I'm still not sure why Iiyama live in a parallel world where time slowed down. This would have been great five years ago.

strenI'm still not sure why Iiyama live in a parallel world where time slowed down. This would have been great five years ago.

This is professional stuff, tested, calibrated. It doesn't get old.

ZetZetThis is professional stuff, tested, calibrated. It doesn't get old.

Everything gets old. There have been extremely well calibrated monitors for professionals at this resolution for a while. So at most this one is slightly better. Hardly groundbreaking is it? Do you think graphics professionals will pay a ton of money for this right now or wait for the 4K equivalent?

strenEverything gets old. There have been extremely well calibrated monitors for professionals at this resolution for a while. So at most this one is slightly better. Hardly groundbreaking is it? Do you think graphics professionals will pay a ton of money for this right now or wait for the 4K equivalent?

Agreed.

strenEverything gets old. There have been extremely well calibrated monitors for professionals at this resolution for a while. So at most this one is slightly better. Hardly groundbreaking is it? Do you think graphics professionals will pay a ton of money for this right now or wait for the 4K equivalent?

Agreed, I have been using my Dell U3011 for almost 5 years now, this monitor however does nothing outstanding, if not marginal. my next upgrade would be something in the 4K arena. You are right this would be great 5 years ago.

You're all forgetting one thing: this is a 16:10 monitor while all 4ks are 16:9.
The ratio is important not only for professionals but to mainstream users like myself who want the extra vertical space.
Personally I would go x1600 (or x1200) any time until they make a 16:10 4k.

JossYou're all forgetting one thing: this is a 16:10 monitor while all 4ks are 16:9.
The ratio is important not only for professionals but to mainstream users like myself who want the extra vertical space.
Personally I would go x1600 (or x1200) any time until they make a 16:10 4k.

I'm not sure that makes any sense. You say you prefer more vertical space but 4K 3840x2160 still has more vertical space then both x1600 and x1200.

OctaveanI'm not sure that makes any sense. You say you prefer more vertical space but 4K 3840x2160 still has more vertical space then both x1600 and x1200.

At the expense of much smaller icons/fonts.
If you don't scale you'll have miniscule viewing matter and most of your screen unused.

JossAt the expense of much smaller icons/fonts.
If you don't scale you'll have miniscule viewing matter and most of your screen unused.

Look, with all due respect, if you don't want to upgrade to a 4K monitor or the like it doesn't likely make any difference to anyone other then you.

So if you want to stick with whatever you have,...good on you.

However,..

The actual size of the display plays a part with respect to whether or not scaling is needed with higher resolution monitors. I have a number of different displays two of which are 4K 3840x2160. I don't use scaling on one model and on the other I switch between scaling modes as well as turn off scaling depending on the task (its versatile that way).

Either way, you get much more screen real estate with a higher resolution monitor like 4K and I much prefer it to my 2560x1440 monitors (which are great in their own right). I don't have a specific reason to prefer 16:10 over 16:9 though.

OctaveanLook, with all due respect, if you don't want to upgrade to a 4K monitor or the like it doesn't likely make any difference to anyone other then you.

So if you want to stick with whatever you have,...good on you.

However,..

The actual size of the display plays a part with respect to whether or not scaling is needed with higher resolution monitors. I have a number of different displays two of which are 4K 3840x2160. I don't use scaling on one model and on the other I switch between scaling modes as well as turn off scaling depending on the task (its versatile that way).

Either way, you get much more screen real estate with a higher resolution monitor like 4K and I much prefer it to my 2560x1440 monitors (which are great in their own right). I don't have a specific reason to prefer 16:10 over 16:9 though.

This. I have 2560x1600 and I love the extra vertical pixels over 1440, but I'd jump to an equivalent 4K or 5K in a hearbeat.

OctaveanThe actual size of the display plays a part with respect to whether or not scaling is needed

Brilliant...

Can some manufacturer just make a monitor that is 3840x2400 (i.e. 4K and an 8:5 aspect ratio)?

I'm surprised no manufacturer has yet done this. The only one monitor I know of with this resolution is the old IBM T220/T221, which is long outdated.

The Von MatricesCan some manufacturer just make a monitor that is 3840x2400 (i.e. 4K and an 8:5 aspect ratio)?

I'm surprised no manufacturer has yet done this. The only one monitor I know of with this resolution is the old IBM T220/T221, which is long outdated.

There's a couple T221s for sale on HardForum right now. If they weren't $650+ I would be so tempted.

The Von MatricesCan some manufacturer just make a monitor that is 3840x2400 (i.e. 4K and an 8:5 aspect ratio)?.

Yeap... and IPS

The Von MatricesCan some manufacturer just make a monitor that is 3840x2400 (i.e. 4K and an 8:5 aspect ratio)?

I'm surprised no manufacturer has yet done this. The only one monitor I know of with this resolution is the old IBM T220/T221, which is long outdated.

I'm not, demand for old school ratios is super low, even lower than 16:10. I don't know, we'll have 5K here soon, and I'd choose the extra pixels over ratio again personally. Hopefully the imac pricing means Dell will drop their price on their 5k.

MabanThere's a couple T221s for sale on HardForum right now. If they weren't $650+ I would be so tempted.

I wouldn't buy one because of the potential software issues. They use three or four DVI links each with non-standard resolutions, which requires surround/eyefinity drivers supporting those resolutions and a mess of cables and adapters. Plus, at full resolution, you only get a 41Hz refresh rate.

strenI'm not, demand for old school ratios is super low, even lower than 16:10. I don't know, we'll have 5K here soon, and I'd choose the extra pixels over ratio again personally. Hopefully the imac pricing means Dell will drop their price on their 5k.

I'm not doubting that the demand is low, but it can't be lower than the market for these "professional" monitors. If manufacturers are going to continue to release monitors with 8:5 aspect ratios and brand them as "professional", there's no point in releasing them without an accompanying high resolution.

The Von MatricesI wouldn't buy one because of the potential software issues. They use three or four DVI links each with non-standard resolutions, which requires surround/eyefinity drivers supporting those resolutions and a mess of cables and adapters. Plus, at full resolution, you only get a 41Hz refresh rate.

More interested for nostalgia's sake. Would still be cool to have.

strenEverything gets old. There have been extremely well calibrated monitors for professionals at this resolution for a while. So at most this one is slightly better. Hardly groundbreaking is it? Do you think graphics professionals will pay a ton of money for this right now or wait for the 4K equivalent?

Guys you are right. The price of this thing is beyound ridiculousness.
Check how much is on Amazon.jp:
www.amazon.co.jp/gp/switch-language/product/B00MFCAAX8/ref=dp_change_lang?ie=UTF8&language=en_JP
1400 fracking $ !! :)