27-Inch 4K Monitor VS 27-Inch LED HD TV Monitor

I got a mac pro 5.1 attached to a Seiki 39 inch 4K monitor (<$600) and it works fine.

http://www.amazon.com/Accell-B086B-008B-2-UltraAV-DisplayPort-Adapter/dp/B00DOZH L82/ref=pd_sim_e_1

Just get the

I used and it displays exactly 4K res.

Its so amazing. Only probelm is anythin lower than 1080 looks a little fuzzy maxamized.

I've checked out some 4k footage and it is sharper but really the big difference is you can sit way closer than you could with 1080p.

Yes you can tell the difference between 1080p &amp; 4K BUt only if you have the 4K content.

4k is definitely not the same, it has 4 times the resolution of 1080p (1K).

I'm not sure what your asking in your question about 3 monitors. Apple has said the new Mac Pro can connect to 3 4K displays. What's not clear is if the new MP can do that in the base configuration or only with upgraded graphics card.

Either way I have the older Mac Pro one so I'll never know. :)

1080p size

1080p is NOT a fixed size, it is a fixed number of pixels.

1080p can be displayed on a display anywhere from the size of a wristwatch, to a 60" diagonal TV set, to a projector in a large lecture hall, to the side of a building, and it will still have 1920 wide by 1080 tall pixels.

--------

A TV set is NOT a Monitor. TV sets are meant for Moving images.

Static images, text, thin lines, and strong color transitions look MUCH worse on a TV set than on a Monitor. Monitors cost more because they are better at displaying these dificult images for computer work. Trying to save money by using a TV set for this work will give you headaches, in more than just the literal way.

That chart in wikipedia assumes that you are using exactly the same sized pixel for each display. It is intended as an aid to understanding how much data is shown at a particular resolution.

4K size is NOT normal. Whatever is available on the market today is completely arbitrary, experimental, and very expensive.

If your asking for a whether for a given size screen is there a difference in the size of pixels between 4K and 1080p? If so the answer is yes, the 4K pixels woudl be smaller to cram more of them into the same size screen.

4K isnt really experimental anymore. Given 3D is about dead 4K is about to enter the mainstream especially next year. Experimental is 12K or 8K... Movie studios have been creating in 8K for years.

I figure by the end of 2014 they be in a Costco or Sams Club near you.

The biggest difference after about 720p, IMO, is how close you can be to the screen without noticing and pixels - Same arguement as retina display.

SAME PIXEL SIZE

Nonsense.

The screens are the same diagonal measurement.

1080p has 1920 by 1080 pixels in that space = 2,073,600 pixels.

4K UHD is a resolution of 3840 pixels × 2160 lines = 8,294,400 pixels.

The 4K UHD pixel size is only about 1/4 the size of the 1080p pixel on the same 27" display.

Thanks Grant - I was tryign to just explain it, without getting into exact measurments, that pixels woudl have to be different size to be greater while in the same size screen.

There is no "standard"size.

It depends on how large you want it. Larger cost more. Eventually you will have to sit away from the screen to see it all.

if we have an 4K and an HD LED, 1/4 size in cm of 4K ... In other words area be exatly 4 times the other area ,... means pixel size is the same?

YES.