13 
Sharp’s new monitor promises to be something special, offering up 4K resolution powered by ultra-thin IGZO technology to make for a ridiculously high-res but sleek display. It’s going to be gorgeous. But it comes at a price.
The monitor promises a 32-inch screen packing a resolution of 3,840 x 2,160 pixels. To save you some math, that works out to be 443 pixels per inch — for what that’s worth — which should make using it an absolute pleasure. For some perspective, the Retina MacBook Pro offers up a screen with 220 pixels per inch, and that looks superb — so this thing is going to make you weep with graphical joy.
What’s more, that IGZO technology allows the display to be made just 35mm thick, all-in. So much win in such a small frame. The display is scheduled to go on sale sometime early next year and, if initial Japanese pricing is anything to go by, it will cost somewhere in the region of £3,500. Still one for the well-paid designers among us, then. [Sharp via Engadget]
Sharp's 32-Inch 4K Igzo Monitor Might Be What Turns All the 4K Hype into a Real Thing
Sharp's New 5-inch HD Display Is Crystal Clear
Why Is Samsung's New Monitor More Expensive Than an Apple Thunderbolt Display?
Surely a resolution that high is useless?
Not at all – I’m running a 30″ 2560×1600 display atm, and I’d love a larger higher-res screen. Just not the price tag…
Note really, if you are editing a 4k video you need to have that resolution to see it, even if you have to look closely.
Anyone editing 4k video in it’s native 4k resolution needs a slap.
Useful for grading IF the monitor has the gamut and set up right. Might also make a good on set monitor. Good to see this tech getting out there at last.
also porn
A 32 inch display with 443 ppi would be silly, but thankfully this is just 137.14, according to the DPi calculator here:
http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html
Which is perfectly sensible.
It’d be like 4 1080p 16-inch laptop screens in array.
Were you cramming it into an iPad-esque 9.93″ display, then you would indeed have 443ppi!
You’re right, that’s not so bad. I was thinking that 443 PPI was more detail than was visible to the naked eye. However, this could be useful, even if only for professional purposes where you’ll be close to the screen.
“The monitor promises a 32-inch screen packing a resolution of 3,840 x 2,160 pixels. To save you some math, that works out to be 443 pixels per inch”
To save you some embarrassment, it’s actually 140ppi.
Sounds like a fairly reasonable price to me especially considering there’s no competition to drive down the price. Hopefully they start selling some panels to those Korean factories we love and then we might see the price closer to £1k.
Yeah, as other have said, this is actually 140ppi, which should be pretty nice. You wouldn’t want it much higher than that, as desktop monitors are viewed from a greater distance than laptop or tablet displays.
Also, Windows’ support for high DPI displays is woeful, something that will hopefully be remedied in future.
You would hope that since they’re competing with high res displays across the board from other tablets, Microsoft will start supporting it when it next refreshes Windows 8 (I am assuming they will upgrade as it goes along since they’d be insane not to).