Apple's Online Store Now Offering New 4K 23.7-Inch LG UltraFine Display

The 2010 Apple Cinema Display still looks better.

Maybe write that it also lacks the webcam and that what ever else might be different with it. Sad to see them go forward with lower res monitors, but probably to make their own super expensive screen stand out a bit, and still offer a "cheap" alternative.

Who buys a 24 in. display anymore ?

I'm just sayin'.

When the resolution doesn’t increase with larger screen sizes why would you buy a larger one?

*sigh*

Hopefully this doesn't mean that Apple will not make their own smaller display, but given that the only rumors we've heard so far have been about a 6K display, that's probably all there will be. Those of us who want a smaller display will have to go third-party.

A 23.7" monitor is very small by today's standards. What are you looking for? A 17" screen? Those died off about 15 years ago.

I think this is great! and much prefer to both previous models,
- Perfect size for me, like 24inch 1080p (but now with 4k sharpness)
- Plays 4k video even in scaled 1080p mode (in proper 4k resolution)
- Plays 4k games with eGPU
- Glossy
- Good expansion ports
- Built in speaker
- Thunderbolt or usb-c to connect for video
- P3 color support

Webcam should have been added though, mistake not to include.

I think this is a signal that Apple will come out with their own 30+ size pro display, and have this 24inch on offer for folks who want a smaller size

More real estate ?

.... if the resolution doesn’t increase you don’t have more screen real estate. Your real estate is just stretched.

Took these pictures today of my LG 4K, 5K and Dell P2415Q.
https://imgur.com/uI01yPj
https://imgur.com/IsKlrzk
https://imgur.com/wBn4J4o
https://imgur.com/VupGxg2
[doublepost=1558482663][/doublepost]All displays are set native pixel doubled resolution (2304x1152, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, MBP is default 1680x1050), set to 75% brightness and default color profiles.

3840 x 2160 is the industry standard for 4K. It is better than the goofy resolution used on the old LG Ultrafine 4K. It's 1080p pixel-doubled.

The old resolution 4096 x 2304 was not goofy and was because of industry standards. It was better for pro users, this is for consumers. The old resolution lets you do a pixel-perfect DCI 4k 4096 × 2160, while also fitting consumer 16:9 UHD content without black bars.

3840 x 2160 is the industry standard for 4K. It is better than the goofy resolution used on the old LG Ultrafine 4K. It's 1080p pixel-doubled.

Higher resolution is "goofy". Now we've heard it all.

It's a non-standard resolution that nobody else but Apple uses. 3840 x 2160 is the industry standard for 4K. It's double the resolution of 1080p. Personally, I'm glad LG switched to that resolution.

On a side note, I wish they would have remained consistent and used vertical resolution for marketing and called 3840 x 2160 "2K" instead of "4K".

1080p = 1K
2160p = 2K
4320p = 4K

That's not entirely true. While 4096X2304 isn't a common standard, it's still a variant of DCI 4k, of which 4096X2160 and 4096X1716 are common standardized resolutions. Nothing wrong with you preferring the new resolution, which is indeed standard for tv (4k UHD), but 4096X2160 is the standard for DCI 4k and I, for one, appreciate having the full resolution for playback of DCI 4k files. (On the other hand, I can imagine DCI 4k is annoying when it forces you to upscale your UHD 4k files by a tiny bit for full screen playback. I'm not saying either resolution is inherently better, just that the old one wasn't chosen randomly.)

That said, obviously neither display is ideal for working with either variety of 4k footage (DCI or 4k UHD), except as a video playback monitor, which neither is really intended as, because you need room for the UI for everything except playback. So you'd probably really want the 5k monitor either way ideally imo if you're editing a lot of 4k video. But the old resolution is indeed a recognized variant of DCI 4k, of which 4096X2160 is by far the most common, and I suspect 4096X2304 was chosen to match that horizontal resolution with a 16:9 aspect ratio as 17:9 is uncommon for desktop displays. And for working with 4k DCI content, the higher resolution is preferable.

(The older monitor is also a much more pixel-dense monitor, but that's another argument entirely.)

Fwiw, I think the reason for the discrepancy between naming conventions is that 2k originally referred to film scans (which were typically 2048X1536 if you scanned the whole 4x3 negative), so in that case the horizontal resolution is the primary differentiating factor, as the vertical dimension could change based on aspect ratio, while the horizontal dimension wouldn't change... much, at least... 1998X1080 is also a variant of DCI 2k, but I don't believe it's a scanning resolution, just a resolution for projection. :/ I'm not sure.

I also suspect manufacturers embraced "4k" because it sounds like a lot more than 1080p despite not really looking much different. So that is kind of annoying, I agree.

Regardless, there's nothing wrong with you preferring the new resolution, but I and others have our reasons for preferring the old one.

And while, yes, it is a consumer-grade monitor, there are industries that use consumer grade monitors professionally. A 4k DCI grading monitor might cost $20k, so there will be departments (editors, assistant editors, vfx, graphics, etc.) that can benefit from the full DCI resolution without needing perfect calibration and full gamut.

Just my opinion of course, but I prefer the old resolution, and don't think my reasons are entirely trivial. Of course, for those who aren't editing video, I suspect it doesn't matter one way or the other if they're working with DCI 4k or UHD.