27” 5K OLED Monitor!

[@hugomatos1999]

that is michael scott tv

[@bybod]

Flush into the wall

[@hellblazer7]

"Finer than Gal Gadots ***" 💀💀💀

[@mr.almezeini647]

This guy's monotone dry humour always cracks me up😂

[@semahj]

Finally we’re starting to get 5k and 6k monitors

[@Uncle_Titus]

5k With 27.5 Inch ist dumb af😂 only a trick to Catch no brainer

[@autistukral]

@@Uncle_Titusnot our fault ur blind

[@semahj]

@@Uncle_Titus I’m sorry but I use Mac so I would prefer my screen to be 218 ppi for proper scaling on Mac OS

[@kiisseli1337]

@@Uncle_Titus 26.5"

[@HiPnautique]

There were 5k and more monitors years before already. And these aren't real 5k. They are ultra wide. The vertical resolution is still the same.

[@taskmaster5437]

I think you've been watching that Wonder Woman Blu-Ray HDR too many times.

[@TurkoFrmDa5th]

😂😂😂😂😂 Vincent you Savage

[@PSYCHOV3N0M]

27-inch 5K display and 32-inch 6K display. BRING IT!!! Apple is influencing LG, Dell, etc.

[@Exploringthemagic]

Make you wonder if Apple will be ordering this there really the on,y OS that benefits from a 5k display. The studio display is long in the tooth as it’s using a display from LG that’s nearly 10 years old now

[@iCrackr]

I think that’s why both the Pro Display and Studio Display have been neglected for years. Considering the MBP will get OLED and the iPad Pro just got OLED, it makes sense to get rid of LCD now

[@SBMAN123]

i fucking need this so bad for macbook!

[@rickbale]

yes please! I’ve been waiting for the perfect monitor for my macbook pro

[@Intelligenz_Bestie]

YES! FINALLY!

[@vasudevmenon2496]

Gal Gadot will be buying 116" Hisense TV just to see fine details upscaled to higher resolution from small resolution image ...

[@LxftRxght]

LOL Yo... That was out of pocket!

[@behappybevegan]

Lovely for sure but the price will be too much for most people.

[@AndyGilleand]

Talk about pointless. Even if its meant for PC, you still would want about 50" for 5K. But honestly there's just no reason for anything more than 4K.

[@LukaPaja]

Not being involved in this industry I'd have assumed that something like this already existed

[@krazyolie]

Unfortunately the monitor industry languishes behind other displays

[@geiers6013]

​@@krazyolieNothing beats Oled and there really were not equivalent monitors before this one. And no shitty non hdr lcds are not even comparable.

[@krazyolie]

@@geiers6013 yes and look at the pixel density you get on oled phones and laptops vs oled monitors. TVs have way lower but brightness is much higher as is viewing distance.

[@TechinRL]

No, before this, there were a grand total of 3 5K monitors in existence, one by Apple, one by LG, and one by Samsung. None are even mini-LED, let alone OLED. There is an upcoming ProArt display that may or may not be out yet that is 5K, another LCD panel.

[@eyescreamsandwitch52]

Ultra sharps are expensive and then there are those Apple displays so yeah, Ultra high density Monitors are a niche still and hopefully, these will change that.

[@cydoanik]

AYO 💀💀💀

[@Hirnlego999]

OK, great, now do at least ultrawide

[@iaincraig9093]

😂😂😂😂 legend

[@hexeno]

Wtf hahaha

[@charliewares13]

woaw 220ppi

[@supanovasky]

AMD said a few years thier goal was 16k for graphics cards...

[@stuffstoconsider3516]

Serious!!! 😮😮😮

[@Hirnlego999]

Well, VR would benefit the most

[@Uncle_Fred]

AMD may not even exist in the GPU space if it doesn't start getting more competitive.

[@Hirnlego999]

@@Uncle_Fred That makes little sense, most still game @ 1080p

[@Uncle_Fred]

@@Hirnlego999 Look at the sales figures for AMD cards. They are not good.

[@hugomatos1999]

I finally broke down and bought myself a 5K TV. Check it out. Lotta people in the room, you need more space? Voila, Right into the wall!

[@mosey4650]

can you see 160ppi pixels from 3ft?

[@TechinRL]

For those with good eyesight, yes. 220 dpi is roughly what is needed to not see individual pixels at normal distances. Phones, which are generally closer to the eye, need even higher pixel densities, close to 400 dpi.

[@tk42won]

.. fine print quantum leap restraining order.

[@NSEYA01]

Lmao, Apple have been creating 27 inch 5K displays for years

[@PSYCHOV3N0M]

That garbage ass LCD monitor that now has blooming??? 🤣🤣🤣👎👎👎

[@NSEYA01]

@ lol I own a 2023 OLED Samsung TV & it still doesn’t match the colour accuracy you find on Apple Mac’s LCD displays from nearly 10 years ago. 27” 5k Apple Studio Display supports up to 1 billion colours

[@DurfDiggler]

Cool. Reminds me of my 2014 5K iMac.

[@ZacharyMcClane]

Yeah 60Hz LCD with no HDR is sooo similar to 120Hz+ OLED

[@coynoir]

😮

[@stianlavender1683]

Except your 5K iMac has a garbage IPS panel, with a garbage 60hz refresh rate, with terrible black levels, horribly low contrast ratio, vastly inferior colour production, and no HDR or wide colour gamut support. Saying this 5K OLED reminds you of your 5K iMac is like saying a four wheel Bugatti reminds you of your four wheel Toyota. My 2024 MBP is only 3.4K but it’s picture is way better than the old iMac in every single way. (Except total res)

[@DurfDiggler]

@@stianlavender1683 Oops, I forgot the /s button.

[@DurfDiggler]

@@ZacharyMcClane “Reminds” =/= similar. Don’t forget it was CFL edge-lit! Yet, it was the best consumer display for its era … which was 10 years ago.

[@EnterTheSoundscape]

Can someone explain the point of a 5K screen? Surely it cannot be that much different to 4K. Wouldn't 8K be the next logical step up for consumers?

[@semahj]

91% more pixels than 4k so almost double the pixels. 220 ppi perfect for mac devices

[@toxicturkeyy]

Nah it's a lot more than 4K. 8K is still some time away.

[@hugevibez]

Scaling vs 4k. On a Mac when using a high PPI display you employ an integer scale, so 4k becomes 1080p and 5k becomes 1440p. This is a huge difference in the work area of the monitor. You don't have to on Windows or Linux but it will still look a ton sharper, though diminishes depending on viewing distance. With 8k you can scale any resolution, but it is too expensive on not only your wallet but also in terms of bandwidth. Personally, the main benefit of 8k comes from having larger sizes sharp for monitor use, an 8k 55" is just as sharp as a 4k 27", the sharpness is nice but it's understandable that the cost is so high for monitors as you have to cram 33 million pixels into such a small size

[@utubekullanicisi]

Also don't forget that 5K resolution for dual mode displays would mean a dual mode resolution of 1440p. That would be game-changing especially at 32 inches and above, as at those sizes some people complain that 4K looks a little too soft for content creation and consumption, and some people complain that 1080p looks a little too soft for gaming. And obviously there's a lot of overlap between these groups, that's why dual mode displays became a thing in the first place. With 5K you would really get the best of both worlds.

[@techsamurai11]

​@@semahj Isn't it 5120*2880 vs 3840*2160? Isn't that 77% more pixels? Still impressive but not quite 91%.

[@techsamurai11]

Why would you want 5K? Does it lead to more brightness? The only thing you'd care about is 800 nits full window in SDR with minimal burn-in (low heat or good heat dissipation).

[@utubekullanicisi]

I would want 5K resolution at 32 inches. Or even 6K, as it's not that much higher than 5K and would hit the same 220ppi at 32".

[@WestAard]

If you have used a 220 PPI monitor, one, you will understand. Getting 2:1 scaling (4:1 pixel count) is very important. You need 5K at 27 inches because 4K at 2:1 scaling is too large (ends up being 1080p in terms of real estate, compared to 5K which is 1440p, which is pretty perfect in terms of UI size).

[@geiers6013]

No, you actually get less brightness from higher resolutions and smaller pixels at least with Oled. It is only really relevant for professional users doing high res things. For gaming and content consumption anything beyond 4k is almost completely irrelevant.

[@WestAard]

@@utubekullanicisi 6K is necessary at 32 inches to maintain the correct scaling ratio. I think it’s 8K at 40 inches

[@utubekullanicisi]

​@@WestAard ​Ultimately what matters most is the perceived sharpness at a given screen size. We don't really know where exactly the threshold is that we stop discerning the pixels anymore, that changes from person to person. What matters is that it's sufficiently sharp for most people. Apple says roughly 6K res is 32 inches is that threshold. What also influences it is that scaling limitation that you mentioned. macOS by default assumes that a 6K display at 32" is a display that's exactly 1/4 of that resolution, but it scales it up to that resolution by quadrupling those pixels. That's how they achieve their "retina" sharpness standard. But if we had an OS that could handle the scaling of the interface more flexibly, maybe we could be closer to a practical threshold instead of “wastefully” having to be above the threshold due to operating system limitations.

[@USA92]

Please stop with the cheesy crap jokes.

[@rowanyuh6326]

Better off 32 inch if you have 5k imo

[@PSYCHOV3N0M]

Nope. 6K is for 32 inch monitors. 5K is for 27 inch monitors. It's about the ppi.