bit-tech.net

Dell announces UltraSharp Ultra HD monitor range

Dell announces UltraSharp Ultra HD monitor range

Dell's new UltraSharp Ultra HD family of monitors boast 3840x2160 native resolutions, with a budget model due to drop early next year.

Dell has formally announced a new range of Ultra High Definition (Ultra HD) monitors, after details regarding its impending launch leaked ahead of schedule last week.

Designed for professionals with deep pockets and extending the company's UltraSharp range, the company promises that the two initial models - the Dell UltraSharp 32 Ultra HD with its 31.5" diagonal and the more compact Dell UltraSharp 24 Ultra HD with a 23.8" diagonal - both boast accurate colour reproduction across 99 per cent of the AdobeRGB gamut. It's the resolution that will attract buyers, though, with both displays offering an impressive 3840x2160 native resolution - four times greater than a Full HD display.

As you might expect from monitors aimed at the professional market, Dell promises Delta-E<2 factory calibration, support for a 1.07 billion colour depth, a user-accessible hardware lookup table for fine-tuning, and support for the optional X-Rite i1Display Pro colorimeter. Both include HDMI, DisplayPort, Mini DisplayPort, four USB 3.0 ports and a six-in-one card reader as standard, along with a tilt, swivel and height adjustable stand.

Sadly, these features come at a price: the UltraSharp 32 Ultra HD, which features an in-plane switching (IPS) panel based on indium-gallium-zinc oxide (IGZO) materials, sits at an eye-raising $3,499.99 (around £2,136 excluding taxes) for its world-wide launch; the smaller UltraSharp 24 Ultra HD, with an as-yet unspecified panel type, is priced at $1,399.99 (around £855, excluding taxes) for its American-specific launch with world-wide availability planned for the 16th of December.

The company has also promised a third entry in the range, designed for those on tighter budgets. The UltraSharp 28 Ultra HD will feature the same 3840x2160 resolution as its pro-grade brethren but in a consumer-level 28" panel - bringing the price down to under $1,000 (around £610, excluding taxes.) No formal launch date has been provided, beyond a vague promise of early 2014.

'We are excited to announce Ultra High Definition monitors in sizes and price points that will be compelling to customers seeking higher resolution,' claimed Bert Park, vice president and general manager of Dell's displays and client peripherals division. 'Today’s announcement reinforces how Dell has led in product innovation by making the latest monitor technologies available to everyone, regardless of their usage or budget.'

At the time of writing, the UltraSharp 32 Ultra HD had not gone live on Dell's UK site but was expected to do so in the very near future.

34 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Horizon 3rd December 2013, 10:51 Quote
16:10, then we'll talk.
Maki role 3rd December 2013, 10:54 Quote
That "budget" one sounds like a great option. I've been meaning to grab a monitor upgrade for quite a while, this hits the spot nicely.
the_kille4 3rd December 2013, 12:33 Quote
There's a typo and misinformation in the article. First of all the size of the smallest screen is 23.8 inches. Also the 28 inch model is a P series so that is why it's alot cheaper than the smaller ultrasharp.
Gareth Halfacree 3rd December 2013, 13:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_kille4
There's a typo and misinformation in the article. First of all the size of the smallest screen is 23.8 inches..
If there's a typo, it's not on my part. I quote Dell's official press release as emailed, which you can verify against Business Wire's published copy:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dell
With the same remarkable, pin-point clarity, the Dell UltraSharp 24 Ultra HD Monitor, users can enjoy color consistency and precision from virtually any angle thanks to an ultra-wide viewing angle on a 28.3-inch screen.
However, I note that Dell has now corrected the release - so I'll go update the article. Thanks for the heads-up!
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_kille4
Also the 28 inch model is a P series so that is why it's alot cheaper than the smaller ultrasharp.
It's a P-series rather than UP-series, yes, but it's still an UltraSharp: its official name, as stated in the article and confirmed in the updated press release, is the UltraSharp 28 Ultra HD Monitor.
Guinevere 3rd December 2013, 14:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horizon
16:10, then we'll talk.

LOL. Still rocking it like it's 2006 I see.

I have a 16:10 screen that's about a 26" but it came with an additional 256px on the horizontal so I've not lost any working space just gained a bit left and right. It's 99% a work machine so lots of working space is great, but it also means it's stretched ratio fits media perfectly.

The other two screens in my three screen setup are unfortunately just 16:10 rather than being horizontally extended so they have a little less working space. Never mind, one of them is up on end anyway...

10:16 now that's a lovely aspect ratio!
Shirty 3rd December 2013, 14:15 Quote
1:1 is the new 16:10
GeorgeStorm 3rd December 2013, 14:57 Quote
Don't really see the attraction of these personally, but I haven't seen a 4k screen in real life so who knows maybe it will click.

Also 16:10 is a nicer looking ratio to me (regardless of how good or bad it is for work or whatever else). Had my U27 for a while now and I still think it looks a bit thin.
SchizoFrog 3rd December 2013, 16:03 Quote
Am I right in thinking that with a 4k resolution everything is much smaller and so you need to resize things to make them bigger and unless your software supports 4k would it not all look a lot more pixellated and blocky? Or does software such as MS Office scale up nicely?
CampGareth 3rd December 2013, 16:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
Am I right in thinking that with a 4k resolution everything is much smaller and so you need to resize things to make them bigger and unless your software supports 4k would it not all look a lot more pixellated and blocky? Or does software such as MS Office scale up nicely?

Roughly speaking yes, what you're describing is the effect of having a high DPI monitor. Most cinemas are showing films in 4K just fyi and text there is fine because the screen is so huge and thus the DPI value is low.

4K at 24" is a bit too small for me, the 28" model sounds ideal though as 32" is massively expensive and I don't want to go for anything smaller than my current 27", the dpi value would still be pretty high at about 160 (equivalent to 1080p on a 13.3" laptop).

As for scaling, that's a trickier thing, some programs when upscaled lose all sense of formatting, others are fine and text just looks smoother, if it's just enlarging then you won't notice a difference between your current monitor and this one (it's not 640x480 so pixellation might be more noticeable, but say 1920x1080 on this screen... will just make it look pretty much like a native 1080p screen)
Xir 3rd December 2013, 20:07 Quote
4K monitors were to be expected, as the 4K TV's are out and are this christmasses "great innovation" for TV's.

I understand 4K for a computer monitor, but not for a TV though...
For a TV, there's no content. Hell there's hardly any content for a 1080 TV, most TV-stations use 720.
Best chance is a BluRay, but hardly anyone uses it, and they're limited to 1080 as well.

Most Cinema's are showing 2K btw...at least in Germany.
mi1ez 3rd December 2013, 21:35 Quote
We're getting 21:9 monitors in the office. Now that's wide! It's like running dual monitor but without the centre bezels!
Nexxo 3rd December 2013, 22:48 Quote
Cool, we have to run GPUs in SLI again to use a monitor that is larger than 20". Just like the good ol' days of 2000. :p
CampGareth 3rd December 2013, 23:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xir


Most Cinema's are showing 2K btw...at least in Germany.

So that's 2048 wide or near enough... they really show 1920x1080 films? Wow, front row can't be pretty...
Anfield 3rd December 2013, 23:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Cool, we have to run GPUs in SLI again to use a monitor that is larger than 20". Just like the good ol' days of 2000. :p

Give amd and nvidia one year and we will be right back to one gpu is sufficient for one monitor.
Hopefully by then the monitors will have seen some pricedrops.
Anfield 3rd December 2013, 23:35 Quote
bleh double posted by accident.
Star*Dagger 4th December 2013, 01:21 Quote
Oh brother. Films on actual film do not have a resolution, only when it is digitized does the engineer make a decision what resolution to step it down to.

Digital films are usually filmed at an ultra ultra high resolution and then, again, converted down to Low-Res like HD standards.

In any case I am looking forward to screens of this resolution. Maybe some of the negative nancies will realize that 1920x1080 is a pathetic and low resolution.
4k can not come soon enough.

3 of this 32 inch monitors sounds like a winner, along with 3 of the hottest GPUs available at the time.

Your in Visual Acuity Plasma,
Star*Dagger
Star*Dagger 4th December 2013, 01:24 Quote
Quadrupling the resolution is a nice start, having 3 of these bad boys is where its at!

S*D
Gradius 4th December 2013, 02:18 Quote
16:10 will *NOT* happens on 4K.
erratum1 4th December 2013, 04:04 Quote
It's about time to be honest this could make 2560x1600 cheaper as it's not the top dog anymore.

Not sure I would want to rock a 4k screen the cost of always having to get the latest sli gpu's to play games which lets be honest sometimes they are really not that great.
Nexxo 4th December 2013, 08:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
In any case I am looking forward to screens of this resolution. Maybe some of the negative nancies will realize that 1920x1080 is a pathetic and low resolution.
4k can not come soon enough.

Maybe I'm an old fogey whose eyes are not that sharp anymore, but 1080p looks just fine on my 40" TV and 2560x1600 is perfectly fine on my 30" monitor. The problem with 4K monitors is:
- a higher price monitor
- demanding a more capable, expensive card,
- and demanding more data to fill that resolution,
- creating bigger game/image/video/web page files,
- requiring more storage, and
- requiring more and faster internet traffic,
- not to mention faster data handling inside the PC (hence faster CPUs, chipsets etc.).

So it's not just the monitor; it's all the other costly stuff that comes with it. We will not really start seeing the benefits of this until maybe five years from now, so I'm not in a hurry to go out and get one.
Bindibadgi 4th December 2013, 08:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Maybe I'm an old fogey whose eyes are not that sharp anymore, but 1080p looks just fine on my 40" TV and 2560x1600 is perfectly fine on my 30" monitor. The problem with 4K monitors is:
- a higher price monitor
- demanding a more capable, expensive card,
- and demanding more data to fill that resolution,
- creating bigger game/image/video/web page files,
- requiring more storage, and
- requiring more and faster internet traffic,
- not to mention faster data handling inside the PC (hence faster CPUs, chipsets etc.).

So it's not just the monitor; it's all the other costly stuff that comes with it. We will not really start seeing the benefits of this until maybe five years from now, so I'm not in a hurry to go out and get one.

Didn't they say the same thing about Full HD when we were rocking DVDs?

4K is great if your OS and apps scale correctly. Having used a 32" I'd LOVE one. love love love love love. Don't 'test' one unless you want to feel perpetual disappointment afterwards.
Corky42 4th December 2013, 08:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Maybe I'm an old fogey whose eyes are not that sharp anymore<snip>

You can join me in the queue for a new pair of 4k eyes if you like :D
desertstalker 4th December 2013, 09:59 Quote
[QUOTE=Bindibadgi]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo

4K is great if your OS and apps scale correctly. Having used a 32" I'd LOVE one. love love love love love. Don't 'test' one unless you want to feel perpetual disappointment afterwards.

Which they dont. i have a 11" tablet with a 1080p screen, half the apps (even some windows dialogues) do not scale well for DPI, they are either blurry or mis-formatted.

Methinks I will wait a few years, let the apps and GPUs catch up.
Xir 4th December 2013, 22:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CampGareth
So that's 2048 wide or near enough... they really show 1920x1080 films? Wow, front row can't be pretty...

No they show 2048 × 1080.

Actually, the problem with digital cinema projection isn't the resolution, but it's the idea that these projectors are virtually maintainance free.
Cinema's don't employ projectionists anymore. With film on most projectors focus needs to be pulled after the film started as every film is a bit different.
With digital, this shouldn't be necessary, which leads to cinemas not checking the focus at all over long periods of time.

I never had so many blurred films before digital projection. >:(

The again, I quit going into cinema's anyway as I've got near enough one at home.
Cinema is 2048 × 1080, mine is 1920 x 1080, big deal.

Whish I had an Imax near me though, that would be really interesting.
blackworx 4th December 2013, 22:55 Quote
It's not so bad for workstation monitors like this, where additional resolution for static displays is always welcome (up to a point, which we yet to reach, so no complaints about these monitors in that regard)... I just wish that instead of needlessly pumping up res for multimedia/gaming displays they would do something about the things that have a much greater effect on the quality of moving images. As far as games and movies goes, 4K is a total waste of time outside the cinema. Instead of using bandwidth more sensibly to feed fewer pixels more often (which gives a direct benefit to dynamic resolution) they're chewing through exponentially more bandwidth pumping more and more pixels with decreasing returns. It's like the almost totally meaningless megapixel race that happened with cameras is happening all over again with tellies. Pah. Rant over.
Anfield 5th December 2013, 23:49 Quote
Just in case someone thinks those new screens aren't wide enough...
Apparently there are also two new 21:9 screens on the way from dell.

Although the 34" might as well be renamed to deskinstafill.
Nexxo 6th December 2013, 11:38 Quote
34" wide screen monitor? NEED!
Xir 6th December 2013, 14:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackworx
It's like the almost totally meaningless megapixel race that happened with cameras is happening all over again with tellies. Pah.

Yes it is, worked well to sell new camera's, now it's used to sell more tellies.

For monitors it makes sense, but for tellies? Not without content. and no, upscaling isn't the solution.
Star*Dagger 6th December 2013, 23:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xir
Quote:
Originally Posted by CampGareth
So that's 2048 wide or near enough... they really show 1920x1080 films? Wow, front row can't be pretty...

No they show 2048 × 1080.

Actually, the problem with digital cinema projection isn't the resolution, but it's the idea that these projectors are virtually maintainance free.
Cinema's don't employ projectionists anymore. With film on most projectors focus needs to be pulled after the film started as every film is a bit different.
With digital, this shouldn't be necessary, which leads to cinemas not checking the focus at all over long periods of time.

I never had so many blurred films before digital projection. >:(

The again, I quit going into cinema's anyway as I've got near enough one at home.
Cinema is 2048 × 1080, mine is 1920 x 1080, big deal.

Whish I had an Imax near me though, that would be really interesting.

*Sigh*
Xir 7th December 2013, 18:52 Quote
*sigh*...you whish you lived near an Imax too? :D
forum_user 8th December 2013, 20:23 Quote
I want Dell to update their site with the 4K monitors and shopping cart icons!!

Went into Currys to buy a Hoover and microwave and NEARLY bought a new TV to replace my 6 year old Sony 40". I am astounded at the colour quality and sharpness of these new TVs ...

Then I stroked a 4K TV like a dirty pervert. The detail level is beautiful.
Bindibadgi 8th December 2013, 23:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user

Then I stroked a 4K TV like a dirty pervert. The detail level is beautiful.

I laughed more than I should have at this as I do it regularly when I visit our LCD dept. hahahaha
Star*Dagger 9th December 2013, 02:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xir
*sigh*...you whish you lived near an Imax too? :D

Just exasperation with so many false statements in one post, and not willing to further correct those it would be wasted on.

S*D

:(:(
forum_user 9th December 2013, 19:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
I laughed more than I should have at this as I do it regularly when I visit our LCD dept. hahahaha

These 'odd' behaviours are what separates us from the non-geeks.

Geek, and proud! And a tech pervert!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Maybe I'm an old fogey whose eyes are not that sharp anymore, but 1080p looks just fine on my 40" TV and 2560x1600 is perfectly fine on my 30" monitor. The problem with 4K monitors is:
- a higher price monitor
- demanding a more capable, expensive card,
- and demanding more data to fill that resolution,
- creating bigger game/image/video/web page files,
- requiring more storage, and
- requiring more and faster internet traffic,
- not to mention faster data handling inside the PC (hence faster CPUs, chipsets etc.).

So it's not just the monitor; it's all the other costly stuff that comes with it. We will not really start seeing the benefits of this until maybe five years from now, so I'm not in a hurry to go out and get one.

Welcome to the expensive world of future tech heaven!
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums