im i the only one not freaking out over 4K?

[flibberdipper]

Only thing I see this as is "LOOK AT MY E-PEEN! IT'S THIS BIG!" That's 4K to me right now.

[xXxYOLOxSWAGxXx_420BlazeIt]

No. I dont really care about it either. I also dont make a big deal about having "fiber internet" as many people here do.

[SAV1OUR]

Only thing I see this as is "LOOK AT MY E-PEEN! IT'S THIS BIG!" That's 4K to me right now.

4K PENIS! 

[AddonCustoms]

Currently don't care until the price is around £200 - £300 27" 4K monitor, then I will look into it more.

 

Currently running 3 23" LG IPS monitors, they are perfect for me, once I have money coming in I will look into 4k more, but I am currently working at getting a new system, custom water cooled, and a 780TI or 2. So 4K for me is around 2 years away.

[Benjamin G]

Im not holding my breath for great gaming 4k monitors but man am I excited. I saw it on a 70" samsung panel and realised how dense it was. incredible.

[TheRetiredSlave]

But then again, those new GPU's will struggle with 8k or heaven forbid 32 or 64k

 

Of course not...

Just like I wouldn't have bought a 1440p monitor back started PC gaming a few years back with a low-end Radeon 6000-series GPU. Now that I have a 780, I run games in 1440p.

When we have GPUs that can do 4K, we can run 4K. When we have GPUs that can run 8K, 8K gaming will come, and so on.

[hawaiims]

Only thing I see this as is "LOOK AT MY E-PEEN! IT'S THIS BIG!" That's 4K to me right now.

No its more like look, now I can have as much work as a quad monitor setup on one monitor!

And no silly bezels and all that. 4k is easily worth the price of 4 full HD monitors

[miyabwah]

4K is EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS IT IS. 4X 1080P! It may not look like 4X 1080P just by the numbers,

but

1920X1080 = 2,073,600 Pixels

3840X2160 = 8,294,400 Pixels

8,294,400/2,073,600 = 4.

So 4K is effectively 4x 1080P. On a 27" monitor you would not be able to even see the pixels from a standard viewing point.

Back on topic, I won't care about 4K until it becomes a standard. I think all these PC Master Race kiddies bragging about 4K need to grow the fuck up because they most likely don't have 4K.

[Enderman]

FTFY

 

http://www.sears.com/seiki-39inch-class-4k-120hz-led-ultra-hdtv/p-05703146000P?sid=IDx01192011x000001&kpid=05703146000&kispla=05703146000P

im talking about QUALITY 4k tvs

not the cheap brands like seiki

if im going to buy a new tv, i want decent contrast, features, colour reproduction, etc...

samsung, lg, sony, etc... have a 55in model for $3500

i would have to see the seiki in person before i was convinced to buy it

 

EDIT: now the price is $3000, not 3.5k

[BrightCandle]

Anyone that uses Anti aliasing today likely cares about 4K resolutions even if they don't currently actually care. For the longest time we have had increasing resolutions in and around the same sort of PPD. We have sort of settled on acceptable fidelity for a desktop monitor. Then phones came along and increasing density become far more important due to the distance the screen was viewed from, so the pursuit if that technology has led to 4k on the desktop.

 

Consider that rather than getting a massive great 4k TV or monitor that what you did was just replace your current size of screen with the same size but it has 4x the pixels. That would mean text is sharper, it would look blacker because today all text you see is anti aliased and often has colours from sub pixel rendering. Games would require a lot less antialiasing for edges as the size of the pixels was 1/4 of what they were before. Its not anywhere near the limit of what the human eye can see but its a good step in that direction. It would probably require a further 2-3 doublings (at least 10k resolution) before we get to the point where antialiasing is eliminated but the fidelity increase will be very good once we get there, real life would then be representable unlike today where the resolution is just too low.

 

That doesn't mean everyone should rush out and buy a 4k monitor, the effect is subtle. But its also expensive, and its the price that is the main factor. In a few years 4k will be more normal and the price will be more appropriate and the technology will have matured and then it will just be something you get. Today Windows is a mess with 4k, its a horrible experience and best avoided. 

[Real_PhillBert]

I see two very distinct uses and markets for 4k monitors.

 

1 - Gaming. This is exactly what it sounds like, someone who wants to play games at thie highest resolution possible. I'm not sure this market is quite ready to support 4k applications though. the GPU set up you would need to run modern triple A titles at respectable frame rates on high or maxed detail is simply staggaring. Likely out of reach for the vast majority of us. There will be some who do it, they have a large pocket book and equally large Epeen.

 

2 - Professional. This market I actually think makes a lot of sense. Because a 4k monitor can be thought of (and divided into) four 1920x1080 monitors, companies can now get their employees a single monitor, probably 27-30 inch, instead of three or four dedicated monitors. Since many of the programs professionals run are not particularly demanding, the system requirements to drive the 4k monitor with respectable performance will be significantly lower. I currently use a triple monitor setup in the office and I think I prefer it to a single larger monitor that the user divides out, but I know at least one of the other engineers in my office has expressed desire to change to a single 4k monitor for the extra desk space.

 

That said, I am not about to whip out the credit card and throw a few 4k monitors on my desk at home. At least not until it gets a lot less expensive to utilize such a setup.

[Aleks]

I checked out some 4K displays at PAX Prime over the summer. It was nice but nothing really that makes me freak out over.

[SJBijzitter]

It'd be great for multitasking (pulling up multiple programs on one screen side by side) but for anything else I couldn't care less tbh.

[MrAlexOneill]

With 4k, anti aliasing will be entirely obsolete due to there being so many pixels.

[rambi36]

I saw a 4k monitor when I went to Comic Con in New York a couple of months ago and they had Battlefield 3 on it an it looked really good . Everything looked so hd compared to my current Dell S2240M (Which is a pretty good IPS 1080p monitor). However,

1. Like everyone said, 4k is still very expensive atm, so I have to wait

2. There is not enough content like videos that are in 4k yet

3. My GTX 650 . 4k is really intense the pc they had running bf3 at comic con had 2 titans in it, so yeah...

Overall, it is not the best time to invest in a 4k monitor unless you have the money and you are ok with seeing mainly 1080p-720p content on it, which probably would not look the best. Wait when 4k becomes more mainstream.

[tbc]

i take it the vast majority of people here don't do any sort of work involving excel, document translating, coding, or visual media.  (i'm sure there are alot more)

 

because 4k is absolutely mindblowing.

 

you get to compare 4 browsers at a time at full 1080p.

 

if you don't do professional jobs like this, obviously this is completely meaningless to you.

[Sernyhough]

Il buy a 4k monitor when i find a cheap one (that's not 30Hz...)

[BrightCandle]

4k is only going to help people working if what they do is get a really big TV like monitor. If they get similar sized monitors as they do today they won't be able to get any more on it as the text will all be a quarter of the size and unreadable. 4k isn't really about the resolution increase and the space that provides, its about better representation at the same size. If what you do is go to a 30" monitor from your current ~24" 1080p display you will mostly be getting increased pixel density and not extra space. You would actually need to go to 48" to have the same density as you do today and be able to have 4 programs up in a similar way as you currently do. So unless you really think reading text at 1/4 of the size is going to work out (unlikely) then most likely the main benefit is the image quality itself.

[jaqiefox]

4k is only going to help people working if what they do is get a really big TV like monitor. If they get similar sized monitors as they do today they won't be able to get any more on it as the text will all be a quarter of the size and unreadable. 4k isn't really about the resolution increase and the space that provides, its about better representation at the same size. If what you do is go to a 30" monitor from your current ~24" 1080p display you will mostly be getting increased pixel density and not extra space. You would actually need to go to 48" to have the same density as you do today and be able to have 4 programs up in a similar way as you currently do. So unless you really think reading text at 1/4 of the size is going to work out (unlikely) then most likely the main benefit is the image quality itself.

That's not entirely accurate.  For example, I have a dell pentium 3 1.13ghz laptop with a 15 inch 1600x1200 display (the first ever to get that, IIRC) and though the system is quite slow, the density is so high and desired viewing distance short enough that it is usable as a higher resolution display.  It is the same reason phones work well with the extreme density screens - designed viewing distance is smaller.  This is also why things like google glass actually utilize an extremely dense screen to show directly to your eyeglass surface, the perceived image is quite similar to what you speak of (large monitor with longer viewing distance).

[BrightCandle]

That's not entirely accurate.  For example, I have a dell pentium 3 1.13ghz laptop with a 15 inch 1600x1200 display (the first ever to get that, IIRC) and though the system is quite slow, the density is so high and desired viewing distance short enough that it is usable as a higher resolution display.  It is the same reason phones work well with the extreme density screens - designed viewing distance is smaller.  This is also why things like google glass actually utilize an extremely dense screen to show directly to your eyeglass surface, the perceived image is quite similar to what you speak of (large monitor with longer viewing distance).

 

Actually its entire accurate and you are wrong. What you have done is compared a much shorter viewed screen (a laptop) with a desktop monitor in order to make your argument, which isn't even remotely right. You have changed not only the resolution and the size of the monitor but also the viewing distance. I doubt a single desktop user will really sit a foot away from their desktop monitor like a laptop user would with their screen, especially not a 30" one.

 

I could make the same argument with your 15" screen laptop, if you take it to 4k resolutions the text would be 4.3 times smaller than it is today. You wouldn't be able to read that and to get 4x the space out of the increase in resolution you would need a laptop screen ~30" in size. So practically that isn't going to happen, you can't lug around a 30" screen you can only lug around a 15" screen so you can either read text at 1/4 of the size OR all you will get out of 4k is higher density of pixels and increased quality of image.

 

Its for this reason we can't talk about PPI, pixels per inch is only a useful measure within a single viewing distance. Realistically we need to be talking about Pixels per degree which is distance adjusted.

[jaqiefox]

*sigh* complete failure in communication.

 

I am not wrong, we simply miscommunicated.  We are essentially saying the same thing.

[tbc]

4k is only going to help people working if what they do is get a really big TV like monitor. If they get similar sized monitors as they do today they won't be able to get any more on it as the text will all be a quarter of the size and unreadable. 4k isn't really about the resolution increase and the space that provides, its about better representation at the same size. If what you do is go to a 30" monitor from your current ~24" 1080p display you will mostly be getting increased pixel density and not extra space. You would actually need to go to 48" to have the same density as you do today and be able to have 4 programs up in a similar way as you currently do. So unless you really think reading text at 1/4 of the size is going to work out (unlikely) then most likely the main benefit is the image quality itself.

 

not all of us have bad eyesight...you can't just say that some text is too small for everybody

[techswede]

Still rockin' the 1600x900 display. I don't really care about 4k. I just want smoothness. I'd rather have a solid 60fps instead of a million pixels.

 

 

That said. i will probably buy a 1080p display when 4k is cheap . And then get the 4k one when 8k is cheap. etc etc

[RWT98]

The price is what kills it Too Much

[Vrbas]

1080p is good enough for me until the price drops to a reasonable amount, and there are GPUs that can easily handle at least 60fps without SLI or crossfire. Will be nice not to worry about AA much anymore though due to the high pixel count,