Apple picker With the launch of the latest Mac Pro at the last WWDC, a sack of speculation about the new Apple monitors has erupted. It's not surprising - Apple is currently offering its de facto outdated monitors. Although the Apple Thunderbolt Display is a design gem and due to its dimensions, it is a majesty on desktops, but due to the price-performance ratio and low resolution, Apple lags far behind here. The resolution of a 27-inch monitor for 27 thousand, which is 2560 × 1440 pixels, is quite insufficient with the advent of Retina displays and monitors.
What exactly did Apple spark the discussion about the new generation of monitors? While demonstrating the new generation of Mac Pro, Phil Schiller mentioned that the new most powerful Apple computer will support up to three 4K monitors simultaneously. What does 4K actually mean? The current high video standard 1080p corresponds to a resolution of around 2K. 4K refers to monitors with a resolution of 3840 x 2160 pixels, which is exactly double the resolution of 1080p, both in height and width.
Since Apple does not offer monitors with such a resolution, owners of the new Mac Pro will have to resort to monitors from companies such as Sharp or Dell. It could be several months before Apple decides to release its own 4K monitors, as the vast majority of analysts believe that the Californian company is not planning any unexpected new product launches. This estimate is supported by the fact that Apple recently started selling and then quickly stopped offering a 4K monitor from Sharp at a price of 3 pounds, i.e. approximately 500 crowns. However, it is likely that with the start of sales of the new Mac Pro, some 115K displays will reappear in the Apple Online Store.
Sharp isn't the only brand trying to expand into the 4K monitor market. Along with it, Dell, Asus and Seiki also operate on the market. However, all brands offer monitors for the vast majority at prices unaffordable for average consumers. So far, the only affordable monitor is a 39-inch display from Seiki, which is also offered as a television. Framerate 30 Hz, however, discourages many customers, although the price is only around 480 dollars (around 10 thousand crowns). Dell offers its cheapest 32-inch monitor for $3 (600 crowns). These monitors, despite their high price, represent extensive potential for graphically focused users, i.e. for design, photography and video editing.
Although price still holds back the development of this market sector, we can expect an ever-increasing selection and hopefully a lower price in the near future. Apple could perhaps bring a real breath of fresh air in 2014 with its own 4K monitor, which it will hopefully release on the market at an affordable price.
First find out how it is with the dimensions and then fix it.
4K is not 4096×2560 but 3840×2160. Which is double the dimensions of Full HD.
Monitors are not scaled like paper format A0-A1-A2, etc., i.e. by flipping, but by multiplication.
Although there is quite a bit of chaos in those formats, and there may be more of them, the 4096 × 2560 dimension is nonsense.
Thanks for the warning, we have corrected the inaccuracy. That 4096 x 2560 resolution doesn't really apply to monitors.
Let me be precise: professional 4K is actually 4096×2160 pixels. This resolution is used for digital cinemas. UHD - ultra HD resolution is 4x HD, i.e. 3840×2160 pixels, used in consumer technology.
You are wrong. Before the whole 4K mania started in the digital world, filmmakers defined 4K as just 4096*… according to the aspect ratio. Only our dear producers want to have a more favorable standard...3840-QFHD 4096-4K
3 pounds = approximately 500 crowns? :)) to fix.