[TH] Dell UltraSharp 32 Ultra HD Monitor Review: The UP3214Q At $3500
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Joined
·
2,927 Posts
wonder how many professionals actually buy monitors over $1k?
i think that's the threshold even for most pros.
i think that's the threshold even for most pros.
Joined
·
4,716 Posts
i don't see the point of this besides a larger screen, their 24 inch 4K is $1200 or cheaper on Amazon and has better PPI, so while that 4K isn't cheap to many, it's still within range of realistic availability.
$3500 for a monitor? Forget about it. Only down to $1000ish are they even considered at this point.
$3500 for a monitor? Forget about it. Only down to $1000ish are they even considered at this point.
Joined
·
598 Posts
Yeah not sure what the difference is in the panels to justify the much higher price, although the 32" is actually *much* less expensive than msrp:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260146
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260146
Joined
·
47,499 Posts
I will wait when 4K IPS 60Hz Finalized input under $800. Not in a rush for 4K since you will need GPU power and not much 4K content out there.
Joined
·
4,310 Posts
Looking forward to those AU Optronics panels coming in... $400-500 4k 60hz IPS 27" Korean panels in 4-6 months maybe...
![biggrin.gif]()
. Once those hit, or a more reasonably-priced IPS 60hz comes along, I'll be all over it.
Joined
·
4,716 Posts
Quote:
if you want 16:10 4K, get the IBM T221.
yea yea, but 16:10 is dying out, manufacturers are not willing to keep a separate line for 16:10 LCDs, because there is no 16:10 TVs.Originally Posted by L36
16:9 aspect ratio. No thanks.
if you want 16:10 4K, get the IBM T221.
Joined
·
47,499 Posts
Quote:
Morreeee!!!Originally Posted by pcfoo
Yeah, 2160p of vertical res are not enough...![rolleyes.gif]()
Joined
·
8,165 Posts
Quote:
It may have something to do with the golden ratio, however I don't think anything has ever been proven, all tests have been inconclusive.
For a lot of people it's not the amount of pixels, it's the aspect ratio itself. 16:10 is a much more pleasant format to look at in my opinion, it just seems like it's perfectly proportionate.Originally Posted by l88bastar
This^^^^ the 4k revolution has eliminated the need for 16:10
It may have something to do with the golden ratio, however I don't think anything has ever been proven, all tests have been inconclusive.
Joined
·
2,411 Posts
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not settling for these pleb 16:9 panels. 16:10 or nope.Originally Posted by ChronoBodi
yea yea, but 16:10 is dying out, manufacturers are not willing to keep a separate line for 16:10 LCDs, because there is no 16:10 TVs.
if you want 16:10 4K, get the IBM T221.
Quote:
You're right, its not.Originally Posted by pcfoo
Yeah, 2160p of vertical res are not enough...![rolleyes.gif]()
Quote:
I don't know, all the high end professional monitors out there still use 16:10. Not sure where you get this from.Originally Posted by Setzer
16:10 has been dead for years, get over it.
Joined
·
1,480 Posts
Quote:
At the end of the day its about having a wall of information in front of you. Back then 4:3 was needed because of the lack of available pixels to display legal size documents for work professionals. Now that resolutions have gone from 480p to 2160+ 16:10 is irrelevant. I have a 39" 4k seiki in front of me right now and it is a MASSIVE wall of information, so much in fact that I can't even tell its 16:9 anymore.....all I see is screen real estate at this res. I have a Sony FW900 but it feels like tunnel vision compared against a massive 4k screen.Originally Posted by twerk
For a lot of people it's not the amount of pixels, it's the aspect ratio itself. 16:10 is a much more pleasant format to look at in my opinion, it just seems like it's perfectly proportionate.
It may have something to do with the golden ratio, however I don't think anything has ever been proven, all tests have been inconclusive.
Joined
·
1,480 Posts
Quote:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/121282838551?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649
Well if you have a patience problem, DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK!!!!Originally Posted by keikei
Just waiting on the new display port. Me visiting this thread doesnt help my patience. Damn you guys.![tongue.gif]()
http://www.ebay.com/itm/121282838551?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649
Joined
·
4,310 Posts
Quote:
Tn panel.... yuck.Originally Posted by l88bastar
Well if you have a patience problem, DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK!!!!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/121282838551?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649
Joined
·
3,370 Posts
This whole "16:10 or go home attitude" is a bit over-exaggerated.
Yes, ofc there are benefits for more vertical space, but there you are: 28-30" would cram up to 1600p, now we have 2160p.
Golden ratio preferences etc are a bit over the top to claim as the "reason your eyes naturaly prefer" etc...don't see ppl in the US abandoning their irrational paper size system for the far more rational and φ based ISO Ax system...don't see many other aesthetically displeasing choices backing down...its more of an elitist thing than not, as 16:9 panels had caught up for quite some time now, and the ratio didn't have much to do with production availability and standards that 10-11 years ago when the 16:10 was introduced as the prevailing ratio for LCD Panels were completely different.
The last 16:10 I personally owned (tho I've been using 24" 1200p @ work, but not bought by me) was an old 1050p TN...pretty horrible back then, much like most of the panels of its generation.
Don't see how the ratio was giving it more credibility, was just the manufacturing norm at the time.
The contrary, I see the current 4K panels being exactly 2x the size of the 1080p (4x in pixels), has nothing but benefits for all parties.
Yes, ofc there are benefits for more vertical space, but there you are: 28-30" would cram up to 1600p, now we have 2160p.
Golden ratio preferences etc are a bit over the top to claim as the "reason your eyes naturaly prefer" etc...don't see ppl in the US abandoning their irrational paper size system for the far more rational and φ based ISO Ax system...don't see many other aesthetically displeasing choices backing down...its more of an elitist thing than not, as 16:9 panels had caught up for quite some time now, and the ratio didn't have much to do with production availability and standards that 10-11 years ago when the 16:10 was introduced as the prevailing ratio for LCD Panels were completely different.
The last 16:10 I personally owned (tho I've been using 24" 1200p @ work, but not bought by me) was an old 1050p TN...pretty horrible back then, much like most of the panels of its generation.
Don't see how the ratio was giving it more credibility, was just the manufacturing norm at the time.
The contrary, I see the current 4K panels being exactly 2x the size of the 1080p (4x in pixels), has nothing but benefits for all parties.
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!