Do want!

Removes the need for 3 monitors in one swoop...Can't wait for the Koreans to start pumping them out.

i really hope this is not terribly expensive... I would LOVE to get one :respect:

You should read the post above yours, that should bring a lot of hope :cool:

Very nice

I dont think the 31.5" PQ321 or the unnamed 39" model will be cheap.

However, "relatively" cheap for a 4K would probably be ~$2000 for the 31.5" PQ321,....but i'm just guessing.

Im not really in the market for one myself but the last one I came across was a used 22" IBM 3840x2400 for ~$1600 off of Amazon directly from Amazon as the seller.

39 inch is too big imo, the 31,5 inch model has caught my attention.

I have my eyes set on a 4k monitor by the end of the year.

Will probably be the the PQ321 or the Sharp PN-K321, although the latter's price is ridiculous atm.

OctaveanI dont think the 31.5" PQ321 or the unnamed 39" model will be cheap.

However, "relatively" cheap for a 4K would probably be ~$2000 for the 31.5" PQ321,....but i'm just guessing.

Im not really in the market for one myself but the last one I came across was a used 22" IBM 3840x2400 for ~$1600 off of Amazon directly from Amazon as the seller.

To be fair 2000$ would be pretty awesome considering one the first iterations of 30" 2560x1600 monitors costed around 2k EUR.

Ya I want the 31.5... but I will wait tell they come down in price and made by all... once it becomes a market hit... everyone will make them and they will become cheap... just like the rest of the monitors. @ $1500 I could pull the trigger,.. dont think this will be $1500 :o

nickbaldwin86everyone will make them and they will become cheap... just like the rest of the monitors.

Has 2560x1600 resolution ever become cheap? That's what boggles me, could take a lot more than we'd imagine to have cheap UHD monitors.

radrokHas 2560x1600 resolution ever become cheap? That's what boggles me, could take a lot more than we'd imagine to have cheap UHD monitors.

UMmmm if you remember when the 1st Dell 30 came out it was $2800 (2560x1600)
They are $1000 if you find it on a deal from Dell.
Or a Zr30w HP can be had for around that or less
....I am not willing to jump on new tech just because it is new... I give it a refresh and let it get cheaper.

4k will become a TV standard... sure in a few years. and it will be cheaper. 2k never caught on.

At a size of 39 inches, a 4K monitor would have a pixel density of just under 113 ppi. This means it might appeal to people who think better screens should be used to cram in more information, not get smoother text at the same virtual size. (For what it's worth, I'd rather get the smoother text - after using an iPad 4, the low ppi of a PC monitor is somewhat painful.) At 113 ppi, you could probably get away with leaving Windows on the standard 100% scaling factor if you have good eyesight.

To get 96 ppi (the Windows standard), you'd need a 46-inch 4K monitor - or, more likely, a 4K TV repurposed as a monitor. That would be the equivalent of having four bezel-less 1080p screens in one unit.

radrokHas 2560x1600 resolution ever become cheap? That's what boggles me, could take a lot more than we'd imagine to have cheap UHD monitors.

2560x1600 has never been marketed at anything other than graphics professionals. There has never been a push to generate content in that format or produce TVs in that format or basically do anything with that format other than market it to graphics professionals, so it has remained an expensive niche product.

If they begin to develop content for 4k and market it in the TV world, it has potential to do what 1080p did and become mainstream. There are no technical reasons why 1440/1600p panels must have the crazy cost of entry that they do, and the same goes for 4k. It all depends who the consumer they target is going to be.

JDG1980At a size of 39 inches, a 4K monitor would have a pixel density of just under 113 ppi. This means it might appeal to people who think better screens should be used to cram in more information, not get smoother text at the same virtual size. (For what it's worth, I'd rather get the smoother text - after using an iPad 4, the low ppi of a PC monitor is somewhat painful.) At 113 ppi, you could probably get away with leaving Windows on the standard 100% scaling factor if you have good eyesight.

To get 96 ppi (the Windows standard), you'd need a 46-inch 4K monitor - or, more likely, a 4K TV repurposed as a monitor. That would be the equivalent of having four bezel-less 1080p screens in one unit.

I really like the ~110 PPI mark. It's about what I've got on my 27" 1440p screen and while I can still make out the pixels, they are small enough that I never notice unless I'm looking for it. That's why I really like the idea of a 40" 4k screen for gaming :)

Looking for one female member with which to produce offspring with the intent to sell said offspring for the purchase of two of these monitors, one for each of us.

And here i just finally got a 1080p monitor...

maybe as more are released 2560x will be more mainstream and cheaper?

looks like a pretty sweet monitor... do want... but can't afford atm

xBruce88xAnd here i just finally got a 1080p monitor...

maybe as more are released 2560x will be more mainstream and cheaper?

looks like a pretty sweet monitor... do want... but can't afford atm

Haha, seems like our case is similar. 2012 is the first time I'm using 16:9 monitor, before then I'm using 5:4 one. How terrible. :roll:

Price is a little up there... I would rather have the 31.5

www.engadget.com/2013/06/03/asus-31-5-inch-4k-monitor-priced-at-3-799-39-inch-version-com/?utm_campaign=website&utm_source=sendgrid.com&utm_medium=email

Good. Let me just say THUMBS UP for innovation and increasing options on displays.