4k LCD display (3840 x 2160)

[radiant]

Astro Systems just introduced, their newest 4k LCD monitor.
Aimed at meeting the needs of Digital Cinema and Broadcast Studios, the DM-3400 offers a spectacular 4K x 2k picture that brings the realism of real world environments into the studio. With a resolution of 3840 x 2160 and the capabilities for both DVI-D (x4 channels) and HD-SDI (x4 channels), this monitor offers a versatile alternative to the traditional 4K x 2K projection environment. The DM-3400 fully supports RGB 4:4:4 signals as well as multiple input signals (4 input channels for a quad display view).


http://www.astro-systems.com/index.htm

Thank You

 

[Richard Lackey]

Wow, good news, a 4K display. Too bad they didn't go for a full aperture 4K 4096 horizontal resolution. I wonder what the price is.

The challenge I suppose for many (including me) in 4K monitoring, is driving the monitor in the first place.

 

[Stan Paik]

Wow, good news, a 4K display. I wonder what the price is.

Out of curiosity, I called Astro. The price is $65,000 USD.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Out of curiosity, I called Astro. The price is $65,000 USD.

Three for mee.

 

[Häakon]

Doesn't (or shouldn't) "4K" imply a resolution of at least 4 thousand pixels horizontally?

 

[Petr Dvorak]

4K is 1024 x 4 = 4096

and this is only 960 x 4

 

[Richard Lackey]

Yeah, that's what I thought too. I have a breakdown of formats here: http://www.4khub.co.za/viewpage.php?page_id=11

Only Full Aperture 4K is 4096 horizontal, but all the Academy 4K formats - 4K Academy 185, 4K Academy 178, 4K Academy 166, 4K Academy, and 4K Academy Scope are all 3656 horizontal.

It's too expensive for me, that's for sure. But then the percentage of commercial work I will be doing that is destined for 4K finishing is, um, zero, so it's a bit of a moot point.

I think we should all ask ourselves that question though, we all talk (me included) about 4K this and 4K that, but really, apart from a select few that really work in 4K finishing on the few Hollywood features that are even have a 4K DI, how many of us are really going to work commercially at 4K? I would wager it's a very very small number.

4K finishing is still in it's infancy, and limited to a small number of big budget features. Most of us will be shooting productions that are either independent features (and even for those working with big Hollywood movies, a 2K D.I. is still the norm), for which 2K is more than enough even for a beautiful print out to film, or we will be working on productions that are destined for SD or HD broadcast.

Don't mean to burst anyone's bubble, but lets get real here, unless we are all very independently wealthy and this is all just a glorified hobby, we need to generate very real revenue out of the capital we have invested in equipment, whether it be the Red One, a D.I. suite, whatever, and realistically that's not going to happen at 4K... not quite yet at least.

From a business standpoint, for most of us, I would imagine that the extra cost associated with equipping oneself for 4K finishing at the highest level (which this particular monitor would fall into at it's price point), and this means uncompressed 4K, not FCP prores or Cineform 4K, is not justified yet by high enough commercial demand. I know for me, all that money spent would end up being a millstone tied around my neck... nice toys that are anything but profitable when the rubber actually hits the road.

Am I being realistic, pessimistic? What do you guys think?

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

"Academy 4K", I like the sound of that.

Even though I'll stick to "Academy 2K" [from Scarlet] for now.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Diagonal?

Diagonal?

Doesn't (or shouldn't) "4K" imply a resolution of at least 4 thousand pixels horizontally?

Maybe mfg will start rating diagonal pixels, like diagonal inches or cm for the screen size, that way it would be 4K?