www.dpreview.com Open in urlscan Pro
18.66.97.119 Public Scan

Back to summary

Submitted URL:
https://link.dpreview.com/gp/r.html?C=1588L0DB0MT3I&K=SWI3UY251R6W&M=urn:rtn:msg:202301060054448f7904ef892942b69b74d37a403...
Effective URL:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/8484203516/dell-announces-6k-32-ultrasharp-monitor-ips-black-technology-wide-color-gamut-ma...
Submission: On April 15 via api (April 15th 2023, 2:50:27 am UTC) from BE — Scanned from DE

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

GET https://www.dpreview.com/search

<form method="get" action="https://www.dpreview.com/search">
  <input type="text" name="query" class="searchBox" placeholder="Search dpreview.com" autocomplete="off" spellcheck="true">
  <input type="submit" class="submitBtn" value="">
</form>

Text Content

Instagram TikTok YouTube Twitter Facebook Newsletter Submit a News Tip!
Reading mode: Light Dark
Login | Register
Begin typing to see search results.

NewsReviewsArticlesBuying GuidesSample
ImagesVideosCamerasLensesPhonesPrintersShowcaseForumsGalleriesChallenges
DPReview closure: an update
Now reading: Dell announces 6K 32" UltraSharp monitor with IPS Black technology,
wide color gamut & more 193 comments
193

DELL ANNOUNCES 6K 32" ULTRASHARP MONITOR WITH IPS BLACK TECHNOLOGY, WIDE COLOR
GAMUT & MORE

Published Jan 4, 2023 | Jeremy Gray
Share

Hot on the heels of Samsung's new 27" 5K ViewFinity S9 monitor, Dell is joining
the fray and coming after Apple's high-end Pro Display XDR display with its new
6K UltraSharp 32 monitor.

Whereas Samsung's 5K ViewFinity S9 targets the same audience as Apple's $1,599
Studio Display, Dell's new monitor borrows some inspiration from Apple's
higher-end, pro-oriented $5,000 Pro Display XDR. Like with Samsung yesterday,
Dell didn't announce pricing for its new display, but it's safe to assume it
won't be cheap, even if it severely undercuts the Pro Display XDR.

The Dell UltraSharp 32 is the first 6K monitor with an IPS Black display,
promising up to 41 percent deeper black levels and roughly 1.2 times better
color accuracy when compared to traditional IPS panels. Plus, the 32" (31.5", to
be exact) display delivers 150 percent more pixels than a 4K display. Concerning
color accuracy, Dell promises a wide color gamut with support for 99 percent of
the DCI-P3 and Display P3 color gamuts. The monitor supports 1.07 billion
colors.

The Dell UltraSharp 32 has the same size and resolution as Apple's
top-of-the-line Pro Display XDR and delivers the same color depth. However, when
it comes to peak brightness, the UltraSharp 32 is more in line with the smaller,
less expensive Studio Display, topping out at 600 nits brightness (VESA HDR600
support). The Pro Display XDR sustains 1000 nits but can peak at 1600 nits for
HDR content.

Dell UltraSharp 32

While we don't yet know the UltraSharp 32's price, it will include a stand in
the box, which is something Apple charges an extra $1,000 for on its Pro Display
XDR – a decision that has been widely derided. The stand offers height
adjustment and allows you to rotate the monitor to a vertical orientation. The
Studio Display does have a stand included, but if you want to adjust the height,
that requires a $400 upgrade.

Dell UltraSharp 32

The UltraSharp 32 includes some nice bells and whistles, including a built-in
dual-gain 4K HDR webcam with automatic framing and light adjustment features, an
echo-canceling mic and dual 14W speakers. The monitor includes
picture-by-picture and picture-in-picture modes and should have no problem
working with Linux, macOS and Windows computers.

As for ports, it includes DisplayPort 2.1 and Thunderbolt 4 connectivity.
Additional ports pop out of the front of the display, including a pair of USB-C
slots and a USB-A port. The back of the display includes more ports, including
an HDMI 2.1 port, another USB-C port, and four USB-A ports. You can charge a
laptop using a 140W Thunderbolt 4 port. Additional Thunderbolt 4 ports offer
enough power (15W) to power some accessories.

The Dell UltraSharp 32 should ship sometime from April to June.

Tags: 32, computer, dell, monitor, sharp, ultra

View Comments (193)

COMMENTS

All (193)
Most popular (12)
Editors' picks (0)
DPR staff (0)
Oldest first
Comments on this article may be moderated before they are made public. Please
keep your contributions constructive and civil.
Login with your DPReview account to post comments
LoginSign up
TheBestCameraIsTheOneYouActuallyShoot

Looks great.

Reply
Like
2 months agopermalink
Report

wcan

This video talks about IPS black performance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdJNvw-PGgw

Reply
Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

TheBestCameraIsTheOneYouActuallyShoot

I wish there was a way to get a summary. I got 10 seconds thru the 15 second ad
and realized I don't want to waste time lol.

Like
2 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
waloshin2015

Lets see probably $2500 USD always on sale for $1899...

Reply
Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

masterblaster99

IPS black is a moderate improvement over typical IPS panels, but still has the
worst aspect of those panels, which is terrible backlight uniformity and
lightbleed, seen any time black is displayed. Wait for Mini LED to get cheaper,
or OLED.

Reply
Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

toughluck

Mini LED for color critical work? It's cool for HDR video, but it's completely
inappropriate for photography.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

Mr Bolton

@toughluck, why is that? (Sincere question, I really don't know).

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

toughluck

Boundaries between neighboring LEDs are fluid, so the same backlight intensity
can be reached with, say, (1) LED X×Y at 100% and LED X+1×Y at 0% and by LED X×Y
at 0% and (2) LED X+1×Y at 100%, but also by (3) both LEDs at 50%. If the LEDs
have very consistent emissions spectrum, then all those combinations will yield
the same color. But if their emissions spectrum is different, then (1) will look
different than (2). If the emissions spectrum is inconsistent with regards to
light intensity (more or less of some wavelengths at lower light intensity than
100%), then (1), (2) and (3) will look different

Abrupt changes in brightness in the scene will look different depending on where
it's placed on the screen. If it's at the boundary between two LEDs, then one
side will look deep black and the other high white. But if they're backlit by
the same LED, black won't be as dark and/or white won't be as bright. A two-tone
image will go from black to very dark grey to off-white to pure white.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

masterblaster99

If you're going to tell me a Macbook Pro with Mini LED and P3 color is
"completely inappropriate" for photography I'm going to respectfully call
bullshite. I'll give you a pass if the work in question is truly "color
critical," as in high-end professional work where you are the final judge of
color, but for the other 99.9% of people for whom the nuance you describe is
entirely negligible...I think a great mini LED display will be more than fine.

Dell Ultrasharps are also not typically the go-to display for color critical
work anyway. I would typically think Eizo, or Dreamcolor with built-in hardware
calibration.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

toughluck

@masterblaster99: Maybe not *completely*, but that's exactly what I think.
MiniLED is unfortunately not very consistent and I noticed that arrays with high
LED counts are more likely to fail than edge backlight. Consistency is not a
problem if you don't use FALD, but then you have wasted money on a mini LED
monitor for nothing.

Dreamcolor? You mean as in *HP* Dreamcolor? That's virtually the same line as
Dell's PremierColor lineup (Dell doesn't use that name if the monitor doesn't
have AdobeRGB coverage, which includes this monitor). They definitely don't play
in the same league as Eizo or NEC, let alone professional grading monitors.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

TheBestCameraIsTheOneYouActuallyShoot

[please delete!]

Like
2 months ago*permalink
Report

Show more replies (1) Reply
drajit

I have a factory calibrated Asus proart, a Samsung bargain, plus a "sporting"
laptop from Lenovo. The Samsung differed very slightly from a well regarded
model and had its brightness turned up to 13 to hide it's poor colours. The
laptop had a TN display. Both were really helped by calibration.
The Pro Art OTOH I reverted to factory settings.

Reply
Like
3 months ago*permalink
Report

greeboduck

Hi all,
Anybody care to comment on the quality of these newer high res monitors compared
to Eizo ?

Reply
Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Keith Meinhold

These monitors outperform my eyes.

Reply
Like
5
3 months agopermalink
Report

theorist10

"Dell is joining the fray and coming after Apple's high-end Pro Display XDR
display with its new 6K UltraSharp 32 monitor."

I don't think so. As far as Retina-density monitors go, it's not a competitior
to the XDR, sharing only its size. It's best thought of, I believe, as instead
being in the ASD's class, but with a larger size:

It has the same peak brightness as the ASD (600 nits, as compared with the XDR's
1600), probably* the same panel bit width (8 bits + FRC, as compared with the 10
bits on the XDR), and 12 local dimming zones (much closer to the ASD's one
zone** than the XDR's 576).

Plus, like the ASD, and unlike the XDR, it has a camera and speakers.

The fact that it's not in the XDR's class at least bodes well for its pricing.

*I'm guessing that if the Dell had a true 10-bit panel like the XDR, Dell would
have trumpeted that in their press release.

**no local dimming = one zone.

Reply
Like
3 months ago*permalink
Report

photoaddict

You don't need local dimming with IPS black since the blacks are much better at
blocking the light.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
rockjano

LG has OLED technology... Isn't that better than any IPS Black or similar LED
story??? (that one is also crazy expensive)

Reply
Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Bumblebees

It depends.
Oled has is blacker/can be black. On the other hand OLED lacks brightness.
Moreover (which is easy to see in eg sportsbars) the blue color has shorter
lifetime than the others.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

rockjano

Thanks ... interesting. I just saw a video about some crezy expensive OLED LG
monitors. And yes the brightness was less... true...

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Bumblebees

And you dont see OLED as color critical monitors at colorists etc.

But undependet of any monitor tech, the absolut main thing -
If you are going to work with pictures or color grade movies - is that it must
be able to hardware calibrate the monitor.
Otherwise its like buying an violin without tuningpegs.

Second most important is the ability to be able to work with many profiles/save
own profiles, on the monitor.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

rockjano

Well sure but that also depends. I do graphic work and DTP on a nice older 32"
4K IPS BenQ monitor, and the reality is that I never hardver calibrated it. I
might should have... but never really needed it no customer wanted it, I use
Colour Sync profiles I know it is not 100% colour accurate but it is quite good
just OK like that. I did used calibrators before and it did not made a big
difference... I still might buy one later I just don't feel to want to spend on
it right now :-) (I rather spend it on gas and electricity bills :-(. )

Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

wcan

How much does the color change over time with LCDs (presumably LED backlit, not
fluorescent backlit)? I am guessing it was a lot worse in the CRT days?

Like
3 months ago*permalink
Report

rockjano

@wcan Good question i think it depends. I used many big CRT displays on it's
time and yes they changed a lot over some years. But LED can also change TN film
was surely worse I think IPS change less but they surely do. It is better to buy
a new monitor in every 4-5 years...

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

wcan

@rackjano: I was wondering about that relative to how often and important
calibration is? If you get a monitor that is factory calibrated, how much does
it really change over time with today's newer LCD technologies?

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

rockjano

@wcan Yeah good question I think it depends. Even if you do graphic work it
might not be that important... It think it is a bit overrated...

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

Bumblebees

A factory calibration is more of a qc check before the monitor leaves the plant.
And the quality of the qc is up to the manufacturers qc demands.
And every single panel has its own ”fingerprint” (uniformity), that needs to be
adjusted panel for panel, hence one of the big difference in the price of the
panels.

Moreover, its very important that the monitor is calibrated in the environment
were its used.

How often should you calibrate? Well, if you are within the pro environment I
would say every week. But some manufacturers recommend every 200 hours.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Bumblebees

The biggest issue within monitors among many of us is lack of knowledge.
Thats even the case within Dpreview.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Bumblebees

@rockjano

This sums it up pretty well:

https://www.lightillusion.com/why_calibrate.html

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

theorist10

The 31" 4k Sony BVM-HX310 Trimaster is an OLED monitor that offers both high
brightness (1000 nits) and high color accuracy. However, it's very expensive
($43,000 retail). There may be less expensive OLED monitors that offer this, but
I don't know how much less expensive they are.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

Mr Bolton

Wow. That makes an Eizo look cheap.. I wonder if they've had many takers?

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Bumblebees

@theorist the BVM X310 is not an OLED. It uses the same twin layer IPS panels
like the EIZO (and the old Flanders).

However, Sony did have an grade 1 OLED monitor, but they had to pull it back
since it wasent good enough. No OLEDS can reach the same level as the twin
layers (yet).

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Show more replies (9) Reply
Damir Knin

I am not sure, looks nice, but this is U-series monitor, not UP. No hardware
calibration?

Reply
Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Michiel953

Reply
Like
3 months ago*permalink
Report

JKP

I have a Dell Ultrasharp 32 4K monitor, but it has a weird problem - It crashes
my Dell XPS 13 laptop right after Windows bootup if they are connected during
bootup via HDMI cable. They do work fine if I connect the monitor after the
bootup has finished. Furthermore, both the computer and the monitor work just
fine if other computers or displays are used. Just this Dell-Dell combination
causes the crash.

I've been scratching my head for a long time with this issue but have not found
a solution. The issue has existed since the beginning. All drivers and all are
up to date. If anyone has any idea, please let me know. Thanks!

Reply
Like
1
3 months ago*permalink
Report

primeshooter

I do like the dell ultrasharp range and own a 2k variant now. But interestingly
so, I do not like 4K or 6K monitors to edit on because the 100 percent view does
not give a great zoom magnification without becoming 'pixelated'. E.g. if I
press 100% zoom in LR or PS on my 27 inch 2K monitor, I get a decent mag, if I
did this on a 32 inch 6K it would look very different. I guess everything is too
small...

Reply
Like
1
3 months ago*permalink
Report

user colin

"the 32" display delivers 150 percent more pixels than a 4K display". People
often find percentage statements confusing . The statement is technically
correct. A 4k display (3840 x 2160) has 8.3 MP and a 6k display (6144 x 3456)
has 21MP. And 8.3 + (1.5 x 8.3) is approx. 21MP. But some readers will interpret
this as just 1.5 x 8.3 (which is more pixels but not nearly as many more).

It might be simpler to just write that the 32" 6k display has 21 megapixels vs
the 8 megapixels of a 4k display, and let readers do whatever comparisons in
their heads.

Reply
Like
4
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

Or just say the 6K has 2½ times that of a 4K, which is probably the most
easily-grasped way of communicating the difference. I agree that percentage
increases of over 100 are liable to be confused for "percent *of*".

You don't tend to see monitor resolutions defined in terms of megapixels so that
would be unusual, although it does make a lot of sense for photographers to do
so!

Like
1
3 months ago*permalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
masterblaster99

Who approved a top bezel that’s larger than the bottom bezel? It’s total madness
and looks absurd.

Reply
Like
7
3 months agopermalink
Report

goodgeorge

I did. Sorry.

Like
6
3 months agopermalink
Report

The Point and Shoot Pro

They did it to house the great performing webcam. Apple put a garbage sensor in
theirs. Horses for courses.

Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

marks123

It would have been better to have a slim top bezel and mounted that camera on a
hinge that could swing up from the back.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Mnemon

Ye - or just sell the webcam as a seperate add on. Not least if it has a tripod
mount, too, so you can position it using a tabletop tripod.

I don't like that they have to be built into monitors now.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

masterblaster99

If the webcam necessitates a large top bezel, the next action taken by any
designer who isn't utterly insane is to make the bottom bezel equally large.
Balance.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

The Point and Shoot Pro

Tell that to apple and their imac. The imac has a chin that would make Jay Leno
jealous.

Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

Show more replies (1) Reply
John Koch

I use a (brand unmentioned) 32" 4k display whose default "recommended" settings
are 3840x2160 resolution and 150% scale. Not sure if I witness actual 4k. If I
set the scale to 100%, webpage text becomes too tiny to read comfortably. If I
toggle video playback settings, any differences between 1080p, 2k, 3840x2160 or
4k settings often have little or no impact on the perceived image quality. I
suspect that any significant distinctions would require display screens larger
than 40" and (more important) photos or video shot under conditions of optimum
lighting and focus, which seldom exist under conditions of low light or
hand-held situations.

That said, I'm sure the Dell product is very good. I'd merely prefer a >40"
version.

Reply
Like
3 months ago*permalink
Report

EclairzRed

Just do what I did and get a high end TV which can be calibrated, it's probably
both cheaper than a high end monitor and larger. But there are caveats, TVs are
designed to be viewed from 2m+ so making sure you get a TV that can be viewed
from extreme angles without the colour change means you'll either need to go for
an IPS TV (cheaper, worse HDR, no mini-LED tech for them, LED blooming can cause
the image to be displayed incorrectly in dark areas but most monitors suffer
from this including this DELL I reckon), or mini-LED TV (often uses VA panels
which are designed to be viewed from a distance so colour changes as you view
the monitor edges from an angle, worse black levels due to LEDs need to be lit
but not as bad as IPS), or OLED (the best but also the most expensive, but has
the issue of CRT and Plasma screens which mean the screen fades over time due to
its organic nature, this means you'll need to calibrate the screen more
regularly to adjust for the colour changes over time).

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

Mr Bolton

I tried the TV route. The picture was fantastic, I just couldn't get it to stop
being a smart TV, like every single time the computer woke from sleep, the
monitor wanted me to set up my Google password and my Samsung account and I had
to manually bypass all that and then manually switch HDMI input. Yes I read the
fargin' manual and no, there was no way around it. I returned it and spent more
money for a computer monitor that didn't have the smart TV CPU or speakers,
etc.. but at least when I turn the computer on it just works.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
sludge21017

Had to go elsewhere to see what the exact dimensions are for this 6k display.

Reply
Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

John Koch

Given a 32" diagonal measure and 16:9 aspect ratio, doesn't Pythagoras' theorem
entail dimensions approximate 28:16? Anyway, don't most people compare screen
sizes by the diagonal measure? Bezel size lends some uncertainty, of course.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

sludge21017

I meant I know 4k is 3840x2160 as that is burned in my head, but 6k has no
dimensions or concept to me yet. And I'm used to larger monitors having the
bottom chopped off, 3840x1600 for instance (my Dell u3415dw, and u3818dw).

From dell, 6k is (6144 X 3456)

Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

Sarge_

Thanks for sharing that information.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
NickyB66

As long as its under 500 bucks. But I guess it might be a tad' more.

Reply
Like
3
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

Ha, I wish, their 4K UltraSharp one is well over 1000!

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

waloshin2015

Very unlikely will be well over $1500.

Like
1
3 months ago*permalink
Report

Mr Bolton

I have a 2006 vintage Dell Ultrasharp 24" 2K display that still looks pretty
darn good. It's gotten warmer as time goes on, but it still works just fine and
is nice for watching movies.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
Bumblebees

My wish list for 2023 is that Dpreview hire pro’s for their monitor
testing/monitor competence. It needs to be much closer to the camera depts’
skills.

My suggestion is to start by learning from the german test site prad.de

https://www.prad.de/test-kaufberatung/testberichte/test-monitore/

Reply
Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

miric

Your example looks good but it gives up in details to rtings.com. Both are great
display test resources I suppose, so why DPReview should come to this boat?

Like
3
3 months agopermalink
Report

Bumblebees

Well, dive down on the tests of graphic monitors for a while.

https://www.prad.de/top10/top-10-bestenliste-27-zoll-grafik-monitore/

Rtings cant test graphical monitors properly..

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Bumblebees

I just read the Apple Studio Display review at Rtings.com
Its funny:) They write e.g.: Sadly, there's no local dimming feature to improve
this
The quote above is regarding black level. Its hilarius.
Local dimming is a big no,no when it comes to work with pictures/movies.
Blooming effect is one big disadvantage. And the black level has nothing to do
with local dimming. Black level comes from the initial quality of the panel (if
we talk about IPS, VA or TN panel)

Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

Mr Bolton

It sounds almost like you're finding fault with an Apple product.. :-D

Let me pop some corn, get a drink, and sit back n relax..

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
garyknrd

I know pro's want or need these I guess. But, I use a 27" 189 dollar 2K IPS and
I love the thing. I only use it for bird processing. Man am I behind times.

Reply
Like
3
3 months agopermalink
Report

Stu 5

A lot of pros need a Adobe RGB gamut rather than it being limited to DCI-P3,
sRGB and Display P3 colour gamuts only. Something that this screen fails to
deliver.

Like
3 months ago*permalink
Report

Vince P

@Stu 5 I was trying to confirm this but I couldn't find any details yet. Their
earlier Ultrasharp monitors supported 100% Adobe RGB as well as DCI-P3 and
Rec-709 etc. So I was expecting this one to not be a step back.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

The Point and Shoot Pro

I have 2 24" dell ultrasharps. Love them to death. Big enough for my needs. I
get tempted by a 32 every now and then but I love the functionality of the 2
monitors.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

Richmondthefish

" 27" 189 dollar 2K IPS and I love the thing"

I use a $900 2K IPS and I love the thing

Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
miric

That's it! They need a simplified version without video call features.

Reply
Like
3
3 months agopermalink
Report

rockjano

6K is absolutely not needed at 32". Even 4K is a bit too much for 32". I had to
scale it down a bit. 34-35" would be great for 4K. 6K is 55" territory but that
just does not makes sense...

Reply
Like
6
3 months agopermalink
Report

Sessility

Why not, that's 220 dpi - the Apple iMac 27" retina is the same dpi and that
seems a very useful resolution for anyone working with high res photos.
I for one am glad we're getting these kind of monitors because otherwise any
camera with over 16MP is pointless unless you print or need to crop heavily (get
a longer lens! ;-)

Like
17
3 months agopermalink
Report

rockjano

BUT you have to enlarge everything on the screen and you will use it on half
resolution or even less. Even a 32" monitor with 4K I HAVE to enlarge it
otherwise I cannot see the program palettes they would be soooo tiny.... It is
like having a 1000 horsepower car which is downscaled to 500 otherwise it would
be too dangerous... does not really makes sense...

Like
4
3 months agopermalink
Report

Franz Weber

Hi rockjano, the Apple 6K monitor is already around for three years and works
brilliantly on my desk. Even my Windows computers scale correctly when attached
to it. Which operating system are you using that causes troubles with it?

Like
2
3 months ago*permalink
Report

Puppy2007

4K is too low for 32" display, not enough pixel density.

Like
5
3 months agopermalink
Report

janbanan

Need and need. I have used the apple retina since they released that 2012 and I
have never looked back and when I do that everything seems pixelated.

Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

miric

@rockjano what are you talking about? I currently use Dell U3223QE with Mac mini
with the resolution "like 3008x1692", and it has 136 PPI now. I cannot say the
fonts look grainy and unpleasant, it's much better than 2560x1440 on Dell U2515H
which I had a time ago. But it's not Retina-like. 6K gives the opportunity to
scale that resolution multiple 2. It will reduce the load on the video system
and will give 220+ PPI what is Retina-like. So please don't say crazy things.

Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

lococola

> 6K is absolutely not needed at 32"

...for YOU. Opinions presented as facts trigger me. I wouldn't have anything
less than 4k on 32", and 6k is even better. So please don't pretend to speak for
everyone when you voice your opinion.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

It's a nice high-DPI resolution for the size. A 4K screen run at a simple 200%
scaling setting in the OS gives you an effective/useable/working resolution of
1920x1080, which is ridiculously coarse for a 32" monitor. The 2880x1620
effective resolution (at 2x pixel density) that a 6K 16:9 monitor gives you is
much more appropriate over 32" of screen real estate.

You can run a 4K monitor at 150% scaling for the same effect but then the
sharpness won't be quite as good as one running at 200%, and perhaps more
importantly, your computer may struggle with the calculation, as mine did, and
redraws became sluggish.

Also 6K gives you the chance to view 4K video at full resolution and still have
some screen real estate for other video editor application UI.

Like
1
3 months ago*permalink
Report

rockjano

@lococola

Sure I speak for everyone you can miss my statement, I don't care...

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

rockjano

@Puppy2007 for me it is OK...

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

rockjano

@miric

I use it the same way. For me this is "retina" enough :-)

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

UniqueNameIdentifier

@aramando

The 6K Dell is 6144 x 3456, so scaling would put it at 3072 x 1728.

@rockjano

I'm using the Dell UP3218K which gives me 279 PPI 7680 x 4320 resolution (or
perfect scaled 4K retina) on the same size panel (32"). If only they would come
out with an updated version.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

Puppy2007

@aramando I use 125% scaling on a 27" 4K monitor. I like screen estate,
especially for the stu**d 16:9 aspect ratio. I'd prefer 3:2 so the high DPI is
rather a workaround for the missing vertical space.

Like
1
3 months ago*permalink
Report

aramando

@UniqueNameIdentifier OK thanks, I lazily just scaled up a standard 4K
resolution by 1.5! But it seems it's a little more generous than that.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

@Puppy2007 See, I don't mind a 16:9 screen. It was more of an issue when you
only had 20-24" screens with just 1080 vertical pixels and 16:9 definitely meant
not enough vertical space, but with bigger screens now it's more that you
arguably get more width than you need, rather than not enough height. But
horizontal space is useful too, and 16:9 is a great fit for running Lightroom in
full screen mode with the redundant top panel hidden, assuming you're working
with mostly 3:2 images.

Personally 125% 4K on a 27" is way too small for me. I got on well with a 32" 4K
scaled to 150%, but my computer didn't like that, sadly (didn't cope well with
non-integer scaling factors).

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Vince P

Not needed, is relative, but having true 4K and having room for a 4K window and
other items on the screen is useful. The density is lower than many tablets or
laptops.

Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

BrianBrianBrian

6K is absolutely needed at 32” for anybody who reads a lot on the screen. Text
scaled to 200% using font scaling at 6K is much smoother and easier to read than
it would be on a screen with fewer larger pixels.

Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

Tim_995

@rockanjo
And by scaling it, you get MUCH sharper text. These high resolutions are NOT
about having more but tiny elements etc. but to have them the same size as on a
let's say Full-HD monitor but with much sharper text and elements. That's the
entire point of these high resolutions.
Just like from the iPhone 3GS to the 4 there wasn't 4 times more content but the
exact same content but much sharper.

Like
3
3 months agopermalink
Report

masterblaster99

The whole point of 5k and 6k is Mac OS is that the resolution is exactly twice
the target scaling resolution so that they scale cleanly. No one runs those
displays at native resolution.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

ecka84

"No one runs those displays at native resolution"
- Which makes them pointless.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

@ecka84 masterblaster99 doesn't mean that nobody runs them at native physical
resolution, they mean nobody runs them at native effective resolution, in other
words nobody runs them with display scaling set to 100%. Ideally you run them
with scaling set to 200%, so that the operating system draws an effective screen
space of a quarter of the true number of pixels over the full physical number of
pixels, with the result that text and graphical UI elements are the same size on
screen but have twice the pixel density in each direction, and therefore look
much smoother & sharper.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

lococola

@aramando what you just explained is how to effectively reduce the usable real
estate of your monitor by a factor of 4. Some would call that a waste. So saying
"nobody" uses native resolution is just plain wrong and I don't understand why
everybody always feels the need to make such sweeping statements. Take it from
me, plenty people running their 4k monitor at native resolution.

Like
2
3 months ago*permalink
Report

ecka84

"nobody runs them with display scaling set to 100%"
- It doesn't change anything. The pixels are being wasted either way .. when
your camera produces 24mp (6000x4000) images and your screen shows you only 6mp
(3000x2000) upscaled or because you just physically can't see 6K at such PPI
density. The goal is to view and see the whole picture. Not just pretend and
praise Apple.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

@lococola We weren't talking about 4K screens, we were talking about 5K and 6K
screens, which at their usual sizes of 27" and 32" respectively are very much
intended to be used at greater than 100% scaling, and I'm quite sure the vast
majority of users do so; running a 31.5" screen at this 6K resolution at 100%
scaling would be the equivalent of a 9.8" FHD screen, but the practical lower
limit of a comfortably usable FHD *laptop* (which tend to be used slightly
closer) is about 12 or 13" without tweaking the UI or font scaling. A 27" 5K
screen would be similar. So yes, I'm sure a minority of people do run them
without scaling up the UI and fonts, but they must have pretty exceptional
eyesight. As to whether it's a waste, no, doubling the pixel density so all UI
and text are ultra-smooth & sharp is well worth it, but your mileage may vary.

Like
3 months ago*permalink
Report

aramando

@ecka84 Not being able to see individual pixels is exactly the point. That's the
ideal for user interface graphics, especially text; you want the pixels small
enough that you can't make them out. Furthermore images look their best like
this. When you need to closely inspect them when editing you just zoom in
further than you normally would. For a 32" 16:9 computer monitor, 6K is actually
a pretty good sweet spot for achieving this without going excessively beyond
human visual acuity.

By the way I run Windows and Linux PCs, this has nothing to do with any one
manufacturer. But from what you say and the dig about blind Apple worship I can
tell you have no experience of high-DPI screens and just assume it's nothing
more than a marketing gimmick, but your assumptions are wrong.

Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

lococola

@aramando, ah yes,I did misunderstand. I have no experience with 6k or higher
resolution. But I see what you mean, 6k native at 27 inch is clearly too small.
Still, for 31 inch or above I reckon I would use it at native resolution.
Conversely I can also imagine that scaling down 6k or higher would still leave
you with useful desktop real estate.

Like
3 months ago*permalink
Report

aramando

@lococola I'd be very surprised if you would be entirely comfortable using a 32"
6K screen without upscaling the UI & text, but who am I to say you couldn't use
it like that? But buttons & text really would be tiny. For reference I have a
32" 4K screen and it is most comfortable for me at 150% scaling and still gives
a nice generous working area, but if I really want space to play with I can work
at 125%, at a push. But although my eyesight is pretty good I have noticed that
some people are comfortable reading smaller text than I am. Still, 6K at 100% in
the same screen size would be a *lot* smaller...!

Like
3 months ago*permalink
Report

ecka84

@aramando If you put a 3K image on a 6K monitor it doesn't become 6K ... You are
simply wasting 75% of your screen resolution, because 6K is 4 times more than
3K. Proper UHD panels do not require scaling at all. There are no text problems,
no real estate problems, no scaling problems and no "seeing the pixels"
problems.

"Not being able to see individual pixels is exactly the point"
- No, that's a "solution" looking for a problem. I've seen Apple Retinas.
Nothing spectacular there.

"you want the pixels small enough that you can't make them out"
- No, you don't need that for proper PPI UHD panels. You never see them if don't
look too close.

"images look their best like this"
- No, they don't. They look softer and you have to oversharpen them to look fine
on your Retina.

"when editing you just zoom in further than you normally would"
- And all you see this way is a made-up upscale representation of the real
thing, which you can't see natively on your overkill PPI screen.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

@ecka84 I don't know why you're talking about 3K images, most images
photographers will be working with today are at least 6K. I never said anything
to suggest high-DPI monitors can upscale images.

"Proper UHD panels do not require scaling at all" - I beg to differ. My 32" 4K
monitor requires scaling to 150% to be used comfortably (my eyesight isn't
perfect but it's pretty good). When performing tasks that benefit from more
space and don't involve too much reading I can get away with 125%, but never
100%. I would prefer a 6K monitor I could scale to 200%, since integer scaling
tends to work better.

"that's a "solution" looking for a problem" - Nobody said being able to see
minor pixelation is a problem, as such. But not being able to see it is
nevertheless an improvement. I enjoy it, I appreciate it, I find it improves the
readability of text when I'm doing a lot of that. So it's certainly not
pointless.

Like
2
3 months ago*permalink
Report

aramando

@ecka84 ...continued

"No, you don't need that for proper UHD panels. You never see them if don't look
too close." - The pixel size of a 32" 4K screen is such that many people will be
able to detect pixelation when viewed at 60cm or less. For 6K the visual acuity
distance reduces to about 45cm, which is just under typical viewing distance.
That's why 6K is the sweet spot for a 32" monitor for someone with approx 20/20
vision.

"all you see this way is a made-up upscale representation of the real thing" -
It makes no difference whether you view an image at 1:1 pixel scaling on one
monitor vs at 2:1 scaling on another monitor that has double the pixel density.
In other words whether each pixel in the image is represented by a single
physical pixel in the screen, or 4 physical pixels which together are the same
size. And at anything other than 100% zoom, the image won't map 1:1 and must be
scaled anyway, in which case it's better to have more smaller pixels.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

ecka84

@aramando Because you are using 200% scaling, to fit 3K resolution on your 6K
monitor. It doesn't matter what's the original image resolution, when you are
viewing it in 3K on a 6K panel. And you can't see the whole 24mp image on your
high PPI 6K monitor, because it is too small. You can only see the downscaled
version, either becasue you use scaling, or because the pixels are too small to
see it natively.

32" 4K is like the smallest 4K panel that makes any sense. So, yes, some people
might find 140PPI uncomfortable. But you don't need scaling for 40" 4K. Mine is
43" and zero scaling = zero problems. Scaling itself is a problem, when there's
not enough pixels to make scaling bearable.

You don't see any pixelation problems, unless you are looking for them
specifically. 90 and lower PPI screens have pixelation problems. Retinas have
overkill density problems. 120(ish)PPI - no problems at all.

If there's pixelation, there's definitely no need for scaling. You are making
stuff up. Bye.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

UniqueNameIdentifier

@ecka84

Applications (practically all photo editing software these days) map images to
1:1 of the resolution when running in scaled resolutions.

Adobe has been doing it since they updated their software for Apple computers
with retina displays.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

@ecka84 You say you've "seen Retina displays" but it's obvious you lack
experience of using high-DPI displays which is why you don't understand this
stuff works in practice.

A concrete example of this is that you believe scaling applies to media; scaling
is generally applied only to UI and text. Lightroom, for example, scales its UI,
but not the actual images; it makes use of all available display pixels, and the
zoom level setting is always with respect to the physical pixels of your monitor
regardless of the OS' scaling setting. A 6K image is NOT downscaled to 3K before
being upscaled back to 6K by a 200% OS scaling setting; that would be a terrible
waste of resolution, both of the image and the monitor.

Obviously you don't need to scale your 43" 4K screen; it's only 102PPI, no finer
than a 22" FHD screen from 2006, but we're talking about a 32" 6K monitor here
(220PPI).

Like
3
3 months ago*permalink
Report

Franz Weber

Aramando is 100% right!

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

@ecka84 As for whether you can see all the data when a 6K image is rendered in
full on a 6K screen 32" across, check out
https://stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-calculator and plug in 32", 6144W &
3456H. The visual acuity distance is the viewing distance above which individual
pixels become completely indistinguishable to someone with good vision; for a
220PPI screen it's at the closer end of typical monitor usage distance. In other
words this is about the lowest PPI where a typical person will never see
pixelation in the course of normal monitor usage, consciously or unconsciously.
For this reason 6K is about the ideal res of a 32" monitor, and 220PPI is about
the ideal pixel density for any monitor. Any more would be pointless, yes, but
any lower will result in less crisp UI/text & visibly lower resolution images
for some users with good vision. Remember you don't need to be *conscious* of
seeing pixels to be able to benefit from higher perceived image quality of
smaller ones.

Like
3 months ago*permalink
Report

ecka84

It doesn't matter if the scaling is ON or OFF on your overkill PPI displays. You
can't see your images in full glory, because the pixels are too small. You
physically can't see 6K on a small 6K panel. Otherwise you wouldn't use scaling.
Why is it so hard to understand .. You use scaling, because you can't see stuff.
You put a 24mp picture on your little 6K panel and you only see like a quarter
of its native resolution regardless if it's scaled or not. You need a bigger
screen to see the whole picture. Retinas are meant for you to buy fancy
resolution numbers, that you can't actually utilize.

220PPI is nonsense, because you use 200% scaling for it. So it's basically
110PPI and way smaller than 43".

Like
3 months ago*permalink
Report

aramando

@ecka84 So are you just going to ignore the fact I showed you that people can
discern individual pixels on monitors up to around 220 PPI? The pixels at this
size are NOT too small, they are just right for showing the most detail visible
on a screen of that size.

You're still failing to grasp that scaling is not applied to images; so while
the UI may be sized for 110 *dots* per inch (at 200% scaling), it and your
images still render at 220 *pixels* per inch, which means sharper/smoother UI &
text and finer detail in images.

You also don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what you
can physically distinguish and what is comfortable to use. Just because I need
to scale a display to around 100 DPI to comfortably use the UI doesn't mean my
eyes cannot see much higher resolution detail than that. It is physically
possible for me to use my 15.4" 4K laptop (293 PPI) at 100% scaling although it
is a strain, so I can certainly see the fine detail at 220 PPI.

Like
2
3 months ago*permalink
Report

ecka84

@aramando People lie.
"I can certainly see the fine detail at 220 PPI"
- No, you cannot. Try reading the smallest readable (100PPI) text on your 32" 6K
panel (4pt or something) and then we'll talk about pixels. You can't read it.
That's all. You see some pixel formations there, but they don't make sense to
you. Just like you can't see molecules or bacteria.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

@ecka84 So you're STILL ignoring the chart I showed you that puts the visual
acuity distance of a 220 PPI display at 44cm?

I don't have a 32" 6K (or any other 220 PPI) monitor, but I just did an
experiment on my 293 PPI laptop screen where I created a 4K all-white image and
made a few random pixels black, in small blocks from 1x1 pixel up to 5x5, then
set the image to display full screen, i.e. 1:1. I could see all the black
pixels, including the single ones, and could distinguish the difference between
blocks of different sizes, from a normal laptop viewing distance. So yes, it
should be possible to see individual pixels on a 220 PPI monitor at a normal
monitor viewing distance.

"You can't read it. That's all. You see some pixel formations there, but they
don't make sense to you."

This makes me think you still aren't getting the point I made in the final para
of my previous comment. Seeing detail and being able to glean enough information
to make sense of it are 2 different things.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

@ecka84 Speaking of lying, you must be lying if you're telling me you've tried a
high-DPI monitor of, say, 140 PPI or greater, that required scaling up the UI to
keep it comfortably readable, and that you didn't think it looked any better
than your ~100 PPI monitor. Lying to yourself as much as anything. Treat
yourself to a better monitor!

Like
3 months ago*permalink
Report

ecka84

"I created a 4K all-white image and made a few random pixels black"
- BS charts don't prove anything, just like this kind of experiments don't
either. I can see stars in the night sky. So what? I can't tell which ones are
non-binary systems. Seeing something, doesn't mean seeing everything. Why are
you even arguing, if barely seeing something is good enough for you? Don't you
realize how silly that sounds? Try comparing things side by side. There's no way
you can see all the same detail on both 43" and 27" or 32". Maybe 140(ish)PPI
43" 5K would be better than my 100(ish)PPI 43" 4K. But the 220PPI 32" 6K
definitely would not. It would need to be 50"-55" 6K (125-140PPI). And for that
size I think that I would rather prefer an ultrawide monitor. A 50" 5K2K 110PPI
would be nice. No need for 6K :). But an ultrawide 55" 6K2.5K 120PPI could work
for me, I guess. Too bad they don't exist yet.

"Treat yourself to a better monitor!" - I will. Thanks.

Size matters. Wishful thinking doesn't ..

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

@ecka84 Eh? You don't need to be able to see discernable detail in stars for
them to form part of the image you see of the night sky. It doesn't matter to
your image of a scene if something in it is too small to see what it is, if you
can see it at all then you can see it, and that's that.

I don't know what else to tell you at this point except that images look
significantly, noticeably more detailed on my 4K laptop screen (293 PPI) than
they do on an identically-sized FHD screen (147 PPI), or on the same 4K screen
running at half-res so it's just quadrupling each pixel of the 2K image, or on
the same 4K screen but with the image downscaled by half and zoomed in to 200%,
or downscaled and upscaled back again. If what you were saying was true then the
extra detail my 293 PPI screen is showing would be completely invisible and
totally redundant, yet it's perfectly clear to see the improvement it makes -
and it looks gorgeous. And that's not to mention the extra crispness of text and
UI.

Like
3 months ago*permalink
Report

ecka84

Well, 220PPI is worse, exactly because I can see more detail on larger
100/110/120 PPI panels than on a 32" 6K. And 293PPI laptop is even worse than
that. What's your excuse? You don't want to see more detail? What's the point
then? Just keep your laptop then. Or "upgrade" to 4K phone.

"images look significantly, noticeably more detailed on my 4K laptop screen (293
PPI) than they do on an identically-sized FHD screen (147 PPI)"
- OMG! How did you survive with this terribly "pixelated" 147PPI FHD laptop?!
:)) That must have been an extremely uncomfortable experience. Oh, wait, did you
use scaling on that "pixelated" FHD laptop? What for? :))

"then the extra detail my 293 PPI screen is showing would be completely
invisible"
- And how do you measure how much PPI your eyes are actually seeing there? Are
you sure you see all 293PPI? Not just a bit more than 147PPI?

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

@ecka84 What's my excuse? It's a laptop you idiot, it can hardly have a 32+"
screen, can it? As for why I chose the 293 PPI screen, that's because those were
the options available: a 147 PPI FHD screen or a 293 PPI 4K screen, and as I've
already explained to you, the 4K one looks much nicer. Images look nicer on it.
Desktop backgrounds look nicer, my photos look better when I'm editing them, my
code is easier to read when I'm writing it. Are these not good enough reasons
for you? Here's another: when you have more & smaller pixels to play with the
OS' scaling feature works better to let you tweak the balance between working
space and visibility according to the task; you can't scale below 100%.

There's no call for your sarcasm, I never said a 147 PPI screen looks bad, just
that my 293 PPI one looks better. My 32" 4K screen is 142 PPI, its fine. But
that's also why I know the 6K one, at 220 PPI, would look better, especially as
it'd be best set up with a nice round 2.0x scaling.

Like
3 months ago*permalink
Report

aramando

@ecka84 Sure, I'm lying. So are all the people here either saying the same thing
as me, or agreeing with me. And the well-established, widely agreed upon rule of
thumb for visual acuity is wrong. But you're right! Despite not even owning a
high-DPI display. Do you know what hubris means?

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Show more replies (40) Reply
Sordes Pilosus

I hope it will be glossy

Reply
Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

miric

Do you know any glossy display by Dell?

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

Stu 5

If it was glossy it would kill sales to photographers. The last thing you want
is a glossy screen when working with photos with a lot of black in them. It asks
like a mirror.

Like
4
3 months agopermalink
Report

Sordes Pilosus

Stu 5 I don't care about those photographers. If you need black the screen must
be glossy. I am CG-artist and I do understand why matte always worse, but you
may just
on Youtube search for:
how has nobody made this before dave2d
- there is perfect comparison of same screen being matte and glossy.

Like
3 months ago*permalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
Loreno Heer

That awful bar and webcam on top hopefully is removable.

Reply
Like
4
3 months agopermalink
Report

miric

It isn't. Please find a rear photo of it. But I really hope they will do the
reverse step they did before U3223QE > U3223QZ and will announce this model
without that videoconferencing stuff.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
ecka84

It should have been 50" 6K or 55".

Reply
Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

Sordes Pilosus

or at least 43

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

miric

No, it shouldn't. The reason is the Apple XDR Display isn't.

Like
3
3 months agopermalink
Report

ecka84

Don't tell me that you don't use scaling on your Apple XDR Display ))

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

Franz Weber

It should have four wheels and a trunk.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
Dan_168

Perfect timing, I am seriously considering the Apple 32" Pro Display XDR, this
is would be a great alternative if the price is competitive. I have a few Dell
high end IPS panel at home and office and I like them so I will definitely give
this a close look before I purchase another high end monitor.

Reply
Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

dash2k8

600 nits is plenty for most pros because we're mostly working in not-so-bright
rooms.

Reply
Like
5
3 months agopermalink
Report

Vince P

I agree except 1000 is a standard for some HDR work.

Like
3
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
PremiumBitter

I love seeing more competition in monitors in the resolution and color
directions! Apple really needs competition in 5k and 6k. It seems like almost
all the monitor action has been in the refresh rate wars up until now. Which, as
a photographer and sometimes videographer...I don't really have much use for.

Now let's see 8k at 40 inches :)

Reply
Like
5
3 months agopermalink
Report

Bumblebees

Well, Apple has never been in the ”color directions”.

A monitor that cant be hardware calibrated and not beeing able to save own
profiles, is actually infact more or less useless if the material should be used
outside your own monitor.

It might be good at the time of purchase, but monitors detoriates over time.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

PremiumBitter

Different strokes I guess. I've always been satisfied with how my colors look in
print mags and publications, and I use mostly uncalibrated Apple screens. They
are good enough for my use, I guess you have higher standards and/or better eyes
than I do! I guess one person's "useless" is another man's "looks good to me and
my photo editor"!

Like
4
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
starbase218

"The monitor includes picture-by-picture and picture-in-picture modes and should
have no problem working with Linux, macOS and Windows computers."

Let's hope so; Dell doesn't have the best track record regarding Mac support.

Reply
Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

miric

Everything is fine with Mac support now. They even have a macOS version of their
DDPM tool for displays.

Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

starbase218

@miric Ok, that’s good to know. I used to steer clear of Dells. But if they have
stepped up their game regarding Mac support, I might reconsider.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
AshMills

Pretty sure my eyesight isn't good enough to warrant 6K at 32" across.

Reply
Like
2
3 months ago*permalink
Report

Franz Weber

That’s sad 😞. I wish you all the best and a quick recovery.

The 6K monitor from Apple is wonderful though

Like
4
3 months ago*permalink
Report

Peter Herth

You should try it out. My experience is that HiDPI screens shine especially, if
you are struggling with reading on the screen, as they provide much more
contrasty structures and way better font rendering.

Like
5
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

Just in case you aren't aware, you're intended to run them at 2x scaling in the
OS so you get an effective working resolution of half (in each axis) of the
actual physical resolution, but rendered at double pixel density. This means
that on-screen UI and, most importantly, text is super-sharp. So rather than
think of it as a 6144×3456 monitor, think of it as a 3022x1728 monitor that will
have a nice crisp look that also makes text easier to read. If you've ever
appreciated an Apple "Retina" display on any of their laptops or iOS devices
then you would benefit from this monitor - assuming you would use the screen
real estate that a 32" screen offers.

Like
4
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
pollup

Something looks off with that bezel on top and that huge camera...

Reply
Like
7
3 months agopermalink
Report

HibikiTaisuna

Of what use is the 99% DCI–P3 coverage outside of video work? For photography
and printing I want 100% AdobeRGB, which goes much further into the green
spectrum compared to DCI–P3. I would prefer even more coverage of Rec.2020.

Reply
Like
11
3 months ago*permalink
Report

bobby350z

And am I correct that brightness doesn't matter for photographers? I am always
running mine at lower settings.

Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

starbase218

Why is a colourspace that goes further into the greens be better for photography
than one that goes further into the reds? (honest question)

Like
3
3 months ago*permalink
Report

Txoni

@starbase218, I suspect that he refers to the fact that the eyesight covers a
much larger greens area which is not covered by these standards, while a much
smaller red area is added by P3 instead.

If that's better for color reproduction, I guess that depends on purpose and
user taste.

Like
1
3 months ago*permalink
Report

HibikiTaisuna

The issue is, that printing services are using the AdobeRGB space instead of P3
and so do many printers for home use. So all of those additional reds of P3 are
lost and the greens might be coming out flat or banded and other colours too
punchy.. At least I had that issue when printing with P3 mastered files unless I
match the printer to it. With a well calibrated screen on an AdobeRGB profile
you get much closer to the printer results.

@bobby350z exactly, at least as long as you want to print. If you want to create
VESA HDR images for digital playback it’s a different story though. But I
usually have my Eizo running at about 30% of its maximum brightness, and it’s
certainly not the brightest display out there to begin with. It’s all about
keeping the backlighting to a minimum for a good colour reproduction of a
non–backlit print.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

Vince P

But the previous Ultrasharp monitors have all had 100% Adobe RGB as well as high
DCI-P3. Is there anything to indicate this is any different?

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

starbase218

@HibikiTaisuna What about if you tag the image with the correct colourspace, and
embed the profile as well, inside the image? If I'm not mistaken LR does this
out of the box, as do many other DAM tools.

Also, actually looking at the colourspaces, P3 has more greens than sRGB as
well. P3 goes further, but both have more than sRGB.

Or are you saying that those printing services might not be able to print in P3?

Like
3 months ago*permalink
Report

HibikiTaisuna

@Vince P it’s just that the article and marketing material only talks about
covering 99% of DCI–P3. No mention of the AdobeRGB values.

@starbase218 at least the ones I used so far didn’t properly use embedded P3
profiles and I always had the most accurate results when mastering with AdobeRGB
throughout the chain.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Show more replies (2) Reply
Leonp

I swtched from being a pro to an after-pro photographer and from a 1500$,
1200x1920 Eizo to a Samsung monitor that would be really bad in color but does
have 4K pixels, does measure 32 inch and does have an adjustable stand that does
rotate to vertical as well and I don't regret it. And guess what: it was way
over a grand cheaper, and I hardly see the difference with the Eizo which is
still on my desk.

Reply
Like
2
3 months ago*permalink
Report

abruzzopat

Hi Leonp. What monitor do you like? I'm a photographer who prints, and often the
accuracy of the monitor is secondary to consistency and resolution.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Leonp

It's a s80a. It's probably not very consistent in a professional way. I
understand you can't get that for 350 euto's. I just enjoy looking at my
pictures and the fuji test image looks great on it. Of course I don't yet know
if it will keep looking good for the well over 20 thousand hours my Eizo did.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
BackToNature1

If one actually had a decent paying photography business, these types of
Displays would literally, pay for themselves.

Reply
Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

PicPocket

Or that money can pay for something else, unless they have an infinitely paying
job. A paying job doesn't mean throwing money at everything. Every decent
business looks for value proposition

Having said that, these may be worth the cost, so I am not contradicting you.
Just questioning any generalized interpretation of what you said

Like
3
3 months ago*permalink
Report

lightandaprayer

Every bit of hardware a pro photographer buys does indeed pay for itself and
more, assuming the photographer is actually making money and the hardware is
contributing to his/her bottom line. All gear must pencil-out. . .

In the U.S. there is the benefit of being able to write-off most
business-related expenses. . . As a freelance/contract photographer I accounted
for everything related to my business including deducting the spare bedroom that
was my home office for over 30 years (and where I am typing this post).

I opted to use an experienced business tax preparer to keep myself out of
trouble with the IRS. Early on I decided that I would rather earn the money to
pay an expert instead of doing something that I don't enjoy vs. something I
really enjoy doing. (I'm also a much better photographer than I am at math. LOL)

It turned out well for me. I was never audited during a period when home-based
businesses were scrutinized by the IRS. And I have a comfortable retirement too.

Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
M Lammerse

Looks a wonderful screen on paper, what is the refresh rate?

Reply
Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

miric

Are you a gamer? If not, 60Hz is still enough today for work.

Like
2
3 months ago*permalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
irax73

It's good to see products filling the gap with advanced products not costing
$6000.

Reply
Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Station Grey

How do you know what it costs?

Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

dash2k8

We can already assume it will cost less than the Apple, therefore it won't be
$6k.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
Puppy2007

The contrast improvement is very subtle. I am still waiting for OLED or similar
technology desktop monitor.

Reply
Like
3
3 months agopermalink
Report

HibikiTaisuna

ASUS is offering a ProArt display with OLED.

Like
3
3 months agopermalink
Report

Puppy2007

Yep, but the price is out of reality and not available in my country (.cz). I
meant something like this, which isn't available either:
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Philips-Momentum-8000-27E1N8900-Professional-external-monitor-introduced-with-a-27-inch-and-4K-OLED-panel.616422.0.html

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

Vince P

The proart is almost certainly cheaper than this will be but it is only 4K.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
Vladyslav Kosulin

I used dual Eizo CG setup for many years if not decades, and only this year
completely switched to a relatively cheap dual 4K 31", it still works with my
calibrator, and I could buy a couple of premium lenses with that cash I saved.
Of course, I am not doing a color critical work like food ads, etc.

Reply
Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

Ciriaco Garcia

Yet another 16:9 impaired display for 16:9 DVD movies...

Reply
Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hawkypuck

Ikr lol

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

panther fan

There is a trick. You can set the resolution to 5530x3456 and enjoy your 16:10
display ;)

Like
4
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

There's nothing inherently better about the squarer shape of 16:10. 16:9 is
actually a better fit for showing a 3:2 photo in between the sidebars of
software like Lightroom. The tyranny of 16:9 was annoying when monitors were
typically 20-24" across and you were limited to 1080 vertical pixels, but here
you've got 1620 effective at 2:1 pixel density, so instead of it feeling limited
in height it feels generous in width.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

Correction: I made an assumption about the resolution; it's actually 1728
effective vertical pixels, so even less reason to bemoan the vertical
resolution.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
Vladyslav Kosulin

At some point manufacturers will start charging for the "upgrade" to turn their
device on.

Reply
Like
3
3 months ago*permalink
Report

Hawkypuck

Ikr

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
MarBa

Why to include camera? it's a waste .. I would think that people at the point
either have a good camera or don't need it .. I don't want to link purchase of
monitor to purchase of a camera .. Also .. would be great to get a 21:9 version!

Reply
Like
7
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hawkypuck

Yeah i know, at least a 4k capable camera...

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

lococola

Indeed. In fact a built-in webcam is a deal-breaker for me.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Vignes

it'll widen the customer base. at least they can package this for the corporate
contracts if this doesn’t sell well for those target customers.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

@Vignes But it will put off people who don't want or need an integrated webcam,
because it looks ugly as hell.

I know for other models they offer 2 versions, with and without, so hopefully
that will eventually be the case for this screen too (although this screen is
out of my price range anyway!)

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

jaberg

I prefer a no hassle, no clutter “built-in” camera for 90%+ of my web camera use
— the every day. I’ll connect a better camera for video confererences if I’m
presenting to an audience or for an appearance on a video podcast or similar.
(Hypothetical, as so far I’ve only been invited to participate in audio programs
— I connect a dedicated microphone rather than use the every day, built-in mic.
for these.)

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
DotCom Editor

Well, a thousand nits (cd/m^2) or even 600 is swell. But, for photography, the
question is how well and accurately does it perform at 120 or less. And it's
luminance, not brightness that we're talking about.

Reply
Like
21
3 months agopermalink
Report

Fungshui

Do you shoot at sRGB 8-bit of the last century?
The world has moved to DCI-P3 or AdobeRGB with HDR while you have slept for 2
decades.

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

DotCom Editor

@Fungshui I shoot in RAW (which, by definition has no color space) and process
in ProPhoto RGB. I profile my monitor weekly and make my own profiles, using the
X-Rite i1Pro Publish spectrophotometer. And I print to a 44-inch Canon printer.
Setting monitor luminance to 120 nits (120 cd/m^2) is a good starting point to
match monitor and print. It's results that matter and nothing else. Does that
meet with your approval?

Like
19
3 months ago*permalink
Report

du four

A very reasonable, well expressed response to an overly aggressive comment by
Fungshui. Thank you.

Like
13
3 months agopermalink
Report

Fungshui

@DotCom
Why show me a picture? Just write about it. Or why do you take video? A black
and white is the world ever needs!

Why should artistic expression be limited by you rudimentary printer? 😏

Like
2 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
richard cohen

I'm no expert, but I have been very happy with my many high end isp monitors
from Dell over the years..including my current 30 inch.

Reply
Like
4
3 months agopermalink
Report

M Lammerse

I've used Dell in the past as well as LG, Eizo and now BenQ. BenQ is really a
good option if you do not want to pay the top but still gives you a screen with
very good colour accuracy and screen uniformity

Like
5
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
Station Grey

It may not be the biggest priority, but did they actually try to make it as ugly
as possible?

Reply
Like
28
3 months ago*permalink
Report

miemo

Yes, it’s one of the brand core values for Dell.

Like
29
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hawkypuck

Lol

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

@miemo Seems harsh, I really like the look of my XPS laptop and many of their
displays, relatively sleek and stylish industrial design without trying to be
too flash, kind of a Goldilocks level of smartness & style. But these
webcam-integrated displays are fugly.

Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
panther fan

That resolution is great for Macs, which work best with integer scaling factors,
unlike windows, where it doesn't really matter.

Basically, 2560x1440 at 27 inch, extended to 31.5 inch and then multiplied by 2.

The big question is, if dell has access to this panel, do others as well? Will
we get monitors with proper mini LED and HDR specs with this panel for both Mac
and Windows? Because the dell won't be cheap, but for a not-cheap LCD people
want good HDR

Reply
Like
1
3 months ago*permalink
Report

CTMRIGuy

Compare the brightness in SDR/HDR to the Pro Display XDR - this Dell is probably
not the monitor to get if you want "good HDR". If HDR is not a big
consideration, though, there is value to be had here.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

panther fan

That's what i said

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

CTMRIGuy

Apologies if I misunderstood your post.

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

Fungshui

@panther fan
Sure. HiDPR is a messy in Windows. Who cares?

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

panther fan

@Fungshui

It's not

Like
1
3 months agopermalink
Report

aramando

Windows also works best with integer scaling settings, although my laptop seems
to cope with 225% without obvious performance issues. But then some software
*still* isn't fully high-DPI compatible (including Lightroom! Shame on you,
Adobe) so in fact Windows works best at 100% scaling and nothing more!

I make this one 2880x1620 effective at 200% scaling, over 32", which does indeed
sound perfect. Shame it's out of my price range...

Like
3 months agopermalink
Report

CTMRIGuy

Agreed. It is extremely frustrating how unpredictable high DPI is in Windows
after so many years.

Like
2
3 months agopermalink
Report

Show more replies (2) Reply

www.dpreview.com Open in urlscan Pro 18.66.97.119 Public Scan

Form analysis 1 forms found in the DOM

GET https://www.dpreview.com/search

Text Content

www.dpreview.com Open in urlscan Pro
18.66.97.119 Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM