Sharp's 32-inch IGZO 4K Monitor Will Cost $5500
Sharp's 32-inch IGZO 4K display will retail for around $5,500 USD when it eventually arrives here in the States.
Remember that 31.5-inch IGZO 4K display we saw at CES 2013 weeks ago? It was utterly amazing in sharpness and performance. And, thanks to the IGZO technology, it was amazingly power efficient because the screen doesn't continuously refresh static images.
As previously reported, the display has a 3840 x 2160 resolution, support for 10-point multi-touch input, and a thin design at just 35-mm. The unit on display was a mere prototype, but the company said that it planned to launch the PN-K321 in Japan next month.
The Sharp rep at CES didn't say when or if the panel would arrive in the consumer sector, as there needs to be a market for such an expensive device. However there are plans to launch the PN-K321 for the business market here in the States later this year. It will supposedly cost 450,000 yen, or around $5,500 USD, making it quite an expensive buy for a 31.5-inch panel.
According to Sharp, IGZO's transistors are much smaller than traditional LCDs thanks to significantly higher electron mobility. Because of this, more data can be shown in a single display. The tech has also drastically minimized the noise caused during touch input, thus allowing for quick, easy, more natural-feeling writing and smooth lines.
"IGZO can maintain the onscreen data for a certain period of time without refreshing the data, even when the current is off. This helps cut back the power consumption to achieve longer battery life for mobile displays," the company said.
We expect to hear more about this panel's North American release within the next few months.
4k is fairly new, we dont need 8k yet, plus other hardware couldnt even keep up with that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U7e_quvkPQ
http://www.hfrmovies.com/2013/01/28/japan-plans-to-launch-8k-broadcasts-in-2014-2-years-ahead-of-schedule/
I swear, if you used "their" instead of "there" I might actually think you were smart believe this spam. Real hard for me to take your miracle story seriously with so many grammar errors
Not many of us been waiting for 4K because most of us realize how pointless it is.
Sure the extra resolution when you're up close to it would be great for photography, or is great when you're in a movie theater and an image is blown up to a hundred some feet. But in a normal living room then I can have a TV big enough to take full advantage of 4K, and a computer gear going to increase the user interface at a point where you can use it again instead of having it at the normal resolution basically showing off all the potential screen real estate you gain from 4K unless you get a 48 inch screen and have fun staring that all day. And for gaming we need to graphics cards just a handled 1600 P (I'm using Dragon don't want to say every single number in the resolution of talking about) but let's do some quick math here.
1600 P 4,096,000 pixels
4K (as it pertains to this article) 8,294,400 pixels
But that effectively means is you need at least four graphics cards to handle any game on this monitor, at the very least 4. I failed to understand what everyone so we need 4K about, and this resolution is even 4K. Here let me go get a different resolution that's closer to a 16:10 version of 4K.
(consumer 4k 16:10) 3840×2400
(real 4k) 4096×2304
And the amount of pixels each one has is as follows respectively
9,216,000
and
9,437,184
And let's put our final little thought.
The infrastructure upgrades for 4K are so expensive that Japan's considering not even going for changes jumping the straight to 8K. So there's a good chance that most of the worlds and a feel about the same way.
The too long didn't read version
I don't get why everyone's excited about 4K
it's uses on a computer unless you have a 48 inch screen
it's expensive as hell
we may never get the infrastructure for 4K
the only real use 4K has is in theaters
it will require at least four graphics cards to run a videogame on it if not more
the user interface increases to compensate for such a high resolution would kill off any benefit you get from such a high resolution.
Outside of photography and some amount of video editing there is no use for 4K, outside of a 48 inch monitor.
Active Matrix LCDs have small capacitors holding each pixel's state between refresh which is what makes them flicker-free regardless of refresh rates. A static display only needs to be refreshed often enough to keep fading below perceivable levels and that can take over a second.
As far as delays go, there is no reason for there to be any as long as the clock sync is maintained with the source (avoid PLL locking delays) so the display is ready to accept new frames whenever they come in.
The general reaction I've observed from enthusiasts would suggest otherwise.
If you're going to go on a long rant, could you at least invest a little extra effort into making it comprehensible. I honestly don't understand half of what you wrote here.
Yes, 4k isn't for every application or every user, but I think you're greatly underestimating its usefulness if you think the additional resolution is gimmicky and pointless for desktop and home theater applications. For desktops the additional real-estate higher resolutions afford is always welcome in my opinion, especially in the content creation software I use on a regular basis (Maya, Mudbox, After Effects). The advantages certainly aren't limited to photo and video work.
Why do you assume someone would need 4 current gen cards to run future games at a resolution that probably won't be commonplace for at least another 3-6 years? Even if 4k was a common resolution today on current GPU performance, why do you assume someone would require 4 cards to run that resolution? Because it's 2x 2560x1600? lol
Sigh, what are you talking about? "consumer" 4k vs "real" 4k? 4k doesn't represent a fixed resolution. It's a set of standards, and 3840x2160 is one of them, and is just as "real" as 4096x2160.
Actually Japan is increasing its investment in 4k and accelerating its introduction. Current estimates place the first 4k broadcasts in 2014, in time for the World Cup in Brazil and 2 years ahead of original plans.
Your comment is just overflowing with ignorance, shortsightedness, and excessively poor grammar. Prices will come down, GPU performance per W will increase, and 4k is only a gimmick if you don't know how to take advantage of it... in which case you would probably question its usefulness and resent anyone who wanted it.