
Dell unveils 8K 32-inch monitor at CES 2017 - dmmalam
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/242192-dell-unveils-new-8k-32-inch-monitor-ces-2017-shipping-year
======
Sephr
For $5000, I'd much rather buy the 4K 120hz HDR 0.1ms response time OLED
monitor Dell announced in CES 2016 (the UP3017Q). Unfortunately it seems like
it may never come out. Hopefully Dell will try again with microLED in the
future.

An 8K 60Hz LCD in 32 inches seems like a waste for literally every application
I can think of except medical diagnostics (and even then, many doctors might
not have the vision to benefit from this over 5K). The only practical uses for
8K are in completely different form factors and using different screen
technologies.

The sweet spots for every current use case (gaming, content creation &
consumption, web browsing, reading, medical diagnostics) that are possible
with HDMI 2.1 are probably as follows:

Desktop monitor: 27" 5K 165Hz HDR OLED/microLED display

VR HMD: 2" 4000x4000 165Hz HDR OLED/microLED displays per-eye

AR HMD: 2" 8000px diameter HDR ???Hz fiber scanning displays[1] per-eye

[1]: [https://gpuofthebrain.com/blog/2016/7/22/how-magic-leap-
will...](https://gpuofthebrain.com/blog/2016/7/22/how-magic-leap-will-work)

~~~
phkahler
I've wanting an LG OLED55C6P for a monitor. It's a 55" 4K curved TV with HDR.
I figure it's like 4 27" 1080 monitors without the borders in the middle. It's
also vertically taller than one of those monitors in portrait orientation
while still having tons of space to the side of said portrait. As I'm old
enough to need progressive lenses, I don't really think there's any value in
having higher pixel density than 4K at that size.

~~~
lewisl9029
I have that exact TV and have been using it as a monitor for a while.

The input lag is actually fairly bearable in the recently updated game mode
for development and everyday use, though I certainly wouldn't use it for
competitive gaming.

My main issue with it as a monitor is the Automatic Brightness Limiter. Rtings
has a fairly good description of the symptoms:
[http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/c6](http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/c6)

Basically, the brightness of the TV varies across a huge range depending on
the content being displayed, with brighter content causing the TV to dim
itself automatically. It's a huge distraction on a day to day basis because
every time you switch to a new tab in a browser or minimize/maximize a tab,
you can see your entire screen dim/brighten. There is no way to turn it off
completely AFAIK, even through the TV's service menus. The workaround I've
found involves setting the contrast level to 55 or below, which reduces the
max brightness of the TV and makes the ABL changes much less drastic, but it's
definitely still noticeable and distracting, and of course the contrast and
max brightness suffers.

If I had known everything about this TV that I know today, I would not have
bought it to use as a monitor (would probably have gone with some high end LCD
with good local dimming). Watching movies on it in a dark room is an awe-
inspiring experience though, and is what makes me reluctant to go through the
trouble of returning/selling it and getting something else. That's my 2c
anyways, feel free to make use of this information how you will.

~~~
mastre_
> would probably have gone with some high end LCD with good local dimming

Are you also talking about TVs? I'm considering doing this, as someone who
knows about it, what would you look at if you were to buy something now/in the
near future?

~~~
lewisl9029
For a high end LCD, I'd go with a Vizio P series assuming they've rolled out
the promised firmware upgrade that adds 4:4:4 chroma support. The local
dimming is supposed to be very good on that one. And it has relatively low
input lag. No chroma 4:4:4 (AKA chroma subsampling) kills it as a monitor
though, so I'd do some research to make sure it supports that properly before
pulling the trigger.

For something more value-minded, I'd go for something from the Samsung
KU6290/KU6300 series. No local dimming on this one, but otherwise it's an
incredible value. I've written more about it here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354234](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354234)

To be honest, I would have an extremely hard time justifying spending 2-3
times on a higher end LCD over the KU6290/KU6300 series if I were in the
market for a new TV-as-monitor today myself. Local dimming could still be
worth the additional investment if you watch a lot of movies though, having
blacks appear as pure black really made the movie watching experience that
much more enjoyable for me and my friends.

------
wbond
I feel like 32" at a high PPI is hitting the point of perfection in a display.

The 32" size gives a generous amount of space for multiple programs to be
visible on the screen at once, without being too large for normal desk usage.
Trying to use something like a 47" inch TV results in lots of head movement to
scan the entire screen.

For anyone who has used a high PPI screen, the smoothness of text and
geometric shapes is beautiful.

Before this the two compromises were a 32" 4K, which is a normal PPI screen,
or a 27" 5K, which doesn't have the same real estate for 4-up viewing.

Alas, $5k is clearly a steep price filtering out all but the largest hardware
budgets. Considering the price of the 32" 4K Dell dropped by 50% over a few
years, hopefully these will be sub-$2k by 2019.

~~~
michaelbuckbee
I use a 49" 4K tv as a monitor and you're right. Oddly since I'm using a
standing desk it's really helpful (and natural) to lean a bit to see upper
left and right areas of the screen.

That being said the overall experience is fantastic and a serious productivity
boost.

I'm on the lookout now for a 55" or larger 4K with a curved screen as I think
that would help on both fronts.

~~~
laurieg
How do you find the brightness an pixel arrangement using a 4k tv? I have been
eyeing up a 43 inch tv as a monitor for a while.

~~~
lrizzo
Of all the problems you can have with this setting, brightness is not one of
them.

I have been using 4k 40" tvs and monitors with OSX and FreeBSD/linux for over
2 years now and overall I am quite happy with the choice.

I wouldn't go much above 40", as it would involve too much head movement
(while sitting at least, I find myself comfortably using only 2/3 of the
height).

One annoying problem especially with older or low end TVs was definitely lag.
Even after disabling all "picture enhancements" and setting the equivalent of
gaming mode, many TVs in 2014-2015 had high lag, from the 120ms that even
Samsung/LG were showing, up to the 300+ms of Seiki and Haier and other no-name
TVs. That makes the monitor unusable even for text editing. From personal
experience, 2016 Samsung at least are much better, but better try them before
buying.

Next comes viewing angle and color -- cheap panels have a limited vertical
viewing angle, and sometimes even limited color depth.

Then you have to fight with OS and applications. For some combinations of OSX
and TVs, I had the OS applying non-removable overscan after identifying the
screen as a TV. OSX also does antialiasing which results in blurred characters
with small fonts in terminals. I haven't found a good bitmapped font to use.

Apps also have problems, e.g. chrome on OSX does not refresh well the bottom
bar when you move windows between the 4k and the retina screen. Or, some video
players fail to go full screen on 4k.

------
starseeker
When I was in a hardware store last year, I had a chance to compare a 4k and
5k iMac side by side. IIRC, the size was the same and it came down to PPI.

For casual use 4k was plenty, but where 5k really proved itself for me was
small terminal text. I was able to take the font size in terminals down
noticeably smaller on the 5k while still having readable text.

That's why the 8k interests me - when doing programming, my particular work-
flow usually ends up with lots of open terminals, documents, and web pages as
information and source code are woven together into a program. The smaller the
readable text, the more I can fit on the screen at once and see at the same
time. With 275 PPI and large screen size all in one, this sounds like it might
be the dream coding monitor...

~~~
cududa
It always baffles me when people say "There doesn't need to be any higher PPI!
We've already maxed out on the human eye perceiving pixels!"

Sure that's lovely, but that doesn't mean graphics and text won't gain more
fidelity/ use cases from higher PPI. Just because you can't focus on
individual pixels and pick them out doesn't mean your brain caps out at
percieving more than 225 PPI..

------
Sophistifunk
I've just replaced a 32" 4K (4096x) LG with a pair of 28" UHD displays on my
main workstation, and I could definitely see benefits to upgrading to 5k at
this size, but 8k is just nuts.

My dream is get the PPI somewhere around 5k at 27/28", but use all that
bandwidth for an ultrawide display, so you don't need it to be so tall and
don't have the issues you get with 2x displays, such as a bevel in the middle
and no real ideal layout.

~~~
losvedir
> _use all that bandwidth for an ultrawide display_

Responding from my Dell u3417w, I have to agree that ultrawide is a great form
factor for a monitor. The PPI of my monitor is about that of an Apple
Thunderbolt display, so I do miss the "retina" experience of my Macbook Pro
driving the monitor, but overall having so much horizontal real estate is
glorious. I think my dream, too, would be a monitor with these dimensions but
a higher PPI.

~~~
Sophistifunk
Even after months with the glorious panel in the LG and using the 15" retina
as second display, going back to big ole' country pixels was _almost_ a price
I was willing to pay for ultrawide. I think the 2 x 28"s is the right choice
for me, but only by a gnat's dick.

If I could have beaten my Mac into driving the LG at a non-2x scale, I'd have
kept with it, it's such a nice panel. But now it's on my Win 10 box, which
supports it perfectly; that was a very pleasant surprise.

~~~
evadne
[http://resxtreme.com](http://resxtreme.com) or
[http://displaymenu.milchimgemuesefach.de](http://displaymenu.milchimgemuesefach.de)
can help your use case

------
shmerl
I wish Dell would sell affordable high resolution 16:10 monitors and not limit
them to 1920x1200 only.

------
WalterBright
I'd like a picture window sized (or even wall sized!) display I could hang on
the wall. I'd love to be able to select a "view" from any live camera in the
world.

------
allenleein
Now i just need to upgrade my eyes, and possibly my brain, to take in all
those pixels.

------
aceperry
Dell is really pushing the envelope when it comes to monitors. I was tempted
to get a 4K monitor during the holiday season, but decided not to when I found
out that I had to upgrade all of my graphics cards and laptops.

------
pitaj
When I heard about the 4k OLED 120Hz Dell monitor from last year, I
immediately thought that that was the perfection of display technology for me.

OLED seems to have the best of all worlds: \- high refresh rates \- fast
response times \- deep blacks \- good contrast \- wide viewing angles

The only issue that I've seen brought up about OLEDs is possible burn-in, but
hasn't that issue been solved? Seems like Samsung and LG are confident in
their OLED offerings.

Why hasn't this technology come to the PC? I know for a fact that the demand
exists. Enthusiasts and gamers would absolutely fall over for an OLED display
like the Dell UP3017Q.

~~~
jsheard
Sadly the Dell UP3017Q is vaporware - we're still waiting for it to start
shipping a full year after it was announced, and Dell haven't given a reason
for the delay.

I suspect they did run into issues with burn-in. OLED TVs tend to avoid that
now, but PC monitors have to deal with a lot more static images for much
longer periods.

~~~
Sephr
LG OLED TVs partially mitigate that by using WOLED (white OLED pixels topped
with color filters).

------
cowardlydragon
What the hell, the ideal size for 4k resolution scaled from a 30" 2560x1600 is
about 40".

What is with these small 8k/4k monitors? Useless. I just buy TVs with HDMI
2.0. 50" 4k tvs are, what, $400 these days?

I get more pixels can be nice, and 8k is probably where that comes into play,
but if I have 8,192 lines of resolution, I want some screen real estate too.

~~~
_ph_
Having switched from a 30" 2560 to a 27" 5k display, I do sometimes miss the
screen estate, but the increased resolution is _really_ nice. Text rendering
become much better, and it gets really stunning, if you display large images
(> 15 megapixel) full screen.

------
SimeVidas
Who else here would rather have a HiDPI 21:9 monitor than a 8K one? Afaik, we
still have to choose between HiDPI and 21:9.

------
ksec
May be it is just me, the ~220PPI on 4K / 5K iMac looks a little fizzy when
zoomed. i.e The "larger text" option on OSX.

May be 8K will help? I dont understand why an 4/5K monitor will still look
fizzy.

------
rch
Great to see. I think the previous high-water mark was the IBM T221 IPS
Display (3840x2400), sold between 2001 and 2005, which was also fairly
expensive as I recall.

~~~
huxley
Really? LG has 5K monitors at the Apple Store with 5120x2880 res, the same
that's been available for a couple of years on the 27" iMac

~~~
rch
I stand corrected - thanks!

------
gomijacogeo
Perhaps, at some point, we can declare victory on the PPI axis and turn some
of that spatial resolution into a wider gamut with a couple more primaries?

------
filereaper
"4K ought to be enough for anyone."

~~~
nimchimpsky
But in this case, as the eye can't discern any difference (at reasonable
distances) - it really is ?

I don't get why there is this push - pixels sell I guess.

~~~
Matthias247
On Desktop monitors you can still see the difference. I have an 28" UHD
screen. It's really nice, and text looks a lot better than on the old FHD
screen it replaced. However it still looks a little bit worse than my MacBook
Pro Retina screen. Which also makes sense when you compare 155dpi to 230dpi.
Whether 8k now is necessary or 6k would be totally sufficient - don't know.
But I guess it's easier to sell the double resolution.

~~~
nimchimpsky
From the article "A 4K panel of the same physical size is retina at 25 inches.
An 8K panel hits that mark at the one-foot mark, but precious few people use a
32-inch display while sitting just 12 inches from the screen."

------
yarg
If it really is super retina resolution, it can also be used in a manner which
simulates a (much) higher colour depth.

Although given the fact that it already covers the entire colour gamut of
several different specifications, that probably won't be too useful.

I imagine you could also use it to simulate HDR - but I'd suspect that sources
capable of pushing 8K already support it.

All in all, not much point to this comment.

~~~
spitfire
Flashbacks to writing fake mode routines for mode-Q back in the DOS days. Good
times.

Please don't actually do this for real though. The tech will catch up so fast
it isn't worth the effort.

~~~
yarg
I'd do it for the fun, rather than the value. There'd also be the possibility
for some rather interesting complex simulated modes. Hexagonal pixels, for
example.

------
pi-rat
Can the current generation macbook pro drive one of these?

~~~
Sephr
It only supports DisplayPort 1.2 (x2 on some Thunderbolt 3 ports), so not
without using multiple DisplayPort links. HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4 (found
on modern GPUs) can both drive this though.

~~~
visarga
> HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4 (found on __modern __GPUs)

That's what should make Tim Cook feel ashamed when reading. His laptops are so
obsolete that "modern" doesn't apply. Even for the current gen.

------
TwoBit
I'll take HDR over 8K.

