Dell introduces "5K" 4K Ultrawide Monitor

[Loote]

4 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yeah that makes zero sense. 4k ultrawide makes way more sense for this monitor as it would be simply an ultrawide version of a 4k monitor while if it is called a 5k ultrawide monitor people would fail to realize it is still the same vertical pixel count as a 4k monitor. Maybe it would be simpler if they called it a 2160p ultrawide. 

2160p ultrawide is more characters than 5120x2160, I guess seeing 8 digits at once is scary to non-tech people, but that's really the way to do it, any other will be more confusing.

Glorious screen, I'd love to have one.

[tim0901]

For reference, Dell's previous 5k monitor (UP2715K) had a resolution of 5120x2880 - 33% taller than whatever this is.

 

IMO: If 5120x2880 was 5k, then this monitor clearly isn't and is therefore a 4k ultrawide. But if this new 5120x2160 resolution is 5k, then wtf was that old monitor classed as? 5k ultratall?

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, Loote said:

2160p ultrawide is more characters than 5120x2160, I guess seeing 8 digits at once is scary to non-tech people, but that's really the way to do it, any other will be more confusing.

Glorious screen, I'd love to have one.

Yeah it is a predicament because basically all screen resolutions had been named after their vertical pixel count and then they went and switched the naming when they went to 4k which is based on horizontal pixel count. It probably would be much simpler to simply state both the vertical and horizontal pixel count and call it a day. 

[Dracarris]

On 1/6/2021 at 4:51 PM, Tamius Han said:

Actually, that's exactly how it works. It's not called 4K because it's 2160px tall, it's called 4K because it's about 4000 pixels wide, give or take (but mostly take) a few pixels — and 3840 is kinda 4000 if you squint a little and start rounding.

I always thought 4K means "4 times the pixels of a full HD screen", so you double each dimension of a 1920x1080 screen. Naming resolutions by either horizontal or vertical dimension does not make a lot of sense IMHO as the other dimension can vary greatly and therefore the actual amount of pixels. Relating it to the vertical amount of pixels makes sense as long as this guarantees a certain minimum aspect ratio. Under that assumption, I'd say we have Full HD - 1080px, 1440p - 1440px and 4K - 2160px minimum vertical pixels to be called such.

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, Dracarris said:

I always thought 4K means "4 times the pixels of a full HD screen", so you double each dimension of a 1920x1080 screen. Naming resolutions by either horizontal or vertical dimension does not make a lot of sense IMHO as the other dimension can vary greatly and therefore the actual amount of pixels. Relating it to the vertical amount of pixels makes sense as long as this guarantees a certain minimum aspect ratio. Under that assumption, I'd say we have Full HD - 1080px, 1440p - 1440px and 4K - 2160px minimum vertical pixels to be called such.

It only makes sense when other dimension is predictable. 1080p always meant 1920x1080. 1440p always meant 2560x1440. However, you can have 2560x1080 in some weird wide variant which is still 1080p but not quite 1080p that most have in mind...

[Dracarris]

20 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

It only makes sense when other dimension is predictable. 1080p always meant 1920x1080. 1440p always meant 2560x1440. However, you can have 2560x1080 in some weird wide variant which is still 1080p but not quite 1080p that most have in mind...

I agree. So 3840x2160 should be the minimum to be called 4K. Anything with a higher horizontal resolution can then be wide-4K or ultrawide-4K, same goes for the respective 1440p resolutions.

[Loote]

11 hours ago, Dracarris said:

I always thought 4K means "4 times the pixels of a full HD screen", so you double each dimension of a 1920x1080 screen.

I was into 4k before it was popular.
Back then on Wiki 4k was described as 4096x2048, with 2k as 2048x1024, I can accept kibi instead of kilo, it's capital 'K' anyway. Nowadays for some fucking reason the marketing people found the need to call UHD resolution 4K and even people from countries using kilograms and kilometres can get lost with what the 'k' means.

[Fnige]

This is why i dont like the 4k/5k naming scheme. I could easily make a extremely wide monitor and call it 9k but its just a 1449x8820 screen

[Dracarris]

56 minutes ago, Loote said:

Back then on Wiki 4k was described as 4096x2048, with 2k as 2048x1024, I can accept kibi instead of kilo, it's capital 'K' anyway.

Well sure that makes sense, but why define those resolutions if both of them never saw an actual screen?

7 minutes ago, SlimyPython said:

This is why i dont like the 4k/5k naming scheme. I could easily make a extremely wide monitor and call it 9k but its just a 1449x8820 screen

Well, no. That would still be an (ultra-wide) 1440p screen. This is exactly the point of going by vertical pixels.

[Loote]

21 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Well sure that makes sense, but why define those resolutions if both of them never saw an actual screen?

IIRC it was the standard in cinemas, but don't quote me on that. I also recall seeing those resolutions in digital screens, but those were very specialised devices.

[GoodBytes]

2 hours ago, Loote said:

IIRC it was the standard in cinemas, but don't quote me on that. I also recall seeing those resolutions in digital screens, but those were very specialised devices.

 

 

I know they are standards in cinema, in my opinion, there is no real standard. Aspect ratio is more of an artistic choice over anything. I mean you have: 2.35:1, 2.37:1 (16:9, if I am not mistaken), 2.39:1 and more... perhaps a movie buff or cinematographer can point to others (fine... let me Wiki.... ok we have, beside one's mentioned: 6:5, 11:8, 1.43:1 (IMAX), 3:2, 5:3, 1.85:1, 1.9:1, 2:1, 2.2:1, 2.2:1, 2.76:1, 18:5 (also IMAX), and 4:1... so yea... no real standard...at least not in my book).

[Murasaki]

2 grand for 60hz hah

[Loote]

On 1/11/2021 at 2:32 AM, GoodBytes said:

I know they are standards in cinema, in my opinion, there is no real standard. Aspect ratio is more of an artistic choice over anything. I mean you have: 2.35:1, 2.37:1 (16:9, if I am not mistaken), 2.39:1 and more... perhaps a movie buff or cinematographer can point to others (fine... let me Wiki.... ok we have, beside one's mentioned: 6:5, 11:8, 1.43:1 (IMAX), 3:2, 5:3, 1.85:1, 1.9:1, 2:1, 2.2:1, 2.2:1, 2.76:1, 18:5 (also IMAX), and 4:1... so yea... no real standard...at least not in my book).

Standard as a projector, apart from Imax the commonly used ones start at 1.85:1(this one is nearly 16:9) and end around 2.39:1(2.(3) would be 21:9), which means 2:1 is making the best use of available space while playing all variants of them. But that's not the thing, I just read back then that digital cinema projectors are either 2048x1024, or 4096x2048, or the majority of them at least and it was what I fount to be true the one time I was able to dig up the data about one local cinema(that they indeed only had machines of those resolutions).
This is not something I know, it's a thing I vaguely remember, just wanted to make clear what I meant.