# ASUS Launches PQ321 Monitor with 3840 x 2160 IGZO Display



## btarunr (May 30, 2013)

ASUS today announced the PQ321 True 4K UHD Monitor, a desktop display with a stunning Ultra HD 3840 x 2160 resolution that's equivalent to four Full HD displays stacked side-by-side. The PQ321 has a 31.5-inch LED-backlit 4K Ultra HD display (140 pixels-per-inch) with 16:9 aspect ratio, and supports 10-bit RGB 'deep color' for vibrant images with more natural transitions between hues.



 

 

 




*Cutting-edge IGZO panel technology*
The ASUS PQ321 True 4K UHD Monitor uses cutting-edge Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide (IGZO) rather than traditional amorphous silicon for the active layer of its LCD panel. IGZO panels support much smaller transistors than amorphous silicon, which in turn gives much smaller pixels and the 3840 x 2160 resolution of the PQ321 is four times that of a 1920 x 1080 Full HD display. 

176-degree wide viewing angles on both vertical and horizontal planes minimize onscreen color shift, while the 350cd/m² brightness rating and 8ms gray-to-gray response time ensure smooth, bright, and vibrant moving visuals. IGZO technology also gives reduced energy consumption compared to amorphous silicon and reduces bulk - at 35mm at its thickest point, the PQ321 is the thinnest 4K UHD monitor available today. 

*Comprehensive video inputs for UHD content*
The ASUS PQ321 True 4K UHD Monitor features DisplayPort and US models offer dual-HDMI ports inputs with Picture-by-Picture support. Built-in 2W stereo speakers remove the need for additional desktop clutter and, in addition to being wall-mountable, the monitor stand offers full height, swivel, and tilt adjustment. 

*AVAILABILITY & PRICING*
ASUS will be exhibiting the 39-inch and 31.5-inch True 4K UHD Monitor models at Computex 2013 in Taipei.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (May 30, 2013)

when can I has?


----------



## EzioAs (May 30, 2013)

Wow, even if it costs more than $1000, I'm glad that someone has the balls to change the game. Even better, 60Hz (it doesn't sound too impressive but at this res, it is)!! 

Thumbs up for ASUS. 
Now, if only they could release a 2560x1600, 24" display.


----------



## W1zzard (May 30, 2013)

must ... have ..


----------



## Frick (May 30, 2013)

What about cheap 2560 x 1600/1440????


----------



## radrok (May 30, 2013)

I'm seriously following this.

Can't wait to get my hands on it.


----------



## erixx (May 30, 2013)

A wonder of nature. Until I saw the price. Heaven has a price, of course :^)
I need to get into prostitussion to get one...LOL


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (May 30, 2013)

W1zzard said:


> must ... have ..



yes and then you can start doing your killer video card reviews for 4k


----------



## m1dg3t (May 30, 2013)

Frick said:


> What about cheap 2560 x 1600/1440????



This ^^. We are barely using this resolution as is... 

HollyWood & Cable TV need to step up their shit. Literally.


----------



## kklownboy (May 30, 2013)

erixx said:


> A wonder of nature. Until I saw the price. Heaven has a price, of course :^)
> I need to get into prostitussion to get one...LOL


what price? Only the Sharp brand with TV is quoted.


----------



## Filiprino (May 30, 2013)

Oh God, oh god, oh goddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd.


4k in 32 inches is just perfect for scaling. Or doing 1920x1080.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 30, 2013)

4K for gaming?? Good luck with that!


----------



## rpsgc (May 30, 2013)

erixx said:


> A wonder of nature. Until I saw the price. Heaven has a price, of course :^)
> I need to get into prostitussion to get one...LOL



What price? There is no price yet.

$5000 is for Sharp monitors.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (May 30, 2013)

Wow I'm drooling.  Wonder what GFX one would need to run games at 60fps with this beauty.


----------



## jihadjoe (May 30, 2013)

WANT!
This plus a GTX780 =)


----------



## Jacez (May 30, 2013)

Why can't this be 21:9


----------



## arterius2 (May 30, 2013)

Frick said:


> What about cheap 2560 x 1600/1440????



ASUS also just released their PA279Q (2560x1440) as well..

http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/asus_pa279q_proart_series_wqhd_lcd_monitor.html


----------



## arterius2 (May 30, 2013)

i'll take 3 please!


----------



## FrustratedGarrett (May 30, 2013)

When are we gonna get back-light strobing displays. Even at 60Hz, motion picture would look a lot clearer than a 120Hz monitor without strobed back-light.




60 Hz Refresh rate:







120 Hz Refresh rate:






120Hz + Backlight Strobing:


----------



## hellrazor (May 30, 2013)

If you guys send me one I'll write up a review for free.


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (May 30, 2013)

Prima.Vera said:


> 4K for gaming?? Good luck with that!





A GTX 780 or two will do you just fine   if you can afford the monitor you can afford the cards to do it.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-High-End-GPUs-Benchmarked-4K-Resolutions


----------



## PopcornMachine (May 30, 2013)

I got $500 for one right now.  Take it or leave it ASUS!


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 30, 2013)

HURRY at last! I really hope 2013 will bring more options on displays, and I hope Windows 8.1 will finally solve desktop scaling.

And those complaining about gaming? Run it in x1080 mode.


----------



## PopcornMachine (May 30, 2013)

lemonadesoda said:


> HURRY at last! I really hope 2013 will bring more options on displays, and I hope Windows 8.1 will finally solve desktop scaling.
> 
> And those complaining about gaming? Run it in x1080 mode.



Yeah, you can run 4 games at 1080p in windows simultaneously!


----------



## Lionheart (May 30, 2013)

Do you take kidney's Asus?


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 30, 2013)

.....yes.....yes..... the next component in the ultimate mancave has been released..... now,,,its only a matter of time.....(wives everywhere experience a subtle cold shift in the force)


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 30, 2013)

PopcornMachine said:


> I got $500 for one right now.  Take it or leave it ASUS!


You forgot a ZEROOO(0)


----------



## PopcornMachine (May 30, 2013)

Prima.Vera said:


> You forgot a ZEROOO(0)



I can dream, can't he.


----------



## HeronSword (May 30, 2013)

If they can price this around $2 grand even I would consider getting one.  I love gaming in 1440p, it's hard to go back to 1080p, kind of like when I went from my tube tv and Playstation 2 to PC at 1080p, and then again to PC at 1440p... difference just blows me away.  

I find I can play most games at 1440p 60 fps if I just turn down a few settings, and its still amazingly gorgeous because of the 1440.


----------



## Fierce Guppy (May 30, 2013)

Even at  31.5" is the pixel density such that any anti-aliasing option is unnecessary?


----------



## hellrazor (May 30, 2013)

Fierce Guppy said:


> Even at  31.5" is the pixel density such that any anti-aliasing option is unnecessary?



Not quite, but it's getting there.


----------



## JDG1980 (May 30, 2013)

Awesome! It's wonderful to finally see some monitors coming out with decent pixel density. It's absurd that smartphones and tablets have been available with over 200 PPI for years, and we're only now starting to see anything much above 100 PPI on the desktop.

Sharp's 4K 32" monitor costs about $5,000 in the U.S., maybe a few hundred cheaper if you know where to look. I hope this competitor will drive down costs further. We know it can be done - that crappy Seiki 4K TV at Tiger Direct only costs $1500. (Amazon has it even lower.) But the Seiki TV is too big to be a good monitor, and it only supports 30 Hz (not because of problems with the panel, but because of input limitations).

I look forward to the time when I can get a 32" 4K monitor from a decent name brand for around $1000. Perhaps that time is not as far off as I thought.


----------



## Frick (May 30, 2013)

JDG1980 said:


> Awesome! It's wonderful to finally see some monitors coming out with decent pixel density. It's absurd that smartphones and tablets have been available with over 200 PPI for years, and we're only now starting to see anything much above 100 PPI on the desktop.
> 
> Sharp's 4K 32" monitor costs about $5,000 in the U.S., maybe a few hundred cheaper if you know where to look. I hope this competitor will drive down costs further. We know it can be done - that crappy Seiki 4K TV at Tiger Direct only costs $1500. (Amazon has it even lower.) But the Seiki TV is too big to be a good monitor, and it only supports 30 Hz (not because of problems with the panel, but because of input limitations).
> 
> I look forward to the time when I can get a 32" 4K monitor from a decent name brand for around $1000. Perhaps that time is not as far off as I thought.



It is absurd, but understandable imo. I dunno how it is in Linux/MacOS but Windows doesn't do scaling very good. The Metro interface in Windows 8 supposedly does well there, but one of Windows major strenghts is the software library. Running Windows 7 you're out of luck basicly. Sometimes it works, but often it doesn't look good. Phones and tablets are quite different, and Metro is a way forward. But that isn't exactly perfect for desktop use.. Not to mention we have different eyes and different habits. Phones/tables we can just put closer to our face, but a monitor usually stands where it stands. Especially a 30 inch beast.

IMO these are good pixels/dimensions in desktop monitors, for general Windows use:

22' - 1680 x 1050
24' - 1920 x 1080/1200
27' - 2560 x 1600/1440

"4k" I haven't seen IRL.


----------



## McSteel (May 30, 2013)

The trouble with high DPI/PPI/anything-per-inch is that the most popular OS's out there (Windows) aren't really good at scaling visual elements. In fact, only OSX does this with an appreciable amount of thought and professionalism. Gnome and KDE manage somehow, but Windows is horrendous in this area. I know that hardware usually drives software innovations, yet no one seems to have the cojones to do it first, without high-DPI being properly covered in the OS first.

You wouldn't want a 2x2cm desktop icon on a 31.5" display now would you? And no readable fonts below 16pt size?

Other than that, I join this drool-fest. Wondering how solid that stand is, though...

## EDIT ##
Frick beat me to it, again.  I bow to you, lurker king


----------



## Wbat (May 30, 2013)

Can I also pay TRUE 1K USD for it?
And by _TRUE 1K_ I actually mean 950 USD, cause _true_ and _K_ doesn't mean anything today.


----------



## Mindweaver (May 30, 2013)

4k tv's are coming. You can already buy this 4k tv and this is the same tv PC Perspective use to run BF3 at 4k here and it's only $1258.40 at amazon. Now sony has a 4k monitor for around 5k.. but for the money i'd get the SEIKI.


----------



## PopcornMachine (May 30, 2013)

Mindweaver said:


> 4k tv's are coming. You can already buy this 4k tv and this is the same tv PC Perspective use to run BF3 at 4k here and it's only $1258.40 at amazon. Now sony has a 4k monitor for around 5k.. but for the money i'd get the SEIKI.



Do you realize you used "k" in two different ways in the same sentence.

K?


----------



## DarkOCean (May 30, 2013)

W1zzard said:


> must ... have ..



Looking forward to see that resolution added to your reviews.


----------



## cdawall (May 30, 2013)

Heck of a monitor  I do want one.


----------



## Animalpak (May 30, 2013)

This type of products give a sense to your dual gpu or SLI/CrossFire setup...


----------



## JDG1980 (May 30, 2013)

In response to Frick and McSteel: Yes, there are definitely issues with DPI scaling on Windows, but the problems aren't with the OS itself. Windows 7 scales just fine, as does IE and almost all the other stuff built into Windows. The problem is with ill-behaved third-party applications. If 4K monitors start to become commonplace, there will be pressure on these vendors to fix their applications to be DPI-aware (Microsoft has actually been urging them to do it for years, but most haven't). Adobe Lightroom 5 now does DPI scaling properly and Adobe claims that Photoshop will be updated to do so in the not-too-distant future.


----------



## McSteel (May 30, 2013)

Most of those applications are written in Microsoft's own SDKs, using Windows API calls and standard buttons/menus etc. Who except The Scene codes their GUI from scratch, using direct GPU access and not GDI? If it was a matter of static resources (bitmaps for icons and such), pretty much all software could be patched to comply incredibly simply. No, this really is fundamentally an OS issue, and while it's being worked on, it most definitely is pretty low on the to-do list.

Photoshop uses it's own GUI that was developed using Adobe's own AIR, so this is one of the "third-party offenders" that you reference. But I am absolutely sure that, if Microsoft didn't just push the issue, and rather implemented the solution fully, all other major software vendors (Adobe, AutoDesk, Corel, etc.) would follow suit very shortly.

There really are only two ways to do this. Either a) make a new raster renderer that will dynamically upscale/downscale the basic elements (windows, borders, buttons, fonts) around a work area, or b) make all said elements true vector graphics and be done with it.


----------



## Rowsol (May 30, 2013)

For the size, 1600p is already high for 30 inches.  I can't see a purpose in this resolution for screens under 50 inches.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (May 30, 2013)

W1zzard said:


> must ... have ..



Soon W1zzard, you probs will haz.


----------



## BigMack70 (May 30, 2013)

*drool*

Price tag is going to be super scary on this thing though... I'm betting $3k


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 30, 2013)

Would you even be able to see a dead pixel xD


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 30, 2013)

JDG1980 said:


> In response to Frick and McSteel: Yes, there are definitely issues with DPI scaling on Windows, but the problems aren't with the OS itself. Windows 7 scales just fine, as does IE and almost all the other stuff built into Windows. The problem is with ill-behaved third-party applications. If 4K monitors start to become commonplace, there will be pressure on these vendors to fix their applications to be DPI-aware (Microsoft has actually been urging them to do it for years, but most haven't). Adobe Lightroom 5 now does DPI scaling properly and Adobe claims that Photoshop will be updated to do so in the not-too-distant future.



Agree. Java, Flash, ActiveX, etc, are ridiculous horrible with high DPI scaling, even impossible on some occasions. And 3rd party apps. Ha, give me a break. Most of them are still "optimized" for the 1280x1024 HIGH resolution...


----------



## hellrazor (May 31, 2013)

Rowsol said:


> For the size, 1600p is already high for 30 inches.  I can't see a purpose in this resolution for screens under 50 inches.



Because some of us aren't blind.


----------



## Brusfantomet (May 31, 2013)

Well, under 15000 kr (ca 2000 usd) and i might get myself a Asus monitor instead of a Dell. will need a new stand for my 30" to use in portrait mode tho.

Also, anybody know how IGZO is compared to IPS?


----------



## bencrutz (May 31, 2013)

Brusfantomet said:


> Also, anybody know how IGZO is compared to IPS?



other than the fact that IGZO uses rare earth mineral that most likely it will sustain it's high price? no, i don't


----------



## Solidstate89 (May 31, 2013)

I've never understood how people think Windows scales horribly. Windows is by far the most flexible OS when it comes to scaling the UI and text elements. The only issues I ever run into are third party programs that aren't developed properly, but the OS and first party applications all run magnificently at any scale level that I set within Windows. And with an add-on installed in Firefox, that browser works fine as well.


----------



## Steevo (May 31, 2013)

People only believe that as they also believe the artificially implemented limitations of hardware and software to prevent users from doing what they want on a mac is a "feature", and occasionally what they don't mean to (no video drivers installed and a 1024X768 display resolution on a 23" 1080 panel, I have seen it. After fixing it the person complained that "I moved their icons" and "Why are the items so tiny!!" makes a PC bad. Right click on desktop and change your setups, windows has allowed it for longer than many were out of diapers.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (May 31, 2013)

As long as it's sub $1500 I will HAZ!


----------



## MadMan007 (May 31, 2013)

Frick said:


> What about cheap 2560 x 1600/1440????



Under $600 isn't cheap enough for you for an IPS panel with 2560x1440 resolution? The Dell U2713HM is regularly available at $600 and has been $550 a few times.


----------



## Frick (May 31, 2013)

JDG1980 said:


> In response to Frick and McSteel: Yes, there are definitely issues with DPI scaling on Windows, but the problems aren't with the OS itself. Windows 7 scales just fine, as does IE and almost all the other stuff built into Windows. The problem is with ill-behaved third-party applications. If 4K monitors start to become commonplace, there will be pressure on these vendors to fix their applications to be DPI-aware (Microsoft has actually been urging them to do it for years, but most haven't). Adobe Lightroom 5 now does DPI scaling properly and Adobe claims that Photoshop will be updated to do so in the not-too-distant future.



Yeah well yes and no. The Windows 7 log in screen for example doesn't scale at all. At least the last time I tried (Win7 SP1) there were some elements that didn't look right. And as others have said, the major advantage of Windows is the software library. You can run anything. Some, not all, major applications works fine, others don't. Look at these images, it's Chrome and Firefox. FF renders the site in the middle of everything, Chrome is fuzzy all over. Yes those things are probably pretty easily fixed for the devs, and the probably will be, but still. Now multiply that for every program (well most programs anyway) ever written for Windows and you see the problem.



MadMan007 said:


> Under $600 isn't cheap enough for you for an IPS panel with 2560x1440 resolution? The Dell U2713HM is regularly available at $600 and has been $550 a few times.



Not really no. It's a good price, but I want TN monitors to get to $200. Seriously, we've had 1080p for ages now.


----------



## pokazene_maslo (May 31, 2013)

*3D support*

I hope that this display will support passive 3D (the one where even lines are polarized in one direction and odd lines in other direction).


----------



## buggalugs (May 31, 2013)

Res looks great but response time doesn't. No good having a high res monitor if your gaming is blurry. Will need to see a proper review of its gaming performance.

 The other thing is, not sure I would pay top dollar for 4K right now, with OLED coming soon.


----------



## midnightoil (May 31, 2013)

bencrutz said:


> other than the fact that IGZO uses rare earth mineral that most likely it will sustain it's high price? no, i don't



This is an IPS monitor.  As mentioned in the article, IZGO refers to what the active layer is physically made from, not the type of LCD.

As for those speculating that this will be 'cheap' compared with the Sharp ... absolutely not.  This is the Sharp monitor.  It's exactly the same panel (made by Sharp), possibly with different backlighting (though I doubt it) and a different case and OSD software.  You might see it 20% cheaper, but I doubt even that unless these units are many pegs lower on QC scale.

P.S.  IZGO has been said to be able to improve pixel responsiveness significantly, so I'm more excited to see if some 'real' 120+hz IPS monitors finally appear.  Then I'd finally be able to use one monitor for producivity / gaming AND photo editing.  Such a pain to use TN for the former and IPS for the latter.


----------



## nemesis.ie (May 31, 2013)

*And a 39"?*

Did anyone else notice at the very end they will also be exhibiting a 39" model?

Now THAT sounds tempting, but +1 for the 120Hz/BL strobing.

I also wonder if this will have that fancy "moth eye" anti-glare and RGBY pixels Sharp has developed, if not, a 4k Sharp TV might be even better, e.g. a 50" pushed to the back of the desk ... droool.


----------



## Maban (May 31, 2013)




----------



## radrok (May 31, 2013)

Let's hope they don't go overly aggressive with the anti-glare coat.

10bit panel, good.

Count me in for one if it's under 2,5k.


----------



## McSteel (May 31, 2013)

10bit panel means jack with a standard gamut backlight...


----------



## Tannhäuser (May 31, 2013)

*Monitor sales decreasing*

Interesting forecast.  The market for monitors could get stirred up if the trend goes on: Forecast for global shipments of tablets, laptops and desktop PCs from 2010 to 2017 (in million units).


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 31, 2013)

Frick said:


> What about cheap 2560 x 1600/1440????



Shimian/Catleap , problem solved 

I'm gonna need a magnifying glass to use this thing as already on a 27" 1440p monitor I have to increase the DPI to 115% and set internet browsing at 135% zoom just so I'm not straining, do I do sit back about 3 feet from the monitor if that makes a difference, think I need an eyetest, always had perfect eyesight but sitting at bright monitors for the last 10 years has definitely had an effect on them  anyway, I digress...


----------



## midnightoil (May 31, 2013)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Shimian/Catleap , problem solved
> 
> I'm gonna need a magnifying glass to use this thing as already on a 27" 1440p monitor I have to increase the DPI to 115% and set internet browsing at 135% zoom just so I'm not straining, do I do sit back about 3 feet from the monitor if that makes a difference, think I need an eyetest, always had perfect eyesight but sitting at bright monitors for the last 10 years has definitely had an effect on them  anyway, I digress...



Reduce the brightness significantly, I suggest.  Not only is it better for your eyes, but you won't squint / narrow your pupils so much and text / details will seem much clearer.

I sit about 2 feet from a 23" 1920x1080 and usually zoom out 2-3 steps from default on most webpages (I don't fiddle with global settings).


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 31, 2013)

midnightoil said:


> Reduce the brightness significantly, I suggest.  Not only is it better for your eyes, but you won't squint / narrow your pupils so much and text / details will seem much clearer.
> 
> I sit about 2 feet from a 23" 1920x1080 and usually zoom out 2-3 steps from default on most webpages (I don't fiddle with global settings).



I have decreased the brightness as at factory default it can literally light up a dark room, the problem with that is that colours then become washed, white being the most prominent and ends up looking a slightly washed out grey tint, my chairs a recliner and I like to lean back on it as it's comfy lol if I sat up I would be about 2 feet from it and could easily deal with standard DPI though that extra 1 foot away from it really makes it hard trying to make out text.


----------



## Frick (May 31, 2013)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Shimian/Catleap , problem solved
> 
> I'm gonna need a magnifying glass to use this thing as already on a 27" 1440p monitor I have to increase the DPI to 115% and set internet browsing at 135% zoom just so I'm not straining, do I do sit back about 3 feet from the monitor if that makes a difference, think I need an eyetest, always had perfect eyesight but sitting at bright monitors for the last 10 years has definitely had an effect on them  anyway, I digress...



Doesnt exist in sweden and with monitors i want to go as local as possible.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 31, 2013)

Frick said:


> Doesnt exist in sweden and with monitors i want to go as local as possible.



I bought from Korea as have most others with these monitors and most speak highly of the quality and sellers etc though if you only buy local that's your prerogative and I respect that, just don't think 1440p/1600p monitors will be cheap in the western world anytime soon, let alone these beasts when they come out, though hopefully we will see more mfr's follow suit with 4k displays


----------



## Brusfantomet (Jun 1, 2013)

Frick said:


> Doesnt exist in sweden and with monitors i want to go as local as possible.


Check dustin, they have a Dell U2713HM for 4000 nok (680 usd, but that includes 25% VAT) for the last couple of weeks.



Maban said:


> accessories: RS-232V conversion cable


Now that is not quite normal accessories for a consumer display.



midnightoil said:


> This is an IPS monitor. As mentioned in the article, IZGO refers to what the active layer is physically made from, not the type of LCD.
> 
> As for those speculating that this will be 'cheap' compared with the Sharp ... absolutely not. This is the Sharp monitor. It's exactly the same panel (made by Sharp), possibly with different backlighting (though I doubt it) and a different case and OSD software. You might see it 20% cheaper, but I doubt even that unless these units are many pegs lower on QC scale.
> 
> P.S. IZGO has been said to be able to improve pixel responsiveness significantly, so I'm more excited to see if some 'real' 120+hz IPS monitors finally appear. Then I'd finally be able to use one monitor for producivity / gaming AND photo editing. Such a pain to use TN for the former and IPS for the latter.


Ok, so it is a ISP, was a bit confused with the viewing angels at only 178 degrees as opposed to 179.

and you are saying minimum 4000 USD as launch price? That could bee a bit steep

120Hz IPS, this screen is only getting better.


----------



## Frick (Jun 1, 2013)

NdMk2o1o said:


> I bought from Korea as have most others with these monitors and most speak highly of the quality and sellers etc though if you only buy local that's your prerogative and I respect that, just don't think 1440p/1600p monitors will be cheap in the western world anytime soon, let alone these beasts when they come out, though hopefully we will see more mfr's follow suit with 4k displays



I just don't see what the holdup is. When Apple bought along their "retina" stuff I thought the rest of the market would follow pretty soon, but nooooo. Instead more 1920 x 1200 monitor have come out again, which is just weird.



Brusfantomet said:


> Check dustin, they have a Dell U2713HM for 4000 nok (680 usd, but that includes 25% VAT) for the last couple of weeks.



It's 4390SEK as of now, and it is a good price for that monitor, but I want a regular old TN panel for 2500SEK. 

There is a new one though, the PHILIPS 272C4QPJKAB, which is less than 4000SEK (€430).. Hmm.. Getting there..


----------



## jihadjoe (Jun 1, 2013)

FrustratedGarrett said:


> When are we gonna get back-light strobing displays. Even at 60Hz, motion picture would look a lot clearer than a 120Hz monitor without strobed back-light.



A strobe at 60Hz would be a bad idea. It'd eliminate ghosting, but then it would also flicker like an old CRT.

Pixel persistence is the main reason 60Hz is considered acceptable for LCDs, whereas back in the day you pretty much had to aim for at least 85Hz if you were going to be staring at the screen for long amounts of time.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 1, 2013)

Refresh rate for LCDs and refresh rate for CRTs are like comparing lemons with melons.


----------



## McSteel (Jun 1, 2013)

He isn't. He's comparing CRT electron beam scanning with LCD backlight strobe and makes no mistakes in doing so. This is what BL strobe looks like, and it's *exactly* like what the CRT monitors do, to the human eye.


----------



## tacosRcool (Jun 2, 2013)

I would like yes.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 2, 2013)

McSteel said:


> He isn't. He's comparing CRT electron beam scanning with LCD backlight strobe and makes no mistakes in doing so. This is what BL strobe looks like, and it's *exactly* like what the CRT monitors do, to the human eye.



Is similar but not exactly. CRT and LCD are completely different technologies. There are physical limitations in place here, common.


----------



## Covert_Death (Jun 2, 2013)

can  i torrent this?!?!


----------



## BorisDG (Jun 2, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Would you even be able to see a dead pixel xD



This monitor will be total catastrophe. I expect a lot of dead/stuck pixels.  I changed like 2-3 panels of mine PA246Q just to have 0 dead/stuck pixels on my screen. This is happening with almost all high-end LG based panels, because of LG's poor quality control.



Maban said:


> http://content.screencast.com/users...65-40a6-9aee-a92bacaab8aa/2013-05-31_0943.png



LOL! 10bit panel with cheap W-LED.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 2, 2013)

I think you will need to set up the DPI scale in Windows to at least 200%. Prepare for some fun...


----------



## NeoXF (Jun 3, 2013)

Holy s...

...'bout time, I say!


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (Jun 4, 2013)

http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/03/...site&utm_source=sendgrid.com&utm_medium=email


----------



## NeoXF (Jun 4, 2013)

nickbaldwin86 said:


> http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/03/...site&utm_source=sendgrid.com&utm_medium=email



3,800$... I hope by the end of the year, any 4K releases after this might get sub 3000$ price tags... Then in 2014, sub 2000$ and maybe in 2015 a more mainstream price approach of sub 1000 bucks...


----------



## BigMack70 (Jun 4, 2013)

lol $3.8k... even if I had that much money to spend on a monitor I don't think I'd do it

I'll wait for seiki to wisen up and put a displayport input on their TV


----------

