backtop


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

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.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/02/dell-ultrasharp...

32 inches @ 4k would work great for me.


RE: Not sold
By Spuke on 12/2/2013 11:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
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: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-mac...

quote:
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.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki