Dell Demos 5K Display 204
An anonymous reader writes: Even though 4k displays are just making their way into consumer affordability, manufacturers are already pushing beyond. Dell has previewed a computer monitor it calls a "5k" display. The resolution is 5120x2880, stuffing 14,745,600 pixels on a 27" screen. For comparison, that's more than seven times the amount of pixels in a 1920x1080 display. Pixel density is 218 PPI, roughly the same as a 15" Retina MacBook Pro. ExtremeTech suggests, "As far as we're aware, no one is actually making 5120×2880 panels, especially not at 27 inches diagonal – so what we're probably looking at is two 2560x2880 panels squished together as a 'tiled display.'" Unfortunately, it's pricy, expected to cost around $2,500. But hopefully it will help drive 4k display prices even further toward mainstream availability.
Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (Score:5, Informative)
Sincerely, Guy who watched 0% of content in HD 5 years ago, and watches 95% of content in HD now.
Re:in the meantime : (Score:5, Informative)
"Pricey" (Score:1, Informative)
Yes, it's pricey -- $2500 gets a workable used car off the local Craigslist. However, it's crazy cheap, if you use the time machine in your brain to think about what the equivalent display would have cost (if it existed) one, five, or 20 years ago ...
In fact, $2500 is just about what Silicon Graphics' 1600SW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGI_1600SW) cost when it came out. And that was in 1998 dollars :) (According to this online calculator http://www.usinflationcalculat... [usinflatio...ulator.com], flawed as it is to compare tech items over time by clumsy measures of inflation, that would make it more than $3600 worth of monitor, then.) That is, $3654 *now* has about the purchasing power that $2500 did *then* ...
It is a good example of how that kind of "value of dollar" calculation is a poor measure for technology under rapid developement, though: the backwards calculation is nothing like equivalent. That is, a 17" LCD panel (ignoring things like that today you'd probably want HDMI or other modern input) with 1600x1200 resolution would *not* cost the "dollar equivalent of $2500," which works out to be about $1710 1998 dollars. More like ... what, $100-150? Seems fair; random Amazon hit does even better: http://www.amazon.com/Asus-VE2... [amazon.com]
Not to say that "anything in the now is cheap if the equivalent would have cost more at some point in the past when you were facing a different set of constraints" ... things are complicated. But calling this pricey is only true in relation to *other* things that have meanwhile hugely improved. For instance, it might not seem worth the price of 5 of these: http://www.amazon.com/PB278Q-2... [amazon.com] ... unless 5K makes sense because it helps you resolve details on an X-ray or some other special purpose.
Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (Score:4, Informative)
For example, the average person needs to be less than 4 feet away from a 32" tv in order to see any benefit from 4k resolution over 1080p resolution
32" is pretty small for modern displays, which is why most people can easily discern 4k differences at a couch distance.
When you are talking about computer monitors of course, you are way closer than 4 feet, so you can discern 4K difference in quality even on a 27" display...
I really think though the whole circle of confusion thing is not truly taking into account nuances we can detect unconsciously. It's not as hard a science as the calculations make it look.