Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Sharp Announces 'Industry's Thinnest' 32-Inch 4K Monitor

By - Source: Dealerscope | B 21 comments

IGZO professional display series claimed to be "industry's thinnest" 4K monitors larger than 30 inches.


Sharp has announced two new 4K resolution monitors, entitled the IGZO professional display series, during CES 2013.

The Japanese electronics firm stressed that its new ultra HD monitors are the "industry's thinnest" 4K monitors larger than 30 inches. At their thickest points, Sharp said its new monitors are less than 1.5 inches thick. They both boast a resolution of 3840x2160 pixels.

Sharp's IGZO professional display series utilizes the company's IGZO screen tech, which delivers sharper and brighter displays that consumes less power. The forthcoming monitors combine the IGZO technology "with a brilliant white, edge lit LED backlight system"; it allows them to be crisp and bright, so says Sharp.

"As we introduce Sharp's proprietary IGZO technology into the first series of professional display products, we continue to drive innovation with game-changing functionality," said Sharp Imaging and Information Company of America President Doug Albregts. "We are not only excited about the initial application of this new technology, but foresee broad usage throughout complementary industries where high definition viewing is demanded."

While the IGZO professional display series feature 32-inch displays, only one sports 10-point multi-touch technology. The non-touch version is due for a Februray launch, with the touchscreen model to become available "shortly thereafter". Sharp didn't reveal any details pertaining to the monitors' price.

Stay tuned for our eyes-on report.

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Discuss
Display all 21 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 12 Hide
    rantoc , January 10, 2013 7:17 AM
    mrmezGood that its progressing, but I'm not impressed.Apple's 13" Retina display is 2560x1600. Scale that up to 26" and you get 5120x3200.THAT would be impressive.


    You mean LG's displays that Apple use in the product...
  • 11 Hide
    dozerman , January 10, 2013 12:50 AM
    mman74A 24" 4K monitor is a bit pointless. A 32" 4K monitor would be just great! Now we only need 2 things;1. Prices to come down2. Graphics cards to push these pixels in games ! Wow!

    I don't think it would be pointless at all. The difference in PPI would still be discernable. I, personally, would want an eyefinity group od these. :) 
Other Comments
  • 3 Hide
    edogawa , January 9, 2013 11:54 PM
    Finally, this is a good start! Make 24 and 27 inch versions now.
  • 9 Hide
    mman74 , January 10, 2013 12:05 AM
    A 24" 4K monitor is a bit pointless. A 32" 4K monitor would be just great! Now we only need 2 things;
    1. Prices to come down
    2. Graphics cards to push these pixels in games :D ! Wow!
  • 0 Hide
    merikafyeah , January 10, 2013 12:34 AM
    Edge-lit LED = no deep blacks.
  • 11 Hide
    dozerman , January 10, 2013 12:50 AM
    mman74A 24" 4K monitor is a bit pointless. A 32" 4K monitor would be just great! Now we only need 2 things;1. Prices to come down2. Graphics cards to push these pixels in games ! Wow!

    I don't think it would be pointless at all. The difference in PPI would still be discernable. I, personally, would want an eyefinity group od these. :) 
  • 3 Hide
    A Bad Day , January 10, 2013 12:51 AM
    merikafyeahEdge-lit LED = no deep blacks.


    That could be a slight issue if the lighting in the room is too strong.

    Will the monitor come in matte or glossy? I prefer matte because glossy and strong sunlight through large windows never mix.
  • 5 Hide
    CaedenV , January 10, 2013 2:16 AM
    This! This is exactly what I have been waiting for! A screen in the 30-35" range with 4K to use as my computer monitor.

    All I want now is for it to come down to the ~$800 level and be capable of 60fps. Hopefully by that time there will be an 'affordable' GPU that can push it as well!
  • -3 Hide
    magicandy , January 10, 2013 2:41 AM
    That guy's hair is fuckin RED.
  • -7 Hide
    schnitter , January 10, 2013 2:50 AM
    I understand 4k on 45+ inch TV's but why bother with 30? The PPI is going to be way overkill at that point even if you sit as close as you are to your cell phone. No use for 4K on 32" TV. Not so sharp now eh?
  • 3 Hide
    kyuuketsuki , January 10, 2013 5:26 AM
    schnitterI understand 4k on 45+ inch TV's but why bother with 30? The PPI is going to be way overkill at that point even if you sit as close as you are to your cell phone. No use for 4K on 32" TV. Not so sharp now eh?

    Monitors, not TVs. You're going to be sitting much closer. And correct me if I'm wrong, but that resolution on a 32" monitor is around 78 PPI? Hardly overkill. Still way under the 300+ PPI of smartphones nowadays.
  • 8 Hide
    grokem , January 10, 2013 5:26 AM
    I guess this is why we're stuck with $130 HD 1080p monitors, no one has a clue. To those wondering why you would every want such a "crazy" resolution on only a 32" monitor I'm saddened. This is less than 140ppi which is way less than almost any phone you've ever seen. The original iPhone was 160ppi. The original iPad was 130ppi. My 10 year old CRT monitor is 150ppi. Most HD monitors are 76-90ppi. I'm with mman74 and want a 27" version. That would at least be 160ppi.
  • 1 Hide
    kyuuketsuki , January 10, 2013 5:29 AM
    KyuuketsukiAnd correct me if I'm wrong, but that resolution on a 32" monitor is around 78 PPI? Hardly overkill.
    Sorry, I looked at my figures wrong. I think it's actually around 140-150 PPI. Still, less than half of current smartphones. Of course, monitors don't need as high a PPI as a smartphone since it'll usually be farther away, but going from well under 100 PPI to ~150 PPI is not overkill. The only issue is getting the prices to reasonable and having GPUs that can push all those pixels.
  • -2 Hide
    mrmez , January 10, 2013 5:42 AM
    Good that its progressing, but I'm not impressed.

    Apple's 13" Retina display is 2560x1600. Scale that up to 26" and you get 5120x3200.
    THAT would be impressive.
  • 12 Hide
    rantoc , January 10, 2013 7:17 AM
    mrmezGood that its progressing, but I'm not impressed.Apple's 13" Retina display is 2560x1600. Scale that up to 26" and you get 5120x3200.THAT would be impressive.


    You mean LG's displays that Apple use in the product...
  • 2 Hide
    freggo , January 10, 2013 7:27 AM
    mrmez...Apple's 13" Retina display...


    You do know that Apple doesn't make a friggin' display ?
    They buy stuff from one vendor and then have another supplier slap it together.
    Virtually non if it creating US jobs ( as they are soooo expensive); but then we end up with a product priced as if it was assembled in the US not by regular workers but by Engineers and PHD graduates.

  • -2 Hide
    grumpigeek , January 10, 2013 11:42 AM
    I so need one of these Sharp 4K monitors.

    The high DPI would probably compensate for the horrible blurry font rendering in IE 10 and Office 2013 on Windows 8.
  • -2 Hide
    grumpigeek , January 10, 2013 11:43 AM
    Removed duplicate post - retarded commenting system.
  • 0 Hide
    f-14 , January 10, 2013 1:50 PM
    as long as they don't claim they are 3-D.

    gary larson has a far side joke that says it best
    Quote:
    my god 1.5" that's either the fattest 1-D picture or the worlds most anemic person
  • 0 Hide
    maxinexus , January 10, 2013 3:34 PM
    At 4k resolutions you don't even have to use AAA so most of the top VGA would be sufficient. I want one now...hmmm I would buy it for $1.5k not more
  • 0 Hide
    hannibal , January 10, 2013 4:17 PM
    Well if the price is near 2K, maybe... I am a fraid that this will cost near 5K-6K... But in couple of years you can get this as cheap as 2000$ to 3000$ and after that the 1500-2000$ may be possible...
    But nice monitor to have :-) Definitely want to have one if the picture quality is par with resolution. That reamains to be seing.
  • 0 Hide
    dotaloc , January 11, 2013 1:42 AM
    mrmezGood that its progressing, but I'm not impressed.Apple's 13" Retina display is 2560x1600. Scale that up to 26" and you get 5120x3200.THAT would be impressive.


    I think that the common consensus is that you don't need 300ppi at the distance most people view monitors from. Just guessing, I think 200ppi would be very nice...and 150+ acceptable/a notable improvement to the 112ppi I'm currently rocking.
Display more comments