Sharp's 32-Inch 4K IGZO Display Is More Exciting Than A Monitor Should Be

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 3840x2160 pixels. To save you some maths, 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 display 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 $US5500. Still one for the well-paid designers among us then. [Sharp via Engadget]


    Well... playing games on max settings on this (if the game supports the resolution) is going to take some power. Dem Graphic cards!

    That price doesn't seem too unreasonable considering it's 32". Not in my budget anytime soon though lol.

    Good to see what affordable monitors are going to look like in 6 or 7 years.

    It's actually 137 ppi... to get 443ppi at this resolution you would need a screen size of around 10 inches.

      haha nice one, I didn't do the maths but it didn't sound right to me.

      sorry sir you are wrong, for it to be retina, it has to be at least as high as macbook pro (220ppi). So you are terribly wrong to say that this is equal to 1080p?? millepede brain you got there young padiwan.

    I'm sorry, my maths has always been terrible but your comparison with the Macbook pro retina display doesn't seem to add up for me.
    If the 32" Sharp display is twice as large as a retina display but the resolution is not actually double the 15" Macbook pro (2880 x 1800), then it suggests the Macbook should still have a higher per inch pixel density or am I being completely mistaken.
    Sorry if I only glossed over the linked article on pixel density.

    Not to diss the fact that at 32" this thing would be a monster. It's been far too long a wait for decent large resolution monitors other than Apple cinema screens. Hopefully this will start a trend.

      Don't worry, Luke's maths is completely wrong. 4405 pixels diagonally divided by 32" is 137 ppi, nowhere near 443.

      That's still a little sharper than the ~90-100 ppi most monitors are, but not even close to the Macbook Pro's 226 ppi, let alone the Droid DNA's screen he compared it to. But lots of real estate at least.

    Call me when everything on TV is at 120Hz, until then I will disregard this obsolete technology.

    How long till people expect these become affordable technology? Is it still worth buying a 30-inch 2560x1600 display now?

      It's not that much of a leap really. I'm looking forward to this resolution in a 21 inch monitor.

    443 pixels per inch seems very wrong, more like 137? I think.

    You actually made me do the maths instead of saving me!

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now