:
    8 May 2010
    Posts:
    2,477
    Likes Received:
    170
    LOL. Still rocking it like it's 2006 I see.

    I have a 16:10 screen that's about a 26" but it came with an additional 256px on the horizontal so I've not lost any working space just gained a bit left and right. It's 99% a work machine so lots of working space is great, but it also means it's stretched ratio fits media perfectly.

    The other two screens in my three screen setup are unfortunately just 16:10 rather than being horizontally extended so they have a little less working space. Never mind, one of them is up on end anyway...

    10:16 now that's a lovely aspect ratio!
     
  7. Shirty

    Shirty Time travelling rogue Super Moderator

    Joined:
    18 Apr 1982
    Posts:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    1,396
    1:1 is the new 16:10
     
  8. GeorgeStorm

    GeorgeStorm Aggressive PC Builder

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    6,077
    Likes Received:
    257
    Don't really see the attraction of these personally, but I haven't seen a 4k screen in real life so who knows maybe it will click.

    Also 16:10 is a nicer looking ratio to me (regardless of how good or bad it is for work or whatever else). Had my U27 for a while now and I still think it looks a bit thin.
     
  9. SchizoFrog

    SchizoFrog New Member

    Joined:
    5 May 2009
    Posts:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    8
    Am I right in thinking that with a 4k resolution everything is much smaller and so you need to resize things to make them bigger and unless your software supports 4k would it not all look a lot more pixellated and blocky? Or does software such as MS Office scale up nicely?
     
  10. CampGareth

    CampGareth New Member

    Joined:
    15 May 2009
    Posts:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    Roughly speaking yes, what you're describing is the effect of having a high DPI monitor. Most cinemas are showing films in 4K just fyi and text there is fine because the screen is so huge and thus the DPI value is low.

    4K at 24" is a bit too small for me, the 28" model sounds ideal though as 32" is massively expensive and I don't want to go for anything smaller than my current 27", the dpi value would still be pretty high at about 160 (equivalent to 1080p on a 13.3" laptop).

    As for scaling, that's a trickier thing, some programs when upscaled lose all sense of formatting, others are fine and text just looks smoother, if it's just enlarging then you won't notice a difference between your current monitor and this one (it's not 640x480 so pixellation might be more noticeable, but say 1920x1080 on this screen... will just make it look pretty much like a native 1080p screen)
     
  11. Xir

    Xir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    5,250
    Likes Received:
    88
    4K monitors were to be expected, as the 4K TV's are out and are this christmasses "great innovation" for TV's.

    I understand 4K for a computer monitor, but not for a TV though...
    For a TV, there's no content. Hell there's hardly any content for a 1080 TV, most TV-stations use 720.
    Best chance is a BluRay, but hardly anyone uses it, and they're limited to 1080 as well.

    Most Cinema's are showing 2K btw...at least in Germany.
     
  12. mi1ez

    mi1ez Active Member

    Joined:
    11 Jun 2009
    Posts:
    1,436
    Likes Received:
    18
    We're getting 21:9 monitors in the office. Now that's wide! It's like running dual monitor but without the centre bezels!
     
  13. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,575
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Cool, we have to run GPUs in SLI again to use a monitor that is larger than 20". Just like the good ol' days of 2000. :p
     
  14. CampGareth

    CampGareth New Member

    Joined:
    15 May 2009
    Posts:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    So that's 2048 wide or near enough... they really show 1920x1080 films? Wow, front row can't be pretty...
     
  15. Anfield

    Anfield Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    5,019
    Likes Received:
    380
    Give amd and nvidia one year and we will be right back to one gpu is sufficient for one monitor.
    Hopefully by then the monitors will have seen some pricedrops.
     
  16. Anfield

    Anfield Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    5,019
    Likes Received:
    380
    bleh double posted by accident.
     
  17. Star*Dagger

    Star*Dagger New Member

    Joined:
    30 Nov 2007
    Posts:
    882
    Likes Received:
    11
    Oh brother. Films on actual film do not have a resolution, only when it is digitized does the engineer make a decision what resolution to step it down to.

    Digital films are usually filmed at an ultra ultra high resolution and then, again, converted down to Low-Res like HD standards.

    In any case I am looking forward to screens of this resolution. Maybe some of the negative nancies will realize that 1920x1080 is a pathetic and low resolution.
    4k can not come soon enough.

    3 of this 32 inch monitors sounds like a winner, along with 3 of the hottest GPUs available at the time.

    Your in Visual Acuity Plasma,
    Star*Dagger
     
    Last edited: 6 Dec 2013
  18. Star*Dagger

    Star*Dagger New Member

    Joined:
    30 Nov 2007
    Posts:
    882
    Likes Received:
    11
    Quadrupling the resolution is a nice start, having 3 of these bad boys is where its at!

    S*D
     
  19. Gradius

    Gradius IT Consultant

    Joined:
    3 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    284
    Likes Received:
    1
    16:10 will *NOT* happens on 4K.
     
  20. erratum1

    erratum1 New Member

    Joined:
    30 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    68
    It's about time to be honest this could make 2560x1600 cheaper as it's not the top dog anymore.

    Not sure I would want to rock a 4k screen the cost of always having to get the latest sli gpu's to play games which lets be honest sometimes they are really not that great.
     

Share This Page