Hahaha that reminds me of back in the day when shady computer boutiques use to use dual CPU motherboards and add the cpu speed together in the advertisement. 2 1ghz P3's doesn't make a 2ghz CPU.
Next awesome peripheral to be announced by Dell: a head-mounted binocular microscope enabling serious professionals to actually work with this ridiculous display...
"It's likely that professional applications like AutoCAD or Photoshop will support 8K the day the UltraSharp UP3218K hits the market, but general use applications, already struggling with 4K and HiDPI in general, will be another matter."
I wouldn't be too quick on the remarks of scaling. Check out the latest Windows 10 Insider build, and the new "Advanced Scaling" feature of GDI/GDI+ applications (basically, most Win32 applications). This screen should be out around the same time the Creators' Update is released.
It'd be easy enough to just run it at 3840x2160 so you still get a decent looking image inside of Windows if scaling or various applications don't play nicely with it.
I'm not sure why so many people are saying that Windows 10 is terrible. I've simply never used a better Microsoft OS. Most of the issues come from drivers; Intel graphics drivers specifically (Intel are STILL "working on it"). You need to try different driver releases from Intel and check which works best with your specific hardware.
Back to topic, There's absolutely nothing wrong with Windows 10 scaling. Again, the problem lies with Windows' relatively "generous" backwards compatibility to run legacy applications. That being said, LOTS of current applications "claim" that they scale properly, but they actually don't. Windows 10 creators update _should_ be much better for scaling current and legacy Win32 applications for high DPI screens. The new feature *overrides* any and all application specific scaling, regardless if the applications claims it can handle it, and fixes blurry text and bitmaps.
It seems that devs at Microsoft rewrote/improved lots of the underling code of UI rendering. A nice additional benefit is that resizing windows is MUCH smoother, without stuttering and chopping.
Side note: I'm personally very intrigued by a new, experimental battery saving feature that is supposed to "throttle" background and some foreground processes that aren't directly used by the user.
The upcoming update should be pretty darn significant for the underlying code of Windows 10. The update after that should introduce some major UI improvements by the end of the year. Love it.
Like DVRxR said; 4k doesn't mean "four times the resolution of FHD". It means that it has 4 thousand (k = kilo = thousand) horizontal dots/pixels. It's a common misunderstanding.
2K, 4k and 8k are DCI cinema formats. The respective consumer screen formats are FHD, UHD, and UUHD (?? dunno what it'll be called). DCI and consumer formats share the same amount of vertical pixels; 1080p, 2160p and 4320p respectively.
A monitor like this would be the perfect application for HDMI 2.1, which has the bandwidth to carry 8K@60Hz with HDR losslessly over a single cable. Just need to wait for controllers and cables carrying the spec to appear, followed by being integrated into monitors and graphics cards now.
HDMI 2.1 is still a year or two from shipping products, and it can only do 8k 120 at 4:2:0 color depth - which is sorta acceptable for TV use, but has pixel level artifacts that make it unsuitable for use as a monitor. 10k while not defined (my unscientific wag would be 5x*2 or 10240x5760, although an ultra wide format wouldn't surprise me either), is going to have the same or worse bandwidth limits at 120hz which means it'd also be color compressed and cancer if used as a monitor.
There is an XFX RX 470 on sale from Newegg right now. It has 3 Displayport 1.4 ports, 1 HDMI 2.0b, and 1 DL DVI-D, for 180 USD. ($165 after a 15 dollar rebate). Some models of 1050 Ti also have multiple DP 1.4 ports.
All this talk about HDR, 8k for professionals. First, MS needs to fix (add a proper) color management in windows 10, then add HDR support. If the creator ed. only sorts scaling, it may be possible to use his monitor with a Mac?
Well considering they announced the UP3017Q, which was a 120Hz 4k OLED display last year at CES and still haven't released the darn thing, I'll believe this thing when I see it for sale.
The Dell UP3218K has been a huge surprise to this person, an old large format landscape photographer. For the last two years I've been struggling trying to figure out how to put together an effective off the shelf 8k display by going to a 2x2 video wall panel system of 4k monitors with thin bezels on all 4 sides. However there has not been a single 4k display product at monitor sizes as all such products have at least one wider side for control and buttons. Actual video wall panels that put all that stuff fully behind screens are much larger at 46 inch diagonals or more and almost all are 2k sizes because their market is all about viewing video from a distance.
My expectation had been that any actual 8k panels in the near future would be very expensive as has been the case targeting a video market. I can understand why Dells first 8k display is only 32 inches because much of the associated hardware and software is barely and or just recently available. Thus any marketing for a more expensive larger monitor could fall flat. However this one product will encourage acceleration with the rest of what is needed.
I already own Dell 15.6 inch and 24 inch Ultrasharp 4k displays and believe the 24 inch to 32 inch or so size is the sweet spot for 4k pixel density for photography displays that apparently is shared by those that have been engineering those products as well as graphic and photography pros. I say so personally because my large images look awesome at 100% pixels on a 24 inch display that is at 187 ppi. That corresponds of course to historic high end fine art pixel printing densities of 200 to 300 dpi. Conversely photographs look mediocre up close on my old 24 inch 2k NEC display that is about half the density as do usual static images used at consumer retailers of larger 4k TV video screens.
Currently there are many millions of photographers worldwide with high end digital cameras especially DSLR's that take images far larger than can fit at 100% pixels on even 4k monitors. But they cannot display their work at 100% resolution except in sections. To view full images requires downsizing. Further, today unlike my view camera film work of past decades, I create images much larger than top digital camera sensor sizes with multi row column stitch blending with focus stack blended individual frames. The logistics of exhibiting large bodies of work of such large images via traditional large prints is impossibly expensive as is logistics of moving around dozens of large framed prints. Hence I see the future of professional photography exhibition using the next generation of digital displays. And that will lead to myriad consumers wanting to see their images so likewise. A potentially HUGE market though likely sluggish initially.
I have thought about this for some time. It shouldn't be hard for a MFG to make a small "magnifying" overlay that can enlarge say a 27" monitors viewing area enough that 4 panels can be placed next to each other nearly seamless. Basically some type of optics that enlarges the viewing area by 15mm all the way around the display. This would allow any number of displays to be placed next to each other while appearing as a single unit. Any 3d printers that can print optically clear mediums at very fine detail?
2 ways I see to accomplish it. The first is to arrange, let's call them "light pipes" so that each one overlays a single pixel at the display and then increases in size ever so slightly ending up in a slightly trapezoidal shape. The second is using lenses in a more traditional method.
Of course it seems the easiest way overall to do this is to just manufacture a panel 4x larger, use 4x the electronics and 4 video ports, and have the computer put the 4 images into one just as the current 2-in-1 displays such as this do it.
NoSoMo, reads like you are not familiar with video wall systems, a major commercial display market that is also mature. They are at trade shows, in airports, in stock exchanges, in sports stadiums, and is what you are looking at during television news say when a weather guy is standing in front of a large display showing radar and satelite videos. These systems have narrow bezels on all 4 sides with all the electronics, mounting, and connectors on the back. There are mounting products with multiple arms from a superstructure frame to mount rows and columns of 2k panels. All this is major commercial cost. There are also expensive controllers for operating such video walls from individual as well as combined feeds. Video requires considerable bandwidth due to frame rates through image pipelines that often must be stored in stages with expensive fast memories while static images of photographers can get by with far less electronics because it doesn't matter if it takes a few seconds to load a single frame.
AMD makes video cards with software that can drive 6 each 4k cards at once and make up for what is lost behind the narrow bezels. Much more, just search a bit. All the panels have dot pitches only worth looking at from a distance. But same designs COULD be implemented with 4k panels at the dot pitch densities I mentioned at say 24 to 32 inch sizes in order to make effective 8k displays that would be significantly cheaper than a single say 48 to 64 inch diagonal 8k display. Narrow bezel lines though less than ideal are really not that distracting when looking at large displays.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
Back to Article
IdBuRnS - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
And my S2716DG just arrived today. Apparently 1440p is so 2016. :P8steve8 - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
Still crossing my fingers for their 4k OLED display which they teased at CES 2016, HDR would be nice too.vFunct - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
That was officially cancelled.8steve8 - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
was it? i heard it was confirmed to be delayed.p1esk - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
Dell also promised us 4k 120Hz OLED display for $5k, about a year ago. What happened to that one?Roy2001 - Wednesday, January 11, 2017 - link
Canned as OLED is not matured yet.prisonerX - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
With the utterly retarded "4K" naming convention, the next generation "16K" will have 15K pixels.JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
4K is actually 4K. It's based of the DCI-4K standard.4096x2160 = 4K
3840x2160 = UHD = Ultra High Definition.
The problem is that bad marketers are labeling UHD as 4K when it's not "true" 4K as per the DCI-4K film standard.
nagi603 - Wednesday, January 11, 2017 - link
Plus some idiots started naming using 3 pieces of 4K screens as "12K". (Razer's new laptop that got stolen, Project cars devs, etc)Krause - Wednesday, January 11, 2017 - link
Hahaha that reminds me of back in the day when shady computer boutiques use to use dual CPU motherboards and add the cpu speed together in the advertisement. 2 1ghz P3's doesn't make a 2ghz CPU.jordanclock - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
The task bar is adorably small.stephenbrooks - Wednesday, January 11, 2017 - link
Didn't even notice it in the 2nd picture until I read your comment!boeush - Wednesday, January 11, 2017 - link
Next awesome peripheral to be announced by Dell: a head-mounted binocular microscope enabling serious professionals to actually work with this ridiculous display...enealDC - Wednesday, January 11, 2017 - link
good eye! I didn't even notice a task bar.lilmoe - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
"It's likely that professional applications like AutoCAD or Photoshop will support 8K the day the UltraSharp UP3218K hits the market, but general use applications, already struggling with 4K and HiDPI in general, will be another matter."I wouldn't be too quick on the remarks of scaling. Check out the latest Windows 10 Insider build, and the new "Advanced Scaling" feature of GDI/GDI+ applications (basically, most Win32 applications). This screen should be out around the same time the Creators' Update is released.
BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
It'd be easy enough to just run it at 3840x2160 so you still get a decent looking image inside of Windows if scaling or various applications don't play nicely with it.timbotim - Wednesday, January 11, 2017 - link
You've hit the nail on the head. This = 275dpi @ 32". If they want to make one about 60" to give 140-ish DPI, they can have my $5K, but not at 275dpi.imaheadcase - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
I don't understand, so its NOT good for advanced scaling? I don't follow win 10 stuff much, but i know its terrible as it is.lilmoe - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
I'm not sure why so many people are saying that Windows 10 is terrible. I've simply never used a better Microsoft OS. Most of the issues come from drivers; Intel graphics drivers specifically (Intel are STILL "working on it"). You need to try different driver releases from Intel and check which works best with your specific hardware.Back to topic, There's absolutely nothing wrong with Windows 10 scaling. Again, the problem lies with Windows' relatively "generous" backwards compatibility to run legacy applications. That being said, LOTS of current applications "claim" that they scale properly, but they actually don't. Windows 10 creators update _should_ be much better for scaling current and legacy Win32 applications for high DPI screens. The new feature *overrides* any and all application specific scaling, regardless if the applications claims it can handle it, and fixes blurry text and bitmaps.
It seems that devs at Microsoft rewrote/improved lots of the underling code of UI rendering. A nice additional benefit is that resizing windows is MUCH smoother, without stuttering and chopping.
lilmoe - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
Side note: I'm personally very intrigued by a new, experimental battery saving feature that is supposed to "throttle" background and some foreground processes that aren't directly used by the user.The upcoming update should be pretty darn significant for the underlying code of Windows 10. The update after that should introduce some major UI improvements by the end of the year. Love it.
Ahnilated - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
You might want to fix this: Dell decided to stick to two DP 1.4 cables as a result.It should actually read: Dell decided to stick to two DP 1.3 cables as a result.
osteopathic1 - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
The display has 4 x the resolution of a 4K monitor, shouldn't this be a 16K Monitor?DVDxR - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
Like 4K the name is based (loosely) on the horizontal resolution, so 8K.lilmoe - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
Like DVRxR said; 4k doesn't mean "four times the resolution of FHD". It means that it has 4 thousand (k = kilo = thousand) horizontal dots/pixels. It's a common misunderstanding.2K, 4k and 8k are DCI cinema formats. The respective consumer screen formats are FHD, UHD, and UUHD (?? dunno what it'll be called). DCI and consumer formats share the same amount of vertical pixels; 1080p, 2160p and 4320p respectively.
2K = 2048x1080
4K = 4096x2160
8K = 8196x4320
fanofanand - Friday, January 13, 2017 - link
I believe the latest marketing jargon is SUHDr3loaded - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
A monitor like this would be the perfect application for HDMI 2.1, which has the bandwidth to carry 8K@60Hz with HDR losslessly over a single cable. Just need to wait for controllers and cables carrying the spec to appear, followed by being integrated into monitors and graphics cards now.r3loaded - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
Actually, better yet HDMI 2.1 can carry 8K@120Hz or even 10K@120Hz.DanNeely - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
HDMI 2.1 is still a year or two from shipping products, and it can only do 8k 120 at 4:2:0 color depth - which is sorta acceptable for TV use, but has pixel level artifacts that make it unsuitable for use as a monitor. 10k while not defined (my unscientific wag would be 5x*2 or 10240x5760, although an ultra wide format wouldn't surprise me either), is going to have the same or worse bandwidth limits at 120hz which means it'd also be color compressed and cancer if used as a monitor.stanleyipkiss - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
Why no mention that no video card outside the new Pascal Quadros have the required DP 1.4 outputs?edzieba - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
The 10xx series also have the required DisplayPort version.arayoflight - Wednesday, January 11, 2017 - link
All the 10xx cards carry DP 1.4 support last time I heard.tk.icepick - Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - link
There is an XFX RX 470 on sale from Newegg right now. It has 3 Displayport 1.4 ports, 1 HDMI 2.0b, and 1 DL DVI-D, for 180 USD. ($165 after a 15 dollar rebate). Some models of 1050 Ti also have multiple DP 1.4 ports.TristanSDX - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
Samsung was rumored to begin mass production of 8K panels, so prices may quickly fallbill44 - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
All this talk about HDR, 8k for professionals. First, MS needs to fix (add a proper) color management in windows 10, then add HDR support.If the creator ed. only sorts scaling, it may be possible to use his monitor with a Mac?
SodaAnt - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 - link
Well considering they announced the UP3017Q, which was a 120Hz 4k OLED display last year at CES and still haven't released the darn thing, I'll believe this thing when I see it for sale.d7v7d - Wednesday, January 11, 2017 - link
The Dell UP3218K has been a huge surprise to this person, an old large format landscape photographer. For the last two years I've been struggling trying to figure out how to put together an effective off the shelf 8k display by going to a 2x2 video wall panel system of 4k monitors with thin bezels on all 4 sides. However there has not been a single 4k display product at monitor sizes as all such products have at least one wider side for control and buttons. Actual video wall panels that put all that stuff fully behind screens are much larger at 46 inch diagonals or more and almost all are 2k sizes because their market is all about viewing video from a distance.My expectation had been that any actual 8k panels in the near future would be very expensive as has been the case targeting a video market. I can understand why Dells first 8k display is only 32 inches because much of the associated hardware and software is barely and or just recently available. Thus any marketing for a more expensive larger monitor could fall flat. However this one product will encourage acceleration with the rest of what is needed.
I already own Dell 15.6 inch and 24 inch Ultrasharp 4k displays and believe the 24 inch to 32 inch or so size is the sweet spot for 4k pixel density for photography displays that apparently is shared by those that have been engineering those products as well as graphic and photography pros. I say so personally because my large images look awesome at 100% pixels on a 24 inch display that is at 187 ppi. That corresponds of course to historic high end fine art pixel printing densities of 200 to 300 dpi. Conversely photographs look mediocre up close on my old 24 inch 2k NEC display that is about half the density as do usual static images used at consumer retailers of larger 4k TV video screens.
Currently there are many millions of photographers worldwide with high end digital cameras especially DSLR's that take images far larger than can fit at 100% pixels on even 4k monitors. But they cannot display their work at 100% resolution except in sections. To view full images requires downsizing. Further, today unlike my view camera film work of past decades, I create images much larger than top digital camera sensor sizes with multi row column stitch blending with focus stack blended individual frames. The logistics of exhibiting large bodies of work of such large images via traditional large prints is impossibly expensive as is logistics of moving around dozens of large framed prints. Hence I see the future of professional photography exhibition using the next generation of digital displays. And that will lead to myriad consumers wanting to see their images so likewise. A potentially HUGE market though likely sluggish initially.
NoSoMo - Thursday, January 12, 2017 - link
I have thought about this for some time. It shouldn't be hard for a MFG to make a small "magnifying" overlay that can enlarge say a 27" monitors viewing area enough that 4 panels can be placed next to each other nearly seamless. Basically some type of optics that enlarges the viewing area by 15mm all the way around the display. This would allow any number of displays to be placed next to each other while appearing as a single unit. Any 3d printers that can print optically clear mediums at very fine detail?2 ways I see to accomplish it. The first is to arrange, let's call them "light pipes" so that each one overlays a single pixel at the display and then increases in size ever so slightly ending up in a slightly trapezoidal shape. The second is using lenses in a more traditional method.
Of course it seems the easiest way overall to do this is to just manufacture a panel 4x larger, use 4x the electronics and 4 video ports, and have the computer put the 4 images into one just as the current 2-in-1 displays such as this do it.
d7v7d - Friday, January 13, 2017 - link
NoSoMo, reads like you are not familiar with video wall systems, a major commercial display market that is also mature. They are at trade shows, in airports, in stock exchanges, in sports stadiums, and is what you are looking at during television news say when a weather guy is standing in front of a large display showing radar and satelite videos. These systems have narrow bezels on all 4 sides with all the electronics, mounting, and connectors on the back. There are mounting products with multiple arms from a superstructure frame to mount rows and columns of 2k panels. All this is major commercial cost. There are also expensive controllers for operating such video walls from individual as well as combined feeds. Video requires considerable bandwidth due to frame rates through image pipelines that often must be stored in stages with expensive fast memories while static images of photographers can get by with far less electronics because it doesn't matter if it takes a few seconds to load a single frame.AMD makes video cards with software that can drive 6 each 4k cards at once and make up for what is lost behind the narrow bezels. Much more, just search a bit. All the panels have dot pitches only worth looking at from a distance. But same designs COULD be implemented with 4k panels at the dot pitch densities I mentioned at say 24 to 32 inch sizes in order to make effective 8k displays that would be significantly cheaper than a single say 48 to 64 inch diagonal 8k display. Narrow bezel lines though less than ideal are really not that distracting when looking at large displays.
fanofanand - Friday, January 13, 2017 - link
400 Nits of brightness isn't sufficient for HDR anyway, regardless of available bandwidth. No more fake HDR!Syed_Listening - Sunday, January 29, 2017 - link
Hope this series of Dell Monitors are free from sporadic pixelation.