Dell Monitors

[xristie9]

Hello friends,

I am interested, for some time now, in buyng a new monitor. I must say I am a fan of the Dell UltraSharp series and I would definetly buy one of them... Probably the U2713H... But recetly Dell announced the P2815Q (4K). I was wondering what is the fuss about the 4K monitor, I definetly see the ultrasharp U2713H as a better one for the same price...

Have you got any thoughts about this?

[Takeo]

Eeh...4K really doesn't offer anything. It's kinda like Retina Display, except even higher, which, if you know about the retina display, it's a resolution that supposed to be so high that the human eye can't discern individual pixels.

In other words, 4K is kind of a useless feature (like Retina Display) in a monitor, and for TV's it ends up being redundant (for 4K to make a difference, you're getting into the 60+ inch range for size but at that point. A bigger TV also means that you sit further back, which renders the 4K Resolution null.) Just stick with a monitor.

Now, that being said, if you're planning to use your computer for any type of color printing and you absolutely have to have the colors on the screen match as closely as the colors on the paper you're printing on, consider getting a CMYK monitor over the standard RGB monitor. The CMYK color scheme is designed for any type of graphic design with the intention to print to paper. Am I making sense? It's kinda hard to explain.

Otherwise, monitors nowadays are much cheaper than they used to be and have much higher resolutions than their TV counterparts and higher refresh rates with lower latency times, all while still being affordable. Most big-brand monitors aren't going to fail you. In reality, it depends on the specs and what brand you're partial to.

[B9F8]

Eeh...4K really doesn't offer anything. It's kinda like Retina Display, except even higher, which, if you know about the retina display, it's a resolution that supposed to be so high that the human eye can't discern individual pixels.

In other words, 4K is kind of a useless feature (like Retina Display) in a monitor, and for TV's it ends up being redundant (for 4K to make a difference, you're getting into the 60+ inch range for size but at that point. A bigger TV also means that you sit further back, which renders the 4K Resolution null.) Just stick with a monitor.

Now, that being said, if you're planning to use your computer for any type of color printing and you absolutely have to have the colors on the screen match as closely as the colors on the paper you're printing on, consider getting a CMYK monitor over the standard RGB monitor. The CMYK color scheme is designed for any type of graphic design with the intention to print to paper. Am I making sense? It's kinda hard to explain.

Otherwise, monitors nowadays are much cheaper than they used to be and have much higher resolutions than their TV counterparts and higher refresh rates with lower latency times, all while still being affordable. Most big-brand monitors aren't going to fail you. In reality, it depends on the specs and what brand you're partial to.

Never before have I seen anyone spread such misinformation. Do you just like being wrong all the time?

1. 4k = 4x the pixels = 4x the amount of screen real estate. You're essentially fitting 4 1920x1080p monitors into a single panel. Now why would anyone want this? Productivity. You are able to have many windows open at once without resorting to a second or third monitor.

2. Retina display is actually quite good and definitely not a "useless feature" if you do any kind of reading on a digital display. Also, true 4k content is actually quite good, but not out yet. You can expect to see new life being breathed into old films soon as they are generally shot in a large format and can be adapted for 4k viewing rather easily.

3. There is no such thing as a "CMYK monitor". (LOL, WHO THE HELL TOLD YOU THERE WAS SUCH A THING? HAHAHA SH*T MAN WOW.)

4. CMYK is not a color scheme, it's a subtractive color model used for printing. It stands for Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Key(black) - basically the colored ink cartridges in your printer. Monitors use "Additive colors" - RBG.

5. Graphic designers either use old (high quality) crt monitors or modern day IPS panels with color calibration software + hardware. It's impossible to get completely accurate color from screen to print which is why we need to run proofs at the printers to get it right before mass printing.

6. Do not get the P2815Q , so far my sources say it's a tn panel with 30hz refresh rate - meaning it has subpar color reproduction and a laggy screen. They basically cut a lot of corners to get that price as low as they could. I'm personally waiting for the lenovo 28" 4k ips monitor that should be coming out around April for around the same price as the U2713H.

7. Takeo, there are many things that can affect a monitors performance such as screen coating, pixel density, panel technology, back lighting, etc etc. Different companies use different methods - knowing the difference could make the difference between a decent computing experience and an excellent one.

[Takeo]

Okay, fine, B9F8, you're right in just about most accounts. And I was wrong and misinformed. I guess my working in IT and Microcomputing has taught me absolutely nothing.

Let's be honest: 4K is indeed going to take off and replace current 1080p resolutions, yeah, I got that. And since I know next to nothing about graphic design, then my statements to CMYK are wrong as well, blatantly. For that I apologize. And there's the whole issue of Dell. Yet again, you're right, I'm wrong, because I forgot that Dell makes hardware that I often enjoy shooting at.

BUT, for someone like me, there are a few things I'd like to address.

Saying that Retina Display is good or bad is purely subjective. I never really liked I personally didn't find it all that much better even when reading is concerned just because I tend to hold things out further away than most people. You like retina display, I don't. But in the greater scheme of things, is it really necessary? Especially since that even at 20/20 vision it become exactly what it is: pixels that are so small and dense it's discernible to the naked eye. But, is it necessary? Well, let's be honest, not really. It's a nice feature, but it's not necessary.

And perhaps there are many things that affect monitor's performance in how its manufactured. But I truly wonder, unless it's someone who spends so much looking into the nitty gritty, there's a point where the differences eventually reach the point where it's so minute and it becomes so miniscule that differences at a specific price point become unrecognizable to the average user.

But enough of that, because it seems that no matter what I say I'll never be right. After all, I can only speak from idiotic and misguided experience, as you say.

But I still wonder. 4K resolutions on a screen smaller than 50 inches? Well, yeah, having the extra real estate helps with productivity over having several separate monitors, I don't doubt that. But at 50 inches, though? Or even 60 inches? That resolution is so high that the extra real estate isn't really worth shrinking everything down to such small scales, until you break into the really large dimensions range. Now I'd imagine having an 84-inch 4K resolution TV would be awesome for computing, but what about sitting back far enough to keep the ergonomics practical for the average user to see the whole screen with minimal effort and strain while at the same time ends up countering having the 4K revolution in the first place due to the increased distance?

You know what, I guess I don't know. I'll just let you take it from here. I'm done talking about technology because apparently I know nothing.

[B9F8]

And perhaps there are many things that affect monitor's performance in how its manufactured. But I truly wonder, unless it's someone who spends so much looking into the nitty gritty, there's a point where the differences eventually reach the point where it's so minute and it becomes so miniscule that differences at a specific price point become unrecognizable to the average user.

The average user would be perfectly happy with a cheap monitor, but the OP is an artist that is ready to dump nearly $1k on a monitor.

But I still wonder. 4K resolutions on a screen smaller than 50 inches? Well, yeah, having the extra real estate helps with productivity over having several separate monitors, I don't doubt that. But at 50 inches, though? Or even 60 inches? That resolution is so high that the extra real estate isn't really worth shrinking everything down to such small scales, until you break into the really large dimensions range. Now I'd imagine having an 84-inch 4K resolution TV would be awesome for computing, but what about sitting back far enough to keep the ergonomics practical for the average user to see the whole screen with minimal effort and strain while at the same time ends up countering having the 4K revolution in the first place due to the increased distance?

I don't think you know how scaling works. 4k resolution at 39" has the same ppi as a 1440p 27" monitor. Even at 28-32" 4k is perfectly usable AND it makes things look better due to higher pixel density - you wouldn't even have to use anti alias for text.  Saying you need 84" to make use of 4k is just an outrageous claim.

Saying that Retina Display is good or bad is purely subjective.

See, if you look at the technology objectively you'd know it's actually good. Whether or not it's worth the money, now THAT is subjective. But keep in mind that this technology won't stay expensive forever.

You know what, I guess I don't know. I'll just let you take it from here. I'm done talking about technology because apparently I know nothing.

Yea. Next time you try to offer anyone advice about anything, how about you at least do some research first? Imagine the embarrassment you would have caused to OP if they had actually went to a store and asked for a "cmyk monitor".

[xristie9]

Hej, thanks for the discussion

Basically I understand the difference between the technologies, but if you look at the particular difference between the two mentioned models P2815Q vs. U2713H, which have approximately the same price, it is a wonder to me how could anybody buy the P2815Q (4K) over the Sharp version. It is no god for graphic nor for gaming... I think they made some miscalculation in making that one...

..." 6. Do not get the P2815Q , so far my sources say it's a tn panel with 30hz refresh rate - meaning it has subpar color reproduction and a laggy screen. They basically cut a lot of corners to get that price as low as they could. I'm personally waiting for the lenovo 28" 4k ips monitor that should be coming out around April for around the same price as the U2713H."
the ThinkVision Pro 2840m will be worth considering...
I am still considering even the Dell UltraSharp U3014, the prices after Christmas dropped quite low...