Dell 4K Displays

[Tom Lowe]

You know, this really puts me in a bind, because now I am going to be tempted to shoot and edit and master at 4K, since people will have 4K monitors/TVs in the near future. The problem is, I want to shoot a lot of overcranked scenes, and right now I can only do that 1080p RGB on the RED.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

I love that glass look, although the speakers aren't so hot... I'd love a RED monitor that looked like that...

 

[vanguy]

I'm not real knowledgeable in this area, but it seems 4k in your face would be over kill. Wouldn't you need a larger surface area to really notice the fine detail?

I did the math on this once. The average limit of human acuity is 1 arcminute.
[massive calculations]
This works out to a viewing angle of about 61 degrees for 4K, so you'd have to sit closer than the width of the screen to your monitor.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

This works out to a viewing angle of about 61 degrees for 4K, so you'd have to sit closer than the width of the screen to your monitor.

Er... Whatever. I can sit 4ft from my 100dpi 30" displays and still see the pixels. Yes, I do have good eyes, but 4K in a desktop display size would serve a few good uses.

First of all, 4K in a 30" display size would be roughtly 160 ppi or not even double the density that us 30" display users are already used to. That would be a welcome thing to get this pixel size down.

Interfaces with resolution independence are on the way, 4K makes perfect sense for such a thing. The uses for 4K for vector images, CADD, etc.. are numerous, but just imagine the super-smooth, crisp lines and details a 4K image could provide in a desktop size.

More resolution is a good thing. Or at least until we need magnifying glasses to see the pixels. And for people with near 20/20 vision or better, we're not near that point yet.

OTOH, 4K on a desktop is still different than 4K as a large projection. It's going to be difficult to do certain operations on RED footage (like color grading) without projecting the image to a large screen... If that is the intended way to view the final project, that is. Colors look different when projected on a large space than they do up close on a small screen. Suddenly that snappy red tie some guy is wearing becomes a terrible distraction when it's on a 15ft screen when it was kinda neat on the 42" HDTV monitor. OK, not the best example.

Anyway, I can see desktop displays easily reaching 4K or a bit more in the next couple years as a real standard, not just something special from RED and a few select vendors, but a real standard for content creation and desktop publishing work.

 

[Simon Blackledge]

Working on SD on a 30" ACD is hard enough thanks!!...lol

so small!!!

 

[david farland]

I've got a Nvidia 7800 GTX driving 2 x 24" Dells (1920x 1200 x 60Hz).
It has internal memory of 256MB and memory I/O of 54GB/sec.

I see the latest Nvidia 8800 Ultra has internal memory of 768 MB and memory I/O of 103 GB/sec.

I reckon 2 of these should be able to drive a 4K screen with similiar lcd specs (or better latitude) than my old 24" dells.

For every degree of vision your eyes can resolve 60 dots (pixels-not accutance). I think I worked a while back about if I had a 52" 4K screen, then I'd need to be about 5ft minimum back from it. Man I'd love two of these. One for all those timeline /effects/effects edit windows and one for the monitor. and multicam display on a 4K x 52" display. How cool's that!
You'll need remote adj./on/off buttons for the 4K monitor because it'll be 2 metres from you.

Cheers,

 

[RayFrisby]

Any ideas what type of card you'd need to run a 4 K monitor, I suppose my X1900XT wouldn't be able to run it. I was just wondering if a 4K display could be hooked up to say a blackmagic decklink pro PCI-E card for monitoring.

 

[Shane Betts]

I'm not real knowledgeable in this area, but it seems 4k in your face would be over kill. Wouldn't you need a larger surface area to really notice the fine detail?

Actually the most important thing for accurate post (not talking colour grading) is to be able to view an unscaled image, with each pixel on the monitor displaying the corresponding pixel of the image. That way, anything the camera can resolve, the monitor does too. A one pixel by one pixel problem stands out like... well, you know

As soon as you have to scale you lose that fidelity and you're seeing an artificial representation of the image, constructed by the monitor's electronics.

Lack of 4k displays is the achilles heel of 4k aquisition in terms of post but, as Peter Jackson has said, if you want it to look like 35mm, use 2k (monitoring solutions already available) and add grain.

Hopefully this I/O standard Dell are touting is already in the hands of Apple, Blackmagic Design and AJA so they'll have cards ready as soon as the displays arrive.

 

[Jeremy Hughes]

Where's Apple's answer?

 

[Poi Boy]

Apple is overdue for upgrades, I'm sure it won't be long.
Aloha
-A

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

More resolution is a good thing. Or at least until we need magnifying glasses to see the pixels. And for people with near 20/20 vision or better, we're not near that point yet.

Yeah reminds me of those Christie Digital Projectors they use for some presentations and for Regal Cinemas' "The Twenty" stuff before movies. Talk about freakin' terrible. I can't stand that. The resolution is so bad I can see all of the pixels. I also have 20/12 vision (after Lasik surgery), one eye is 20/10, the other 20/15, so at points my vision is almost twice as good as someone with what they think of as "perfect vision" or whatever you would call 20/20. It's funny to me because before, I would have killed to see 20/20, now I think that is pretty bad actually. I mean if I could only see 20/20 I'd feel like I had bad vision. I guess it's all relative. I'd rather have 20/5, which is from what I understand the theoretical limit of human vision if properly corrected, though I think people have only gotten to 20/8 so far, I could be wrong.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Yeah, those 480P LCD projectors that Regal uses are terrible. At least I'm thinking they're 480P... The pixel pitch on them is inexcusably bad... It's worse than looking through a screen door.

I've got really good eyes too... I'm not sure where my vision would score right now, but I did test at about 20/12 at my last eye exam -- a couple years ago. I know my vision isn't as good as it was 10 years ago and it drives me insane at times. But then people are still amazed at me when I read a computer screens and news print from across a room. I'm probably still about 20/15. I've never had any correction to my eyes, they've always been good... My wife had lasik a couple years ago and she sees as well as I do now, maybe better. Amazing stuff... Makes me wonder why so many people still choose to struggle daily with less than perfect vision or fumbling with glasses or contacts, many times they only need minor correction too.