Print 36 comment(s) - last by jamescox.. on Dec 3 at 7:56 PM

Pricing and availability are unknown

Dell has tipped some of the details on a new 24” UHD computer monitor called the UP2414Q.
Dell says that the UP2414Q features the highest pixel density of any of its available displays at 185 ppi. The native resolution of the IPS display is 3840 x 2160 and it offers viewing angles of 178-degrees horizontally and vertically. The contrast ratio is listed as 1000:1 typical and 2M:1 dynamic. Brightness for the panel is 350 cd/m2 and the panel has a 8ms response time.

The display supports 99% Adobe RGB color gamut and 100% sRGB.
Unfortunately, important details like pricing and availability haven’t been announced at this time.

Sources: Mac Rumors, Dell

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not sold
By bug77 on 12/2/2013 10:30:38 AM , Rating: 2
24" may be too little for that resolution. You know, like the occasional laptop that crams 1920x1080 onto a 13" display...
But I'd love to have a 4k monitor when doing photo editing. It's among the few thing you can use it for, for the time being, seeing as 4k movies are a no show (pun intended).

RE: Not sold
By hughlle on 12/2/2013 10:39:53 AM , Rating: 4
I think that's the point. This type of equipment is hardly being designed for your 2am failblog marathons. The same as with say a 30 inch display. They are not typically marketed at or bought by people who just fancy sending their uncle an email, they are bought and used by professionals for specific tasks.

RE: Not sold
By Souka on 12/2/2013 11:45:50 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... nobody seems to mind the 264ppi of the iPad air, or the 339ppi of the Kindle Fire HDX. :)

Just curios.. what would the native resolution be for a 24" monitor with 339ppi?

RE: Not sold
By retrospooty on 12/2/2013 11:54:02 AM , Rating: 2
You would almost have to double it to 8k. 7860x4320@24 inches = 373PPI

Some people just like low res and hate anything that they consikder too high... Whatever, "let them eat 1366x768 cake" and leave the high end products for those that would appreciate them.

RE: Not sold
By Keeir on 12/2/2013 12:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
An issue here is the scaling.

264 ppi on an iPad air would be different than 264 ppi on a 24" monitor. In balanced setup, your eyes are around 10"-15" from an ipad air.

From a 24" widescreen... I'd say 20"-30" is about as close as I'd get.

185 ppi compares pretty favorably to the iPad air and the HDX screens already... provided you aren't pressing your nose into it.

RE: Not sold
By retrospooty on 12/2/2013 12:13:51 PM , Rating: 3
Windows scaling does suck... But that isn't a good reason to hold back on good tech. MS needs to fix that, and I am sure they will as more and more high res LCD's are available.

"185 ppi compares pretty favorably to the iPad air and the HDX screens already... provided you aren't pressing your nose into it."

True, but it depends on your desk setup. Some people have it closer than others and PPI is extremely dependent on viewing distance and how good the users eyesight is. Some people cant make out pixels on a 326PPI iPhone, some can. It just depends on what you need and how you use it.

RE: Not sold
By inighthawki on 12/2/2013 12:31:26 PM , Rating: 3
Win 8.1 does improves scaling significantly, although personally on a 24" display, I would rather have the screen realestate of 4K than to scale it at all :)

RE: Not sold
By retrospooty on 12/2/2013 1:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
Nice... Looks like 32 and 28 inch models are on the way too.

32 inches @ 4k would work great for me.

RE: Not sold
By Spuke on 12/2/2013 11:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
32 inches @ 4k would work great for me.
Sweet!! I don't have $3500 for a monitor though.

RE: Not sold
By TakinYourPoints on 12/3/2013 12:59:25 AM , Rating: 2
Even 8.1 still needs a lot of work. There is still no easy solution for resolution independence. OS X gives options for both maintaining normal text/graphics size and shrinking things down in HiDPI, but it uses an incredibly hacky workaround that involves supersampling:

Apple actually renders the desktop at 2x the selected resolution (3360 x 2100 or 3840 x 2400, respectively), scales up the text and UI elements accordingly so they aren’t super tiny (backing scale factor = 2.0), and downscales the final image to fit on the 2880 x 1800 panel. The end result is you get a 3360 x 2100 desktop, with text and UI elements the size they would be on a 1680 x 1050 desktop, all without sacrificing much sharpness/crispness thanks to the massive supersampling. The resulting image isn’t as perfect as it would be at the default setting because you have to perform a floating point filter down to 2880 x 1800, but it’s still incredibly good.


The flexibility offered by Apple’s handling of the Retina Display in OS X is unparalleled. What applications like Aperture, iPhoto, iMovie and Final Cut HD offer, is unbridled resolution independence. What Apple has done here is so much more difficult than what it pulled off in iOS with the Retina Display. It will take time for third party application developers to get on board, but with the power of the Mac app store and Apple’s growing install base of Mac users I suspect we will see incredibly quick adoption of support for the MacBook Pro’s Retina Display.

Supersampling really isn't as simple or efficient a method as the simple quadrupling of assets/text used in iOS, but that is a much more locked down and targetable hardware ecosystem compared to the myriad display sizes/viewing distances that have to work for both desktops and laptops.

Maybe a simpler solution like pixel quadrupling isn't the way to go and supersampling is the only way around this problem on the desktop, I don't know. Some things in OS X are 2x the size (its had 4k wallpapers since Mountain Lion) but that clearly doesn't solve or apply to everything. Hopefully Windows and Linux either supersamples or uses alternate methods that work just as well, because OS X is the only place where HiDPI works properly on a desktop right now.

Supersampling definitely looks the best so far, just look at retina apps on a rMBP, but it also requires additional work from third parties to make their applications HiDPI compatible. Big big problem IMHO.

RE: Not sold
By BZDTemp on 12/3/2013 7:20:48 PM , Rating: 3
The thing is that having a higher resolution is great for everything, be it reading, gaming or more traditional graphical work. In fact a high PPI means I prefer using 27" 2560x1440 over a 30" 2560x1600 and a 24" 4K monitor sounds even better to me, although I suspect for some jobs two 24" is then a requirement.

For more than two decades I have been spending extra money on having the best possible monitor(s) as well as the best keyboards and mice. After all it is how we interface with the computer and good input/output means being more productive so the extra money pays of in the long run. I highly recommend putting out the extra money if at all possible - and this also goes if it is "just" for gaming.

RE: Not sold
By NellyFromMA on 12/2/2013 10:53:06 AM , Rating: 2
Just curious, does anyone know how 1080p looks on a 4k display? It should amount to pixel doubling, and perhaps 1080p scaled up to 4k doesn't look so bad?

Thinking of a 4k display but my SLI setup isn't going to drive 4K at max settings, so I may keep gaming at 1080P while using the display as a stepping stone to 4K. Plus, I can still do 2D at 4K in theory.

Any thoughts?

RE: Not sold
By Nexos on 12/2/2013 11:20:31 AM , Rating: 2
Ive been using a 2048x1152 resolution screen for years now and have on occasion had to run old win95/98 games in 1/4 resolution (1024x576) because they don't support 16:9 resolutions that high. They all look perfectly sharp, with no visual artifacts. (unlike for example 1280x720 or 1024x768)

I imagine 1080 on this new screen will look just as sharp as 1080 displayed natively on a screen the same size, perhaps even a bit sharper since the gap between pixels should be smaller.

RE: Not sold
By Jeffk464 on 12/2/2013 11:31:37 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah this is the problem with 4K, its going to require some insane graphics card power.

RE: Not sold
By inighthawki on 12/2/2013 11:34:51 AM , Rating: 2
Benchmarks show that even SLI of the highest end cards (290X and 780Ti) is still struggling to achieve 4K on high settings. You will definitely have to run many games at 1080p until video cards catch up. Old games shouldn't be too hard, though.

RE: Not sold
By 91TTZ on 12/2/2013 10:55:02 AM , Rating: 2
I'm able to see the pixels on my iPhone and my Nook HD+ tablet. The Nook has 1920x1080 resolution on a 9" screen. I don't think it's wasted resolution.

One of the main problems I had with the Surface tablets was their horrible resolution. 1366 x768 resolution on a 10.6" screen looked absolutely horrible. It was a grainy, pixelated mess. When users picked up a new iPad and a new Surface, the Surface looked outdated with its low-resolution screen. The new Surfaces look much nicer.

Right now I'm using a 24" screen with 1920x1080 resolution. I could actually use more resolution to tell you the truth. Since the monitor is further away from my eyes I can't see all the pixels as easily as I can with my iPhone 4S or Nook HD+, but I can still see the blockiness of the graphics.

RE: Not sold
By Flunk on 12/2/2013 11:07:47 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know, we have phones with a 1080 displays now. If this came out at a price point I could afford (Maybe $500?) I would probably buy one.

It would let me cram more and smaller text onto my screen for programming and that text would be more legible. I was very surprised when I bought a Nexus 5 because the higher resolution really does make very tiny text legible.

RE: Not sold
By Flunk on 12/2/2013 11:08:21 AM , Rating: 2
PS, I don't expect this will be affordable. But in a few years they will be.

RE: Not sold
By inighthawki on 12/2/2013 11:17:40 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to guess this will be released at (at least) a similar price to other 4K monitors, and possibly more since it's a higher density display. That meaning the base price will likely be between $3500 and $5000.

RE: Not sold
By retrospooty on 12/2/2013 2:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Not sold
By inighthawki on 12/2/2013 3:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty awesome I must say. 4K is really interesting to me because I can now get more screen real estate while also having a perfect 2:1 scale for 1080p so games do not require bilinear filtering for the scaling. $1400 is still quite a bit for a monitor though. I wish I could see one in person first.

RE: Not sold
By retrospooty on 12/2/2013 5:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
"4K is really interesting to me because I can now get more screen real estate while also having a perfect 2:1 scale for 1080p so games do not require bilinear filtering for the scaling. "


"$1400 is still quite a bit for a monitor though"

Ya, its a bit high but no more so than when the first 30 inch 2560x1600 mass market monitors came out. It will drop. Considering the amount if laptops that are available with higher res like this, I am going to guess it will drop alot faster than the first 30 inch 2560x1600 mass market monitors did.

RE: Not sold
By inighthawki on 12/2/2013 7:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah they probably will. Considering the 28" monitor is slated for an "early 2014 release at under $1000" I bet both the 24" and 32" models will drop pretty quickly over the next year or so. If the 28" model really sells for under $1000 then it won't be that much more than their existing 27" models which usually retail around $750-$800. At that point it'd almost be a steal (relatively speaking)

RE: Not sold
By Jeffk464 on 12/2/2013 11:29:12 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, this is where 4K really has a point. It will be nice when these get to an affordable price.

How Much is enough?
By km9v on 12/2/2013 11:22:33 AM , Rating: 1
How much more resolution do we really need? We barely have enough bandwidth to stream 1080p never mind above that. Blu Ray movies are already 25 - 40 Gb in size. How much bigger would an equivalent 4K res movie be? Can your eyes really notice the difference?

RE: How Much is enough?
By inighthawki on 12/2/2013 11:32:37 AM , Rating: 2
Barely enough bandwidth? Modern connections are already capable of doing 4K @60Hz (Same as 1080p @240Hz).

And yes, the difference is like night and day, especially with such a large display.

RE: How Much is enough?
By retrospooty on 12/2/2013 11:58:17 AM , Rating: 3
It's not just about movies and games. Res = Res. I would love to have it just to have Windows apps, Office and Excel at higher res. You can see more and do more and do while scrolling less + better image quality all the way around. Games and video will take a while to catch up, but eventually they will.

RE: How Much is enough?
By haukionkannel on 12/2/2013 2:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
Higher res allso makes the text much sharper, so easier to read. This old man with poor eyes really wellcome the 4K to the desktop and laptops too!
8K where are you... I am still waiting! It would put desktop in par with mobile devices...

RE: How Much is enough?
By retrospooty on 12/2/2013 2:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
I am just glad we are at least over the 1366x768 crap we have been fed for years. Ugh, I hate using anything that low, even if its a small screen, its just not enough room to maneuver.

RE: How Much is enough?
By Jeffk464 on 12/2/2013 2:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
Over, thats my laptop spec. :(
I think 1080p looks pretty darn good on 15" and under displays though.

RE: How Much is enough?
By euler007 on 12/2/2013 3:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
It's because of people like you that we can have nice things.

RE: How Much is enough?
By ritualm on 12/2/2013 8:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
How much more resolution do we really need?

The funny thing is we'll have this exact conversation again when 8K (which, by the way, is FOUR times the 4K's resolution) starts going mainstream.

You're perfectly fine with your mediocre 1366x768 displays at 17". Meanwhile, to me, 1080p at anything over 11" is wholly unacceptable.
Blu Ray movies are already 25 - 40 Gb in size.

I don't care. Storage space is cheap.
Can your eyes really notice the difference?

Yes, I can.

Just for reference, the R5000-series teaser:
Carrell estimates that the human eye can directly resolve around 7 million pixels, almost twice the resolution of a 30" display. But that's just what it's directly focusing on, all of the peripherial vision brings the total up to around 100 million pixels...

Carrell believes that in seven years we can have the first generation Holodeck up and running. For those of you who aren't familiar with the Trek reference, Carrell believes it'll take seven years to be able to deliver a 180 degree hemispherical display (you're not completely surrounded by displays but at least your forward and peripheral vision is)...

RE: How Much is enough?
By TakinYourPoints on 12/3/2013 1:22:23 AM , Rating: 3
This is for media professionals first and foremost. Shooting in 4K and downsampling to 2K is becoming prevalent, and actually editing and finishing in 4K will gain steam over the next few years. This is a huge reason why you're seeing a Mac Pro that supports three 4K displays, why you're seeing a proliferation of DisplayPort in video cards, etc etc.

This will trickle down to the consumer over time, just like high price IPS monitors did. Until then it will be a high end niche product.

Can your eyes really notice the difference?

It will as screens increase in size. 65" at a normal viewing distance of arond 8" pushes 1080p. 4K becomes useful if you want to go to larger sizes such as 80"+.

Just today I checked out some 4K displays. Cool but impractical at 50", awesome at 80"+.

Blu Ray movies are already 25 - 40 Gb in size. How much bigger would an equivalent 4K res movie be?

Codecs improve over time. MPEG-2 used for DVD in the 90s was incredibly inefficient. I had to encode with it for years and it was a massive PITA. An equally sized h.264 file used for Blu Ray or online can be HD with much better color depth, no macro blocking, fewer compression artifacts, etc etc.

MPEG-2 at h.264 high image quality would give you file sizes that would be too big to even fit on Blu Ray media. The h.264 files I upload to Vimeo now are magnitudes better in every possible way than the same exact same clip I encoded in MPEG-2 for DVD, all while being much smaller files.

Now we're running against the same limitations of h.264 as we go past 1080p, which brings us to h.265.

h.265 is already here. It will give us increased resolution without compromising color depth or file size:

This is a natural progression in codecs. Just as we moved from mp3 to AAC and MPEG-2 to h.264, now we're onto h.265.

Increased computational power + codec efficiency = awesome :)

RE: How Much is enough?
By retrospooty on 12/3/2013 9:20:01 AM , Rating: 2
"Just today I checked out some 4K displays. Cool but impractical at 50", awesome at 80"+."

What 4k displays at 80+ inches are you referring to? What Plasma? ;)

RE: How Much is enough?
By TakinYourPoints on 12/3/2013 3:30:11 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, no plasmas sadly, but oh well, things move on.

Sony's 4K was excellent, Samsung's was trash. No real middle ground in image quality there, but then again the selection is limited. My dealer and I are crossing fingers for giant 4K OLED sets in three years or so, we'll see!

By jamescox on 12/3/2013 7:56:33 PM , Rating: 2

I bought a 30 inch Dell Ultra Sharp at 2560x1600 over a year ago. I really like having the extra vertical space offered by a 16x10 display, but these are going away, which is why I bought this one when I did.

Images and video look spectacular on this display, even using an old macbook pro to drive it. I am disappointed with the pixel density though. With text, I end up scaling the text much larger to get it easy on the eyes. This negates having a large high res display to some extent. I have gotten used to super smooth text on high dpi displays (smart phones and tablets). I do sit relatively close though. Also, I am often using a remote machine via vnc, which may not be applying the proper smoothing to the text. Black text on a white background is really bad with such low dpi (only about 100 dpi).

Anyway, the high dpi displays are mostly useful for text on a computer display, unless you sit at your computer and watch blu-ray disc at 18 inches. There are always special cases, like 4k video editing. With the 2560x1600, I can have 1080p video in a window with a lot of extra space available.

For games on 2560x1600, it would be anoying to need to go down to half res (1280x800), but this works a lot better with 4k, since you can go down to 1080p which is manageable by most current gaming systems and will still look good. The display makers should move to 4k as soon as possible, and implement really good scaling hardware to up-convert to 1080 to 4k.

I was looking at a 4k tv at Fry's this weekend, and even at about 10 feet, a 65 inch 4k seems to look significantly better than 1080p. A lot of people have been claiming that you need 70 or 80 inches to get any benefit, but this does not seem to be the case. You may not be seeing all the detail of 4k at 65"/10' viewing distance, but it seems to still look a lot better than 1080p.

I have a small living room with a 47 inch tv, so if I ever upgrade the tv, I would definitely consider a 4k set if going larger. I wouldn't buy one now though. I don't have much of a reason to upgrade; the content is not there yet, and my current tv is not that old. I think tv makers are really going to push the 4k to try to give people a reason to upgrade, so they may get cheaper relatively quickly.

"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki