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

By on November 28, 2012, 3:00 PM

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.

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.




User Comments: 33

Got something to say? Post a comment
ikesmasher said:

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.

Guest said:

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.

IAMTHESTIG said:

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.

VitalyT VitalyT said:

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.

Guest said:

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.

JC713 JC713 said:

Man u must need like 2 680s to game on that lol

Staff
Jesse Jesse said:

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.

2 people like this | Holyscrap said:

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)

soldier1969 soldier1969 said:

Man u must need like 2 680s to game on that lol

I have 2 x 4gb 680s for my 30" 2560 x 1600 ips display but this one is kick ass. Cant wait till they make a stand alone PC display with this res for under 2 grand I'll grab one!

1 person liked this | JC713 JC713 said:

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?

Slytek Slytek said:

Until There is content created in this high resolution its useless

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

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.

Some people like high PPI.

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

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.

ikesmasher said:

Im really stupid. Ignore me.

Think ill go sleep now...

JC713 JC713 said:

Until There is content created in this high resolution its useless

^

1 person liked this | Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

^

It's a computer monitor. You can render content at that resolution. E.g. games, photo & video editing, desktop applications etc. More useful than a 4K TV.

Guest said:

So, how much gtx 680 must I have to run Crysis (ultra high quality with not less than 30fps) on this monitor? :D

thewind said:

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.

thewind said:

So, how much gtx 680 must I have to run Crysis (ultra high quality with not less than 30fps) on this monitor?

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?

9Nails, TechSpot Paladin, said:

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.

Guest said:

"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

Staff
Jesse Jesse said:

Until There is content created in this high resolution its useless

It's a computer monitor. You can render content at that resolution. E.g. games, photo & video editing, desktop applications etc. More useful than a 4K TV.

Yes, what Darth said. This is a monitor ya bozos. Go troll in the 4k tv threads.

ikesmasher said:

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

JC713 JC713 said:

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

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

"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?

Yeah nothing wrong with the monitor res leading technology... something has to be out in front.

Guest said:

Are ppl who refer to this display as 2k being sarcastic?

this is close to 4k. in 4k you count the first number not the second number unlike 1080p. this display is very close to 4k which is I tihnk 4096 by 2160 (im not sure abt the actual number is but it is around there somewhere). so please stop calling this a 2k display. at 38xx by 21xx, it is very close to being a 4k res

LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

It's because people have been using terms like 1440p and 1600p which aren't really standards to be used in that way. The "p" in 1080p identifies that the display is drawn in a progressive fashion vs an interlaced one. Many have taken it upon themselves to just take the smaller of the two axes, slap a "p" on the end of it, and assume everyone else knows you just multiply by either 16/9 or 16/10 and that it makes sense. In reality 1440p and 1600p don't exist - though 1440p was considered and I believe at least one 1440p television was even developed but not brought to market because of the bandwidth requirements to deliver content.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Some other idi-ot can buy this for 5500, because this idi-ot would barely consider spending 500 for one.

slamscaper slamscaper said:

Yawn... The higher res is nice but not revolutionary.

Everyone should be far more interested in OLED tech. This is going to bring much, much better PQ and response times to flat panel displays. Resolution isn't everything guys. Anyone that knows a good bit about cameras can attest to this (the quality of the sensor matters most, not the megapixel rating).

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Anyone that knows a good bit about cameras can attest to this (the quality of the sensor matters most, not the megapixel rating).
If I am following you correctly, a monitors display colors and contrast ratio could be compared to a camera's capture quality. High resolution displays have their place and are just as important as color/contrast quality. Perhaps you are taking high resolution photos and displaying them on a small monitor. This would give you the illusion that resolutions is not as important. However when a resolution is stretched out where you can actually see all the pixels, it becomes just as important as color/contrast quality.

slamscaper slamscaper said:

If I am following you correctly, a monitors display colors and contrast ratio could be compared to a camera's capture quality. High resolution displays have their place and are just as important as color/contrast quality. Perhaps you are taking high resolution photos and displaying them on a small monitor. This would give you the illusion that resolutions is not as important. However when a resolution is stretched out where you can actually see all the pixels, it becomes just as important as color/contrast quality.

What I'm getting at is that contrast and black levels are simply more important than resolution when it comes to a display's PQ. Anyone that's viewed a direct view (CRT) HDTV will know what I'm talking about. High quality CRT's offer much better image quality than LCD's or Plasma. The only advantage LCD's have is sharpness and brightness.

A good example of this is comparing a 1080p IPS LCD versus a 1080p TN based LCD. Both have the same resolution, however IPS tech is infinitely better when it comes to viewing angles, color accuracy, backlight uniformity, etc... Similarly, S-PVA based LCD's offer better black levels and contrast than any other type, regardless of resolution.

As I said, resolution isn't everything.

Guest said:

Complete bulls**t, there is nothing misleading on 4K! 4K exesited log before any monitor manufacturer was even dreaming of making one and most of us was pooping in our pampers :D

4K resolution came from film industry and it marks horizontal resolution of digital scans of film frame. On the other hand, 480p, 1080p came from TV industry when in old analog CRT TV bulb screen you had only number of lines how electron beam quickly jumped over the luminofor covered screen and we can see just his left trail. So for the TV village there were only the number of lines what was important, ie 480 lines in USA or 576 lines in Europe. When Tv upgraded too HDTV it was natural to talk about 1080 lines, yes first HDTVs were analog hence the lines. So when computer industry catch up later after 20 years everithing digitalized and TV terminology crashed with Cinema and our when our computers are able to play Cinematic 4K it all mixed up and thats it.

Its simply about horizontal and vertical resolution, lazy consumers and lots of marketing bulls**t.

GIY

Guest said:

Sorry for typos :)

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.