SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Good news for anyone looking to overwhelm their fovea centralis with pixels: Dell has announced the first "mass-market" 8K (7680×4320) display, which will be sold for around $5,000 beginning in March:
Dell introduced the industry's first mass-market 8K display aimed at professional designers, engineers, photographers and software developers. The UP3218K will be available this March, but its rough $5,000 price tag will be rather high even for professionals dealing with content creation. That being said, $5K or so was the price that the original 4K MST monitors launched at in 2013, which perhaps makes this display price more palatable. On the other hand, right now an 8K professional display is such a niche product that the vast majority of users will have to wait a few years to see the price come down.
Up to now, 8K reference displays were available only from Canon, in very low quantities and at very high prices. The displays were primarily aimed at video professionals from TV broadcasting companies like NHK, who are working on 8K (they call it Super Hi-Vision) content to be available over-the-air in select regions of Japan next year. A number of TV makers have also announced their ultra large 8K UHDTVs, but these are hardly found in retail. Overall, Dell is the first company to offer an 8K display that can be bought online by any individual with the money and be focused on the monitor market rather than TVs.
At present, Dell is not publishing the full specifications of its UltraSharp 32 Ultra HD 8K monitor (UP3218K), but reveals key specs like resolution (7680×4320), contrast ratio (1300:1), brightness (400 nits), pixel density (280 ppi) as well as supported color spaces: 100% Adobe RGB and 100% sRGB.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday January 15 2017, @10:22PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 15 2017, @10:57PM
Good question. I've never fallen in love with the wide screen concept. My desktop display consists of two 1080 screens, side by side. I have one hell of a lot of territory, horizontally, but vertically, it sucks. I've thought about rotating the display 90 degrees, and adding one more monitor. Three 1080's standing on end should display most web pages, documents, or whatever else. I probably won't do it, but the idea is inviting.
The wife would cry a river if I bought a third display for myself, unless I bought something similar for her. She worked hard to make me feel guilty when I received the twin display, and set it up - she thought one was for me, and the other for her. I TOLD her to take the money to buy the same setup for her desk, but noooooo - she preferred to make me feel guilty. Women . . . .
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday January 16 2017, @06:10PM
I solved the height issue by taking one of our 4K displays after a trade show.
40-inch 4K TV makes for a nice monitor at a 2- to 3-foot viewing distance. If you're not picky about gamut and depth, they've gotten really cheap.
You can tell the wife you're not getting a third, you're getting only one and giving her two.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday January 15 2017, @11:13PM
So get a bigger monitor with more height. Or forget the monitor and strap on VR or HoloLens and create virtual monitors.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 16 2017, @12:00AM
Seems like you'd be the last person to complain about wider monitors.
Monospace fonts are so wastefull of screen real estate that we need wider monitors just to read your posts.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 16 2017, @02:57AM
Don't forget that everything gets redesigned for a mobile form factor too nowadays, which means it all gets ever more vertically biased and all the more space goes to waste on the sides. Just look at the butchery that is the nu-net.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 16 2017, @03:22AM
Because they want to use the same panels that they used for TVs. Which is rather unfortunate, because having the squarer monitors like we used to have is frequently better.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday January 16 2017, @07:34AM
If the monitor can be used vertically, you'll get plenty of vertical space with 9:16.
Using two vertical monitors, you'll get an effective ratio of 9:8, which is almost square.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 16 2017, @09:03AM
that's what I do. 2 screens each 1440x2560.
the boss had money that needed to be spent at the end of the year (otherwise it's lost), so I now have a 9:8 ratio display with a negligible thingie in the middle.
since I program/write LaTeX/read, I would have half-screen windows anyway, and I just enjoy the many pixels.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Monday January 16 2017, @09:21PM
So they can fit more ads along the edges, duh!