Sharp unveils 4K 32-inch IGZO LCD monitor, yours for just $5,500

Shawn Knight

Posts: 15,253   +192
Staff member

Sharp has unveiled a new monitor powered by their ultra-thin IGZO technology that delivers an incredibly high resolution in a very sleek looking package. The professional-grade 32-inch (when measured diagonally, of course) PN-K321 display features a 4K resolution of 3,840 x 2,160 but you’ll need some pretty deep pockets if you want to bring one home (or, to the office).

When factoring in the screen size and resolution, what you end up with is a pixel density of 137PPI. As SlashGear notes, that’s not quite as high as the 220PPI found on Apple’s MacBook Pro with Retina Display but it’s also more than twice as large.

sharp igzo lcd japanese igzo

The screen also includes DisplayPort and HDMI ports, we’re told. Sharp says this will be the thinnest 4K monitor on the market, measuring just 35mm thick. That’s largely thanks to the IGZO (indium gallium zinc oxide) technology named after the semiconducting material used to create it. This is the same process that Apple was rumored to be using on the iPhone 5 before it launched.

Sharp plans to use IGZO in a number of upcoming devices like tablets and smartphones. They will likely be showcasing the new monitor during the Consumer Electronics Show in January as it isn’t expected to be released until sometime in February.

Interested parties will be asked to hand over $5,500 for the high-resolution display. We suspect it will take at least a couple of years before the technology reaches mainstream at which time pricing should come down considerably.

Permalink to story.

 
Since 1080p was often the used number, why are they calling it 4k? its more like 2k... whatever. Its misleading to the less savy people who think the picture quality is 4 times as good.
 
Thats good news, already the prices are getting lower :)

I really would love to get one but with all new markets there must be a pile of problems.

Maybe in 2 years time, I hope it gets rushed into mainstream like "3D" has,

This is something I'd actually consider getting on a quality, size and energy efficiency stand point.
 
Since 1080p was often the used number, why are they calling it 4k? its more like 2k... whatever. Its misleading to the less savy people who think the picture quality is 4 times as good.

No kidding... technically this is 2K, not 4K. They should just call it 2160p and be done with it. This is false advertising as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately I think whatever standardization entity out there (IEEE?, ISO?) says that 2160p is a MINIMUM resolution for a display to be called "4K", even though technically, it isn't 4K. Kind of a rip off...

I really only see this resolution being useful for some of us hardcore users who want tons of desktop space, want to play games at that res, or are graphics/video artists. otherwise your general consumer will not even be able to discern the difference between 1080p HD and 2160p Ultra HD.
 
Pointless gadget, useless and over-priced.

If I had that kind of money I would buy 3 x 30" Monitors, which would create a far superior visual effect, and still have a chunk of cash to spare.
 
It reminds me of the time when HDTVs were just starting to become available to mainstream consumers and were a bit pricy. Too many suckers bought Enhanced Definition Set Plasmas (480p) thinking it's close enough to having an actual HD set.
 
AWesome!!! I know what I want for Christmas!

Since 1080p was often the used number, why are they calling it 4k? its more like 2k... whatever. Its misleading to the less savy people who think the picture quality is 4 times as good.

Yeah, the 4k moniker will be less common soon. It's Ultra HD now.
 
Since 1080p was often the used number, why are they calling it 4k? its more like 2k... whatever. Its misleading to the less savy people who think the picture quality is 4 times as good.

If you count pixels as picture quality then 3,840 x 2,160 is 4 times better than 1080p

3,840 x 2,160= (2*1920)x(2*1080)= 2x2x1920x1080=4x(1920x1080)
 
AWesome!!! I know what I want for Christmas!



Yeah, the 4k moniker will be less common soon. It's Ultra HD now.
that is just cheesy lol
I have 2 x 4gb 680s for my 30" 2560 x 1600 ips display but this one is kick ***. Cant wait till they make a stand alone PC display with this res for under 2 grand I'll grab one!
how many frames do you get on a game like BF3 on ultra? also does the 4GB help?
 
If you count pixels as picture quality then 3,840 x 2,160 is 4 times better than 1080p

3,840 x 2,160= (2*1920)x(2*1080)= 2x2x1920x1080=4x(1920x1080)
4x(1920x1080) is not 3840x2160...4x 1920 is 7680, and 4x 1080 is 4320.
Um ike... did you read his post?

1920x1080 has 2,073,600 pixels

3840 x 2160 has 8,294,400 pixels

So 1080p vs 4K... 4K has 4 times the number of pixels.
 
So, how much gtx 680 must I have to run Crysis (ultra high quality with not less than 30fps) on this monitor? :D
 
Since 1080p was often the used number, why are they calling it 4k? its more like 2k... whatever. Its misleading to the less savy people who think the picture quality is 4 times as good.

If you count pixels as picture quality then 3,840 x 2,160 is 4 times better than 1080p

3,840 x 2,160= (2*1920)x(2*1080)= 2x2x1920x1080=4x(1920x1080)

Thank god you said something cuz I was like "are you flippin' kidding me? 4k or what ever you wanta call it is 4x the pixels so 4x as good! but Yes they call it 4k so the average joe knows its 4x its a good marketing ploit.
 
So, how much gtx 680 must I have to run Crysis (ultra high quality with not less than 30fps) on this monitor? :D

Given Hitman Absolution cant even run on Ultra at 1080p ( Now when I say that I mean when everything is on ultra and I turn MSAA up to 8x I only get an average of 24FPS) If you turn MSAA to 4x then it runs fine) Anyway given this game is the most demanding game I have seen so far I would like to know how many it would take to run it at 4k! I'm gussing 2 690's or 3 680's. any gusses?
 
Since 1080p was often the used number, why are they calling it 4k? its more like 2k... whatever. Its misleading to the less savy people who think the picture quality is 4 times as good.

If you count pixels as picture quality then 3,840 x 2,160 is 4 times better than 1080p

3,840 x 2,160= (2*1920)x(2*1080)= 2x2x1920x1080=4x(1920x1080)

Thank god you said something cuz I was like "are you flippin' kidding me? 4k or what ever you wanta call it is 4x the pixels so 4x as good! but Yes they call it 4k so the average joe knows its 4x its a good marketing ploit.

They should have called it 4x then. Calling it a 4K monitor when it's really a 2K is very misleading. Like that silly Apple 4G phone, which wasn't a 4G phone, but only a 4th generation product.
 
"Given Hitman Absolution cant even run on Ultra at 1080p ( Now when I say that I mean when everything is on ultra and I turn MSAA up to 8x I only get an average of 24FPS) If you turn MSAA to 4x then it runs fine) Anyway given this game is the most demanding game I have seen so far I would like to know how many it would take to run it at 4k! I'm gussing 2 690's or 3 680's. any gusses?"

Hey, how about we wait for 2-3 years waiting for gtx 780 or gtx 880, also waiting for Sandy Bridge-F (next gen of SandyBridge-E) perhaps? :D
 
They should have called it 4x then. Calling it a 4K monitor when it's really a 2K is very misleading. Like that silly Apple 4G phone, which wasn't a 4G phone, but only a 4th generation product.
in its defense, it was called the iphone 4, not the 4G. :p
 
Given Hitman Absolution cant even run on Ultra at 1080p ( Now when I say that I mean when everything is on ultra and I turn MSAA up to 8x I only get an average of 24FPS) If you turn MSAA to 4x then it runs fine) Anyway given this game is the most demanding game I have seen so far I would like to know how many it would take to run it at 4k! I'm gussing 2 690's or 3 680's. any gusses?
I bet it is just not optimised. It is like metro 2033 and witcher 2, it was a killer until AMD and nvidia fixed the drivers to run it great
 
Back