Good but is still too big and expensive.

I am, personally, waiting for the 22-inch-24-inch (max) models with the same resolution, 4K.

TN ? No thanks. Not keen on a colour palette as varied as an emo's wardrobe.

IPS
10 bit (or 12) colour
4:3 pixel ratio option

Call me when it's ready.

HumanSmokeTN ? No thanks. Not keen on a colour palette as varied as an emo's wardrobe.

IPS
10 bit (or 12) colour
4:3 pixel ratio option

Call me when it's ready.

It will probably be 16:9 by default....
I hope you meant 16:10 ...

I know 1440p monitors more expensive than this one.

HumanSmokeTN ? No thanks. Not keen on a colour palette as varied as an emo's wardrobe.

IPS
10 bit (or 12) colour
4:3 pixel ratio option

Call me when it's ready.

I wouldn't take a 4:3 monitor not even for free. :)
But you are quite the forum's hater, aren't you? :)

PatriotIt will probably be 16:9 by default....
I hope you meant 16:10 ...

Thanks for stating the obvious. The screen size is given in the article as 3840x2160, so it's actually abundantly clear that the screen aspect ratio is 16:9. It's a pity that I was referring to the pixel aspect ratio and not the screen aspect ratio, some of us are movie buffs as well as gamers. An on-the-fly variable pixel aspect ratio technology is something I'd like to see.

Prima.VeraI know 1440p monitors more expensive than this one.
I wouldn't take a 4:3 monitor not even for free. :)

Well done guys, nice to see you can't distinguish between screen aspect ratio and pixel aspect ratio.
And here I was thinking I'd made the fact clear enough

HumanSmokeTN ? No thanks. Not keen on a colour palette as varied as an emo's wardrobe.
IPS
10 bit (or 12) colour
4:3 pixel ratio option
Call me when it's ready.

Prima.VeraBut you are quite the forum's hater, aren't you? :)

1. Post wish list
2. Have two guys jump on the post in the mistaken belief that screen aspect ratio is the same as pixel aspect ratio.
3. Labelled as "hater" for correcting wrong assumptions
4. :SMH:

1MS response, not bad I can dig it except the price is a bit higher than I was looking for. Still like the Asus one though a bit better mostly due to the availability, company, and price.

Prima.VeraI know 1440p monitors more expensive than this one.

True hence why I intend to grab one of the UHD screens soon enough to drop my eyefinity setup.

HumanSmokeThanks for stating the obvious. The screen size is given in the article as 3840x2160, so it's actually abundantly clear that the screen aspect ratio is 16:9. It's a pity that I was referring to the pixel aspect ratio and not the screen aspect ratio, some of us are movie buffs as well as gamers. An on-the-fly variable pixel aspect ratio technology is something I'd like to see.

If you have nVidia card you can use custom resolution creation straight from drivers, or a 3rd party software which does the same thing for AMD cards.

Prima.VeraIf you have nVidia card you can use custom resolution creation straight from drivers, or a 3rd party software which does the same thing for AMD cards.

That is more for gaming/apps where the pixel aspect ratio is 1:1 (square). Film/TV use a rectangular pixel. Choose "Full Screen" or "Aspect Ratio" and it is a compromise for widescreen movies. Cropping or much reduced viewing real estate for anything filmed in 'Scope.

HumanSmokeThat is more for gaming/apps where the pixel aspect ratio is 1:1 (square). Film/TV use a rectangular pixel. Choose "Full Screen" or "Aspect Ratio" and it is a compromise for widescreen movies. Cropping or much reduced viewing real estate for anything filmed in 'Scope.

Out of curiosity, I'm not sure why an option for different pixel aspect ratios within a monitor is necessary. I've never seen a DVD/BD player or any video software that cannot convert anamorphic content to work on displays with square pixels. Why would having the conversion in the monitor be an advantage over performing it at the DVD player/PC itself?

Edit: DVDs and BDs use square pixel ratios, so they wouldn't be performing the conversion anyway. But that begs the question, what content is actually available to consumers in native anamorphic format? All the content I've seen is already converted.

That 1ms is rubbish.... it means 1000Hz... maybe in special conditions, but in real life where are those darn FPS? Really rubbish numbers that won't mean anything actually, as there are more components and parameters that matter most and deliver the final input lag and image processing, pixel laziness - hysteresis.

Aspect ratio is a matter of taste... For Web, Coding etc 4:3 rulez hands down. Games, entertainment and casual stuff like watching kitten photos 16:10 is the best :D.

And calm down... we all know this peace of thech is yesterday... calm down.

The chick got 8pts of 10.

Ferrum MasterThat 1ms is rubbish.... it means 1000Hz.

Response time and refresh rate are two different things and it is more likely that you should consider them separately and add one to the other.

And then, TN panel is not that bad, it is you that make from the mouse elephant, wrongly so.

That's progress. A 1ms response time is real progress for a UHD monitor, but I'll reserve my judgement as to whether this unit is suitable for gaming when I learn of its input lag time. I do realize UHD is too much for sanely priced graphics cards at the moment, but it's good for everything else. The day capitalism poos out large affordable UHD IPS gaming monitors can't come soon enough for me. I want the best of both worlds: UHD with fast pixel response times and low input lag, and accurate colour reproduction. I think I'll be stuck with TN panels for a while yet because accurate colour reproduction is a little less important to me than having no perceivable motion blur when playing 3D shooters - hence I've just purchased a BenQ XL2720Z, and its only FHD. That's good enough as an interim measure.

Sony Xperia SResponse time and refresh rate are two different things and it is more likely that you should consider them separately and add one to the other.

And then, TN panel is not that bad, it is you that make from the mouse elephant, wrongly so.

GTG measurement doesn't give any real info what kind of product it really is and how well it performs. It is just a shutter response time... we have enough of it even slight under 200Hz...

As is said it builds up the final real DYNAMIC frame rate and this number should be advertised... they are afraid I guess. :D

And simple TN is yesterday... Super LCD tech many gimmicks pimping TN tech enough to look really awesome, especially viewing angles and colour accuracy. Here isn't even shown if it is 6bit FRC or a true 8-10bit panel... no matter if it really can handle such wide bits.

PS.

And Frequency = 1/T so those numbers are interchangeable... simple math...

Ferrum MasterGTG measurement doesn't give any real info what kind of product it really is and how well it performs. It is just a shutter response time... we have enough of it even slight under 200Hz...

As is said it builds up the final real DYNAMIC frame rate and this number should be advertised... they are afraid I guess. :D

Grey-to-grey is only 1 ms because obviously the panel works in such a way. Property of the technology, which probably means that all other colour switches take longer time, for instance Red-to-Green may take as much as 10 ms.

Different parts of the frame (colours) can switch at different time.

Sony Xperia SGrey-to-grey is only 1 ms because obviously the panel works in such a way. Property of the technology, which probably means that all other colour switches take longer time, for instance Red-to-Green may take as much as 10 ms.

Different parts of the frame (colours) can switch at different time.

Yea that is my point... that this number alone is useless rubbish. Just wondering why they simply lobby it alone. Maybe the only thing to be proud of?

The Von MatricesOut of curiosity, I'm not sure why an option for different pixel aspect ratios within a monitor is necessary. I've never seen a DVD/BD player or any video software that cannot convert anamorphic content to work on displays with square pixels.

HD content isn't really the issue as far as I'm personally concerned. BD/DVD - as you say, are already scaled for monitor use. If that were the only input source then the only issue is the method of upscaling and its quality (since most- if not all- 4K content requires upscaling/upsampling). This in itself is more likely to produce visual artifacts and/or blurriness if a simple 4:1 pixel mapping is utilized - something that could well distinguish "cheap"4K monitors as it does 4K TV's. Not all upscaling is created equal since the more expensive option involves use of algorithms to blend the upscaled pixel map, something that seems to be missing from the lower priced 4K panels (just as cheap Korean 1440p panels are often non-scalar to keep costs down)

Having a quick browse for upscaling/pixel mapping throws up a bunch of long-winded PDF's. There are a few Youtube (company sponsored) vids covering the topic, but you'd need to browse a dedicated AV forum for uncompressed (compression artefact free) comparisons

Ferrum MasterYea that is my point... that this number alone is useless rubbish. Just wondering why they simply lobby it alone. Maybe the only thing to be proud of?

Marketing people are really useless bunch of idiots. They either lie to you or confuse you. They teach you some completely wrong (for example pushing more pixels per inch on phones) and meaningless things and then are trying to improve on them.

For people, of course, these numbers are useless and meaningless, people will accept whatever you deliver them.

Sony Xperia SGrey-to-grey is only 1 ms because obviously the panel works in such a way. Property of the technology, which probably means that all other colour switches take longer time, for instance Red-to-Green may take as much as 10 ms.

Different parts of the frame (colours) can switch at different time.

How does that work? How can red-to-green take longer than grey-to-grey when grey is made out of all three component colours at equal intensity?

Fierce GuppyHow does that work? How can red-to-green take longer than grey-to-grey when grey is made out of all three component colours at equal intensity?

Have you ever thought how black is achieved on LCD?

Ferrum MasterHave you ever thought how black is achieved on LCD?

The three colours components are set to their lowest intensity?

Fierce GuppyThe three colours components are set to their lowest intensity?

It counts for amoled tech...

Grey should be no color cell active... back light(white) passes through, the polarizer half cuts the amount of light depending how much you bend the cell with electric field...

Got the idea?