This 4k LCD was the first thing I went to see at Asus booth! If I remember correctly, it was two miniDP outputs with an adater (at least it seems like it).
Hopefully Apple and Dell use slightly smaller versions of this panel (I'm thinking 24"-27") so that they can start shipping those panels in much higher volumes.
That was my first thought as well. For me, personally, 31 inch is just WAY too big for a computer monitor. 24-27 sounds just about right. Now if only they could mass produce them and get them in the < 500$ range that would be great :D
<$500 for 4K monitor? Not even the name brand current 27"s go for that. If this ever comes down to more consumer oriented prices, it'll be $1000+ like the 30" Dell/Apple's and stay that way prob.
4K is being pitched as the next big thing in the TV market. That means that prices will eventually come down to consumer levels. The reason that 1080p is so much cheaper than 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 is that it's a much more widely used resolution. But there is a good chance that 4K will be mainstream in another few years and will therefore be the new 1080p - cheap and easily available.
I find it gimmicky. What does TV need with 4K when 1080p approches what human vision can resolve at the distance most people watch TV? 1600 itself would be more than enough. I dont see it actually gaining anything except trying to revitalize the TV market for people with more money than sense.
For PC more resolution the better even past what a human can resolve as smooth due to the nature of the PC environment. More room for windows, better font rendering (goodbye cleartype), etc etc.
I too would be interested in that, as well as progress on improved backlighting such as quantum dot films with LEDs. I think though that color has to take a back seat until we get a better connector. Without a true 10/12-bit panel, a higher gamut means larger steps between colors and potentially worse images for a lot of uses. Better color is where we should be aiming, and it's a target for UHDTV (see Rec 2020). But standard gamut increases need to go hand in hand with additional space, and that takes bandwidth which we don't have right now.
What do you mean a better connector? DisplayPort 1.2 supports 3840×2160 @ 60 Hz with 10-bit colour (1.073 billion colours), and many high-end monitors are 10-bit, i'm using two right now.
I want to see beyond 2160p and 60 Hz, and the industry overall has seemed to put feature importance in order of resolution > refresh > color. I'd be happy to be wrong but I was guessing that the former would be prioritized over the latter. If DP1.2 is all we get for another few years though then you're probably right that everything will settle around UHDTV specs.
I would like to see these large monitors with at least half the PPI/DPI (200+) of high end phones, we can dream, so it is good to see some progress after years of regression. 10-bit colors have been around for years now, even though it has not been fully exploited, so I do not have an issue with the order of importance you listed as this is what I believe the industry needs to concentrate on. In the process of doing this they can now standardize and fully exploit 10-bit colors which should help your issue.
True, but a 4k$ offer in June from ASUS, one month after the 6k$ offer from Sharp, which came in one month after the 20k$ offer from EIZO ... looks like we might get something for below 2k$ for Christmas this year.
IBM actually brought out a QUWXGA (3840*2160) monitor in 2000 or 2001, if I remember correctly. It was 22", had 2 AC adapters, and ran at 60 Hz. The original list price was around $30,000. Last I remember, it was about $11,000 but that was in about 2004.
How can one panel cost $3500 when you can buy 4 1080p panels for $79 each and place them side by side for $300? Why dont they jsut take 4 1080p panels and place them all within the same bezel? I dont care if there is a minor distortion in the middle of the screen, it would certainly be thinner than an obnoxious bezel.
Ive never used display port but does the video card youre running on not make a difference as to how fast the screen can be drawn? If so why are they running 2 of these off of an onboard video card? Plug those suckers into an nvidia 780!
Why peoples like this ASUS brand because its quality is better to many other brands and one thing which is teasing me that is it supported to the as a projector like this http://med-sciences.com/technology/asus-31-5-inch-...
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
34 Comments
Back to Article
EnzoFX - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
Drool. What more is there to say. This is pure hotness for desktop/business use.Kevin G - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
Tempting. Price out of reason but do not care. When does it ship?chubbypanda - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
This 4k LCD was the first thing I went to see at Asus booth! If I remember correctly, it was two miniDP outputs with an adater (at least it seems like it).jeffkibuule - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
Hopefully Apple and Dell use slightly smaller versions of this panel (I'm thinking 24"-27") so that they can start shipping those panels in much higher volumes.dishayu - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
That was my first thought as well. For me, personally, 31 inch is just WAY too big for a computer monitor. 24-27 sounds just about right. Now if only they could mass produce them and get them in the < 500$ range that would be great :DEnzoFX - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
<$500 for 4K monitor? Not even the name brand current 27"s go for that. If this ever comes down to more consumer oriented prices, it'll be $1000+ like the 30" Dell/Apple's and stay that way prob.JDG1980 - Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - link
4K is being pitched as the next big thing in the TV market. That means that prices will eventually come down to consumer levels. The reason that 1080p is so much cheaper than 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 is that it's a much more widely used resolution. But there is a good chance that 4K will be mainstream in another few years and will therefore be the new 1080p - cheap and easily available.UltraTech79 - Saturday, June 15, 2013 - link
I find it gimmicky. What does TV need with 4K when 1080p approches what human vision can resolve at the distance most people watch TV? 1600 itself would be more than enough. I dont see it actually gaining anything except trying to revitalize the TV market for people with more money than sense.For PC more resolution the better even past what a human can resolve as smooth due to the nature of the PC environment. More room for windows, better font rendering (goodbye cleartype), etc etc.
w_km - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
$500 4K is at least 2 years away :(web2dot0 - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
You know what would be great? If they start handling it out for free. :-DB3an - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
Any word on Abobe RGB colour gamut? And what type of back light?zanon - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
I too would be interested in that, as well as progress on improved backlighting such as quantum dot films with LEDs. I think though that color has to take a back seat until we get a better connector. Without a true 10/12-bit panel, a higher gamut means larger steps between colors and potentially worse images for a lot of uses. Better color is where we should be aiming, and it's a target for UHDTV (see Rec 2020). But standard gamut increases need to go hand in hand with additional space, and that takes bandwidth which we don't have right now.B3an - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
What do you mean a better connector? DisplayPort 1.2 supports 3840×2160 @ 60 Hz with 10-bit colour (1.073 billion colours), and many high-end monitors are 10-bit, i'm using two right now.zanon - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
I want to see beyond 2160p and 60 Hz, and the industry overall has seemed to put feature importance in order of resolution > refresh > color. I'd be happy to be wrong but I was guessing that the former would be prioritized over the latter. If DP1.2 is all we get for another few years though then you're probably right that everything will settle around UHDTV specs.Taracta - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
I would like to see these large monitors with at least half the PPI/DPI (200+) of high end phones, we can dream, so it is good to see some progress after years of regression. 10-bit colors have been around for years now, even though it has not been fully exploited, so I do not have an issue with the order of importance you listed as this is what I believe the industry needs to concentrate on. In the process of doing this they can now standardize and fully exploit 10-bit colors which should help your issue.dragonsqrrl - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
Hey that's not bad. Cheapest 4K monitor yet. The prices are coming down quicker than I thought. Once 4K drops to ~$1000, I'll start considering it.apertotes - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
3840x2160 = 8.294.400, so its 8k, right? 4k is 2560x1600ingwe - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
4K is approximately 3840. 8.294.400 is not 8k, that is 8 million.apertotes - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
Why then 2560x1600 is called as 4k?Blindsay - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
2560x1600 is not referred to as 4kSancus - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
Was it possible to determine whether this uses DP 1.2 MST like the Sharp PN-K321, or does it actually present as 1 full 3840x2160 surface over DP?dwade123 - Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - link
Too much just to beta test 4k.ShieTar - Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - link
True, but a 4k$ offer in June from ASUS, one month after the 6k$ offer from Sharp, which came in one month after the 20k$ offer from EIZO ... looks like we might get something for below 2k$ for Christmas this year.jbwhite99 - Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - link
IBM actually brought out a QUWXGA (3840*2160) monitor in 2000 or 2001, if I remember correctly. It was 22", had 2 AC adapters, and ran at 60 Hz. The original list price was around $30,000. Last I remember, it was about $11,000 but that was in about 2004.b3nzint - Saturday, June 15, 2013 - link
Does it come with miniDP cables? Are they 16:9 or 16:10? i still prefer 16:10 though.b3nzint - Saturday, June 15, 2013 - link
for USD 80.0. at my town i can get a New LCD LED 17" with 1920 x 1080. i can't tell u the brand.Shadowmaster625 - Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - link
How can one panel cost $3500 when you can buy 4 1080p panels for $79 each and place them side by side for $300? Why dont they jsut take 4 1080p panels and place them all within the same bezel? I dont care if there is a minor distortion in the middle of the screen, it would certainly be thinner than an obnoxious bezel.Stefeno - Sunday, June 23, 2013 - link
So 4K @ 31.5" would be 50% smaller pixels then 1600p monitors?Think Id prefer the 39" for desktop.
shin0bi272 - Saturday, July 13, 2013 - link
Ive never used display port but does the video card youre running on not make a difference as to how fast the screen can be drawn? If so why are they running 2 of these off of an onboard video card? Plug those suckers into an nvidia 780!sheikhjee - Tuesday, August 13, 2013 - link
Why peoples like this ASUS brand because its quality is better to many other brands and one thing which is teasing me that is it supported to the as a projector like this http://med-sciences.com/technology/asus-31-5-inch-...