Asus 4K 31.5-inch monitor available for pre-order, ships July 16

[DAOWAce]

16:9 will never replace 16:10 as a standard for desktops so long as it continues to fail to properly support 4:3 content.

Though, I half expect people to turn to CRTs even more in future.. if they aren't all dead by then.

There is only one advantage 16:9 has over 16:10, and that is wider FoV in games where the developers don't bother to include an FoV option (or don't standardize the FoV regardless of AR). Obviously, that's a piss poor advantage and one created solely due to developer incompetence.

There is no real advantage to 16:9 over 16:10. None. Yet manufacturers are continuing to ignore 16:10 and push 16:9. It's been over 3 years since I've wanted a 120Hz+ display at 1920x1200 or greater to replace my "1200p" monitor from 2004. I'm still waiting for one.

 

[Guest]

Well this monitor is just as absurd as the mac book pro with a retina. The fact is that the pixel density is getting to such level where the human eye has a hard time discerning. So it is worthless. But it is the greatest thing that could happen. This is going to make it where you can pick up a 30 inch apple cinema display for $50 on a garage sale. Coolest thing in the world. The fact is my friend got a 30 inch a while back and if we put it to full resolution you can not read the articles on the internet. The letters are so tiny. So you see on a monitor that size the only useful resolution is 1900 by 1200. That is the density at which you can see letters anything higher is just waist of your money. But hey there are plenty of suckers in this world. So the big question is will the average people or even the visually most smart be able to tell the difference of a picture from on to just the other with just 1900x1080.

 

[St1ckM4n]

Advantage: cost.

Cost > everything.






Edit:

@Guest above: it's about reducing jagged edges. Macbook 'retina' screens may have a high resolution, but their 'effective' resolution is exactly the same as before. They use software to take advantage of the extra pixels and smooth out any jagged lines. 4K PC monitors are just interim, we need better than 8K.

 

[Darth Shiv]

Well this monitor is just as absurd as the mac book pro with a retina. The fact is that the pixel density is getting to such level where the human eye has a hard time discerning.

1080p is hardly undiscernable. It's great when placed next to PAL or NTSC but there is a also a noticeable difference to 4K.

 

[captaincranky]

I've love this for photo editing. Being able to view RAW files at closer to 1:1 full screen would be very welcome (although my camera output is still 4912 x 3264 vs this 3840 x 2160). Outside of video, photo, graphic work I don't see this being of much use to the mainstream home user.

If you think about it, there's really no use for this in imaging work either. When you consider that digital cameras, (for the most part), still follow 35mm aspect ratio 1.5:1.0, (15:10 if you prefer), then to transfer that camera work product to a 16:9 monitor requires mentally cropping while shooting, to an aspect ratio that looks like s***, for still images any anyway!

16:9 kills image height when working in portrait orientation on a horizontal screen, and again, looks like s***, when you consider the proportions of a subject seated for a formal portrait.

I could go on about how much I loathe having 16:9 forced on me by an industry only interested in making life easy on itself, and I will. 16:9 only, is about as stupid as when they made video tapes and DVDs with a CinemaScope aspect ratio, (2.35:1.00), to be viewed on standard def TVs, aspect 4:3.

And how much do you want for this abomination? Right, I'll get my checkbook..........(wait for it).......NOT!

 

[Arris]

If you think about it, there's really no use for this in imaging work either. When you consider that digital cameras, (for the most part), still follow 35mm aspect ratio 1.5:1.0, (15:10 if you prefer), then to transfer that camera work product to a 16:9 monitor requires mentally cropping while shooting, to an aspect ratio that looks like s***, for still images any anyway!

16:9 kills image height when working in portrait orientation on a horizontal screen, and again, looks like s***, when you consider the proportions of a subject seated for a formal portrait.

I could go on about how much I loathe having 16:9 forced on me by an industry only interested in making life easy on itself, and I will. 16:9 only, is about as stupid as when they made video tapes and DVDs with a CinemaScope aspect ratio, (2.35:1.00), to be viewed on standard def TVs, aspect 4:3.

And how much do you want for this abomination? Right, I'll get my checkbook..........(wait for it).......NOT!

Aside from the aspect ratio (I started shooting in 16:9 but did find it wasn't suitable) being able to have more of the full size image on screen is surely going to help for those wishing to process images for printing? Being able to get a better idea of what the image is going to look full size output on A3 or A2? I like the idea of being able to have a better representation of the image at it's true resolution, even if the display itself isn't the ideal aspect ratio. But since I play games too I can make do with 1920x1200 monitor at home for the time being.

 

[captaincranky]

Aside from the aspect ratio (I started shooting in 16:9 but did find it wasn't suitable) being able to have more of the full size image on screen is surely going to help for those wishing to process images for printing? Being able to get a better idea of what the image is going to look full size output on A3 or A2? I like the idea of being able to have a better representation of the image at it's true resolution, even if the display itself isn't the ideal aspect ratio. But since I play games too I can make do with 1920x1200 monitor at home for the time being.

Yeah OK. Here you go, and at about 1/4 of the price: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...T&cid=262077&lid=4742363&acd=1230980731501410 And it's 16:10.

If you want me to belabor the the points about printing resolution being 300+ DPI, and it has nothing to do with screen res

You can't pixel edit at 1:1 even if you could get all the pixels on the screen. (the more pixels you put up, the smaller they get).

Using the Dell, with 2500 pixels on the long side, you could put up the whole image at an honest 50%. (Dell is claiming 125% color gamut).

I use a 16:9, 23" vertical monitor on one computer. The image vertical height is 19".

A 40" TV has about a 20" vertical .. So,16:9 sucks, period!

You can't buy a monitor big enough, to put the printing sizes you mention up vertically @ 1:1, in landscape orientation. Either 30" monitor, the Asus or the Dell, would need to be turned on their sides. But, you could buy a pair of the Dells, and a second desktop, for the price of the Asus. (One horizontal, one vertical, two desktops)