Sharp's 32-inch IGZO 4K Monitor Will Cost $5500

Status
Not open for further replies.

dragonsqrrl

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2009
1,280
0
19,290
3
This sounds like the ultimate monitor. It's the sort of thing we've all been waiting for, 4k on our desktops. It's nice to have tech like this to look forward to in the coming years, once the prices drop a little. I'd say once something like this drops to around $1000, I'll start considering it.
 

kingnoobe

Distinguished
Aug 20, 2008
774
0
18,980
0
Honestly I'm surprised it only costs that much. While still way to rich for my blood, gives me some hope that in a couple years I'll be able to afford one.
 

zycuda

Honorable
Jan 12, 2013
114
0
10,690
3
[citation][nom]dimar[/nom]Bring 8k displays already![/citation]
4k is fairly new, we dont need 8k yet, plus other hardware couldnt even keep up with that.
 

Onihikage

Honorable
Apr 29, 2012
88
0
10,630
0
32 inches, 4K, IGZO, and multitouch capability all in one screen, for $5500? I'll be honest, I'm surprised - that's a pretty competitive price for such a monitor with two new technologies packed into it. Dropping to just 1/5 of the price would put it among today's higher-end HD sets. Still way too expensive for a part-time, min-wage worker like me, though...
 

crewton

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2011
1,334
0
19,460
91
I wonder what their warranty will be. I'd hate to spend 5500 on a monitor and have it die or lose a couple pixels in a year... I think I'd feel sick inside.
 

ikyung

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2010
566
0
19,010
6
Well, if you look at pretty much every other electronics, Japan pays a decent chunk of premium for it. Meaning, it can be 450,000 yen there which is $5,500, but it can be cheaper if it comes to the US market. Honestly, I did not think a 30+ inch 4k monitor would start lower then $8,000 which is a great sign. Hoping that by 2014-15, it will drop between $1,000 - $2,000. I'm currently using a 1440 monitor and the transition from 1080 to 1440 was definitely noticeably large. Can't wait to see how big it is from 1440 to 2160.
 

samwelaye

Distinguished
Apr 24, 2010
284
0
18,790
1
[citation][nom]lenasmithe22[/nom]just before I saw the paycheck which said $7421, I did not believe ...that...my neighbour truly bringing in money part time from there new laptop.. there sisters roommate has done this less than twenty three months and as of now cleard the dept on their place and bought a great Mercedes-Benz S-class. this is where I went, http://Great60.com[/citation]

I swear, if you used "their" instead of "there" I might actually think you were smart believe this spam. Real hard for me to take your miracle story seriously with so many grammar errors
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]This sounds like the ultimate monitor. It's the sort of thing we've all been waiting for, 4k on our desktops. It's nice to have tech like this to look forward to in the coming years, once the prices drop a little. I'd say once something like this drops to around $1000, I'll start considering it.[/citation]
Not many of us been waiting for 4K because most of us realize how pointless it is.

Sure the extra resolution when you're up close to it would be great for photography, or is great when you're in a movie theater and an image is blown up to a hundred some feet. But in a normal living room then I can have a TV big enough to take full advantage of 4K, and a computer gear going to increase the user interface at a point where you can use it again instead of having it at the normal resolution basically showing off all the potential screen real estate you gain from 4K unless you get a 48 inch screen and have fun staring that all day. And for gaming we need to graphics cards just a handled 1600 P (I'm using Dragon don't want to say every single number in the resolution of talking about) but let's do some quick math here.

1600 P 4,096,000 pixels
4K (as it pertains to this article) 8,294,400 pixels

But that effectively means is you need at least four graphics cards to handle any game on this monitor, at the very least 4. I failed to understand what everyone so we need 4K about, and this resolution is even 4K. Here let me go get a different resolution that's closer to a 16:10 version of 4K.

(consumer 4k 16:10) 3840×2400
(real 4k) 4096×2304

And the amount of pixels each one has is as follows respectively
9,216,000
and
9,437,184

And let's put our final little thought.
The infrastructure upgrades for 4K are so expensive that Japan's considering not even going for changes jumping the straight to 8K. So there's a good chance that most of the worlds and a feel about the same way.

The too long didn't read version
I don't get why everyone's excited about 4K
it's uses on a computer unless you have a 48 inch screen
it's expensive as hell
we may never get the infrastructure for 4K
the only real use 4K has is in theaters
it will require at least four graphics cards to run a videogame on it if not more
the user interface increases to compensate for such a high resolution would kill off any benefit you get from such a high resolution.
Outside of photography and some amount of video editing there is no use for 4K, outside of a 48 inch monitor.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
[citation][nom]jimmyjohnz[/nom]It doesn't continuously refresh static images? Is there any start up lag going from a static image to nonstatic?[/citation]
Active Matrix LCDs have small capacitors holding each pixel's state between refresh which is what makes them flicker-free regardless of refresh rates. A static display only needs to be refreshed often enough to keep fading below perceivable levels and that can take over a second.

As far as delays go, there is no reason for there to be any as long as the clock sync is maintained with the source (avoid PLL locking delays) so the display is ready to accept new frames whenever they come in.
 
G

Guest

Guest
4 video cards? Uh I think not. While it's true that basic stuff wouldn't be able to run much 4k content the top of the line stuff would which would push Nvidia and AMD to develop high end solutions that would work with 4k technology because right now we're largely stalled out at 1080p which is pretty shitty - I mean tablets have better screens than most desktops have these days.
 

dragonsqrrl

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2009
1,280
0
19,290
3
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]Not many of us been waiting for 4K because most of us realize how pointless it is.[/citation]
The general reaction I've observed from enthusiasts would suggest otherwise.
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]Sure the extra resolution when you're up close to it would be great for photography, or is great when you're in a movie theater and an image is blown up to a hundred some feet. But in a normal living room then I can have a TV big enough to take full advantage of 4K, and a computer gear going to increase the user interface at a point where you can use it again instead of having it at the normal resolution basically showing off all the potential screen real estate you gain from 4K unless you get a 48 inch screen and have fun staring that all day.[/citation]
If you're going to go on a long rant, could you at least invest a little extra effort into making it comprehensible. I honestly don't understand half of what you wrote here.

Yes, 4k isn't for every application or every user, but I think you're greatly underestimating its usefulness if you think the additional resolution is gimmicky and pointless for desktop and home theater applications. For desktops the additional real-estate higher resolutions afford is always welcome in my opinion, especially in the content creation software I use on a regular basis (Maya, Mudbox, After Effects). The advantages certainly aren't limited to photo and video work.
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]And for gaming we need to graphics cards just a handled 1600 P (I'm using Dragon don't want to say every single number in the resolution of talking about) but let's do some quick math here.1600 P 4,096,000 pixels4K (as it pertains to this article) 8,294,400 pixelsBut that effectively means is you need at least four graphics cards to handle any game on this monitor, at the very least 4.[/citation]
Why do you assume someone would need 4 current gen cards to run future games at a resolution that probably won't be commonplace for at least another 3-6 years? Even if 4k was a common resolution today on current GPU performance, why do you assume someone would require 4 cards to run that resolution? Because it's 2x 2560x1600? lol
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]I failed to understand what everyone so we need 4K about, and this resolution is even 4K. Here let me go get a different resolution that's closer to a 16:10 version of 4K.(consumer 4k 16:10) 3840×2400(real 4k) 4096×2304And the amount of pixels each one has is as follows respectively9,216,000and9,437,184[/citation]
Sigh, what are you talking about? "consumer" 4k vs "real" 4k? 4k doesn't represent a fixed resolution. It's a set of standards, and 3840x2160 is one of them, and is just as "real" as 4096x2160.
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]And let's put our final little thought.The infrastructure upgrades for 4K are so expensive that Japan's considering not even going for changes jumping the straight to 8K. So there's a good chance that most of the worlds and a feel about the same way..[/citation]
Actually Japan is increasing its investment in 4k and accelerating its introduction. Current estimates place the first 4k broadcasts in 2014, in time for the World Cup in Brazil and 2 years ahead of original plans.

Your comment is just overflowing with ignorance, shortsightedness, and excessively poor grammar. Prices will come down, GPU performance per W will increase, and 4k is only a gimmick if you don't know how to take advantage of it... in which case you would probably question its usefulness and resent anyone who wanted it.
 

Onihikage

Honorable
Apr 29, 2012
88
0
10,630
0
Something detractors need to realize is that no one (yet) wants to buy a 4K screen to play games at 4K. They want a 4K screen for productivity, because as anyone will tell you, the real estate provided by 2 or 3 1080p monitors is essential when you're using more than one program, and especially in 3D modeling applications which need multiple large views and plenty of space for all the UI elements. Using this as a monitor provides a huge level of freedom as far as how you arrange your windows. As an aside, just think about how crisp text would be - on my monitor (which is almost exactly 100ppi), I actually zoom most web pages in because bigger text looks much crisper; if the same size monitor was 4K, that text could be smaller without losing any fidelity.

Very few today would seriously try to game at 4K, and I don't think anyone could anyway since few games even offer an option for that kind of resolution. A 4K monitor simply offers more options. If their system can handle gaming at higher resolutions, this monitor could actually display those. I have a 1080p display, but that doesn't mean I always play at 1920x1080; sometimes I lower it to 1600x900 or even 1280x720 just because I want to turn on DX11 without playing a slideshow. A 4K monitor can technically just substitute 4 pixels for each single pixel of a 1920x1080 resolution, so it would actually work really well as a dual-purpose monitor.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]The general reaction I've observed from enthusiasts would suggest otherwise.If you're going to go on a long rant, could you at least invest a little extra effort into making it comprehensible. I honestly don't understand half of what you wrote here.Yes, 4k isn't for every application or every user, but I think you're greatly underestimating its usefulness if you think the additional resolution is gimmicky and pointless for desktop and home theater applications. For desktops the additional real-estate higher resolutions afford is always welcome in my opinion, especially in the content creation software I use on a regular basis (Maya, Mudbox, After Effects). The advantages certainly aren't limited to photo and video work.Why do you assume someone would need 4 current gen cards to run future games at a resolution that probably won't be commonplace for at least another 3-6 years? Even if 4k was a common resolution today on current GPU performance, why do you assume someone would require 4 cards to run that resolution? Because it's 2x 2560x1600? lolSigh, what are you talking about? "consumer" 4k vs "real" 4k? 4k doesn't represent a fixed resolution. It's a set of standards, and 3840x2160 is one of them, and is just as "real" as 4096x2160. Actually Japan is increasing its investment in 4k and accelerating its introduction. Current estimates place the first 4k broadcasts in 2014, in time for the World Cup in Brazil and 2 years ahead of original plans.Your comment is just overflowing with ignorance, shortsightedness, and excessively poor grammar. Prices will come down, GPU performance per W will increase, and 4k is only a gimmick if you don't know how to take advantage of it... in which case you would probably question its usefulness and resent anyone who wanted it.[/citation]

Yeah I'm in the middle of training Dragon 12 to really be good at what it does, for the most part it is a lot better than complete spelling errors everywhere and being completely disregarded because I have bad grammar, not saying that happens much here but I just get sick of that happening on the Internet. And yeah I miss things when I reread a lot. I'm ago to reset point by point so if you change something later on I'm not going back to correct what I said before.

I see its application a home theater department far greater than the desktop computer of the department because was a home theater she using a projector you can take advantage of 4K but with just him TV and living room my house is kind of small get we still have 10 to 15 feet of space between us and the TV. At that distance will need a TV in the range of 108 220 inches before we would see a difference between 1080 P and 4K, by some estimates 720 P might be enough for us. With Maya and mudbox, you have to increase the user interface at a point where any screen real estate you gain would be lost, for after effects, you would need to increase the user interface at a point where any game you got would be gone, again unless you're using a 48 inch screen and have fun using that is less than 3 feet. Now in watching the video that you edited in after effects yeah 4K has its advantage there.

Sumi require four graphics cards probably because it's twice the image of 1600 P monitor and that requires to graphics cards to really work effectively. In six years time sure a single graphics card might be able playing great videogame up today at 4K over about a videogame six years from now 4K? You would still probably need at least two if not more than two graphics cards to run it at that resolution.

What's the market towards the consumer market isn't really 4K or is in full 4K it under 4K resolution which use in movies is actually 4K resolution that's why have a difference between 4K for theaters and 4K for consumer market.

And finally from what I've read a lot of places in Japan are just considering skipping 4K altogether because it infrastructure upgrade costs and just moving 8K since you already see that down the line as just a cost more to upgrade from 4K to 8K that would be just a jump to 8K.

Yes prices will come down, grant is primarily for six years before anyone would consider it for their living room. GPU performance will increase but if there to push the graphics cards right now to their limit at 1080 P, what are the chances that those same graphics cards will play that same game looking just as good at 4K. And I'm not calling 4K a gimmick, and questioning the people who blindly say yes for case here finally one day don't think of what they need to do to make 4K useful for them.

Let me give an example right now on a 1200 P 24 inch monitor on Tom's hardware alone, I have resumed set to 175% to make reading the text easier on my eyes at 3 feet away, going to 1600 P monitor because it has roughly the same PPI as my monitor does I would have to increase it much more than it already is to be comfortable reading it that distance, but for me and what I assume a lot of people wouldn't use a 48 inch monitor for the computer screen and 30 inches is kind of pushing it for a 1600 P monitor, and with the user interface seen to be increase to compensate for the higher pixels per inch count that 4K would introduce the increased resolution would be taken away and just apply to the tax the images in the interface. At 3 feet and 24 inches I don't notice any of the JDs on images or any of the user interface options sure I know they're there but I don't see them, would adding more resolution to that do.
 

natoco

Distinguished
May 3, 2011
82
0
18,630
0
Very nice screen, display port i would guess for bandwidth needed... video cards are going to need 4x the memory just for the frame buffer, not sure if 2 cards scale up like that for the 1 buffer. Its great to see the screen productions for consumer market start. Good times ahead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS