Slashdot Mirror
LG To Show Off New 55-Inch 8K Display at CES
MojoKid writes One of the most in-your-face buzzwords of the past year has been "4K," and there's little doubt that the forthcoming CES show in early January will bring it back in full force. As it stands today, 4K really isn't that rare, or expensive. You can even get 4K PC monitors for an attractive price. There does remain one issue, however; a lack of 4K content. We're beginning to see things improve, but it's still slow going. Given that, you might imagine that display vendors would hold off on trying to push that resolution envelope further – but you just can't stop hardware vendors from pushing the envelope. Earlier this year, both Apple and Dell unveiled "5K" displays that nearly doubled the number of pixels of 4K displays. 4K already brutalizes top-end graphics cards and lacks widely available video content, and yet here we are looking at the prospect of 5K. Many jaws dropped when 4K was first announced, and likewise with 5K. Now? Well, yes, 8K is on its way. We have LG to thank for that. At CES, the company will be showing-off a 55-inch display that boasts a staggering 33 million pixels — derived from a resolution of 7680x4320. It might not be immediately clear, but that's far more pixels than 4K, which suggests this whole "K" system of measuring resolutions is a little odd. On paper, you might imagine that 8K has twice the pixels of 4K, but instead, it's 4x.
That's useful for technical matters like bandwidth calculation but the user cares about clarity.
8K can display a line half the thickness of 4K. That's what matters.
Perhaps if you are buying your LCDs just to watch TV the 'content' argument is a serious problem; but c'mon, essentially all modern 'TV's are just big monitors with built in ATSC/DVT-B tuners and severely questionable EDID data.
Especially when the resolution is an integer multiple of what the existing 'content' was designed for, and a PC with suitably punchy GPU (which actually isn't much punch these days unless you are gaming, where things can admittedly get damned expensive at high resolutions, this isn't the bad old days when you had to buy some freaky Matrox unit to get a VGA out that didn't turn into blurryvision when it met a real monitor) can drive a seriously enormous screen, who cares?.
Quit carping about how Sony hasn't yet graced us with Premium Ultra HD Content on Blu-Ray 2.0 and embrace the fact that you can buy a terrifying pixel-battery of your very own at surprisingly attractive prices. Still a few kinks to work out at very high resolutions that currently available displayport or HDMI standards can't drive properly; but that's really the remaining issue.
Maintain the aspect ratio, double 1D, quadruple 2D. This is witchcraft! Burn these people and their evil "mathematics"!
At 55" and average viewing distances of 8ft you're not going to notice all the detail of even 1080p. You literally need to be sat a couple of feet away to get the full benefit of 4K on a 55" display.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
16k or GTFO.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Maybe this will drive some faster video cards.. I run 3 30" monitors (7680x1600); and while 2D and work productivity is no problem.. and, believe me, if you have the means I highly recommend picking them up - 3D surround gaming, even with SLI current-generation cards is a challenge.
What's even more impressive is how fast the 4K panels are dropping in price. Manufacturing FTW.
..don't panic
I have a 46inch 1080p screen, at normal viewing distance I can make out jaggies and I hate font smoothing because it looks blurry. I've seen that chart that says what distances different native resolutions are effectively discernible and IT IS WRONG by 50% - I can see the difference clearly where the chart says I shouldn't be able to.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
5.5" phone screens are at 2560x1440, with 4k on the way. 8k on a monitor...what's the hold up?
Phones seem perfectly able to light the screen and drive the pixels at less than 4W TDP. Seems odd that 8k is such a large challenge given volume, mass and power budgets 20-100x that of a phone.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
An array of 1600 of these 8k monitors? Okay...that's really only 163' across and 92' high - barely in the top 20 of the largest screens in the world - but at 156ppi I'd say you're probably sitting too close to the screen if you can see the pixels. ;-)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
8K displays still require liquid Helium to get to that temperature. Hydrogen boils at 20K - and it should be much cheaper.
Do we need this? Is there really a sizable market for people who must have the latest even if the current stuff is good enough?
If you double the length and the width of the rectangle you will get four times the area. There is nothing odd about it. Quadratic (and cubic ) relationships are very common. Typically the height of human beings and their mass follows a cubic relationship. The urban sprawl distance and the area of the city follows a quadratic relationship. It is not odd. It is just math.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
You can even get 4K PC monitors for an attractive price
Citation needed (...please!)
8k won't be ready for anything any time soon. HDMI 2.0 doesn't even support 8k 30Hz, and few TVs have Displayport. 4k Blurays are taking their time arriving to market, and 50GB arguably won't be enough for 8k without a codec upgrade which would itself require a new disc player. What portion of existing bluray players have old HDMI ports or processors that can't handle 4k content? It's not like 4k TVs are high-margin items anymore -- I saw a nice 50" one at Walmart for $699 a few weeks ago, and there were cheaper ones online. The price has hit rock bottom before there's even the demand for them. Unlike 4k cameras, there are only a couple prototypes of 8k cameras, so almost all content will be rendered CG for a while.
I'd read countless arguments on Slashdot that human eyes can't discern resolution higher than 1080p in a 50" TV over 10 feet or so, before I actually watched a demo 4k TV running 4k content, for about 15 minutes. If you have a 50" TV in your bedroom, 5 feet away from where you're sitting, you can definitely notice a huge improvement in detail. I stepped about 15 feet away and in most scenes it was still usually an obvious, substantial improvement over 1080p.
An electronics retailer in Europe held a contest, setting a cordon that people had to stay behind, more than 10 feet away from two televisions, and were asked which was the 4k tv and which was the 1080p. 98% of people correctly guessed which was which. Maybe people asked others who cheated, but it suggests that "most people can't tell" is bullshit. I seem to recall when the Apple retina display claims first came out, a scientist mentioned that humans' actual acuity was about 50% better than what Apple was claiming. It's also worth noting that while a single still retina image may be at a certain DPI, there are psychovisual effects (like depth perception) that can improve the resolution inside the brain, beyond what one retina picks up at one time. The eyes also saccade all the time, which I seem to recall can be interpolated to improve resolution.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Fuck it, we're going to 5K ...
I predict that this technology will be adopted for computers FAR before it is adopted for TV in any meaningful sense.
Know why? Consumers got raped in the last HD format war. People bought gear which subsequently wasn't supported.
I have no intention of lining the electronics industry with the money to replace my TV, my amp, my DVD player. The stuff I own is relatively new, and works just fine.
The reason content for 4K is slow catching on because consumers are all thinking "why the hell would I switch to yet another format?" I expect we'll see 5K, 6K, 8K, 10K ... and all before the vast majority of consumers give a damn.
My view of 4K for TV is a big "I don't care, because it's expensive, pointless, and pretty removed from being a need".
I won't be surprised if it flops.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Come on, Apple, when are we going to see our 5" 8K displays? Imagine how clear that will be!!
Personally, I think they should do like camera sensors, and go by megapixels. 1080p? 2 megapixels? Got it. 4K? 8 megapixels? Spiffy.
Anyway. I reckon 1080p will hold me just fine for a good while. I'm in no hurry to upgrade. And I doubt many people are.
and then some. I do hope they bring this to displays in the mid 30" range. But have to wonder if scaling issues are going to be a big concern.
It's easier to understand in terms of total pixels. 2K is ~ 2MP, 4K is ~ 8MP. A 4x increase in resolution does correspond to a 4x increase in MP.
Visual hyperacuity is one factor that often gets ignored in "how much resolution do you need" calculations. You'll see those "bumps" in nearly-flat diagonal lines much more readily than the simple calculations would suggest. Anti-aliasing everything tends to take care of that problem, but it's still pretty unusual to anti-alias everything. For example, does your system allow fractional-pixel cursor movements?
It doesn't seem to be in Windows 8.1 from my experience on a Surface Pro 2 -- it's a nice display and very high resolution, but it's scaling options leave a lot to be desired.
I can only imagine the same phenomenon would be true on super high resolution screens, although a lot of people seem to like 4k monitors, but it's hard to know what these would be like in day-day usage.
Incredible pixel density is nice, but it seems like (IMHO, anyway) that UIs and applications need to have a lot more flexibility about how they work with very high resolution displays.
4K is UHD and 8K UHD is called Super-Hi Vision in Japan. And the 2012 Summer Olympics were shot in that 8K format and displayed at that size at a few places around Great Britain.
You're way too late to the naming game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
Can I finally turn Anti-aliasing off?
Only losers have 4K... 8K is the way to go!
Sadly you cant get 4K content yet, Although a 50 inch 8K display on my desk would be a wonderful thing for my work computer.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Will never EVER happen. Comcast (and other cable companies) will not upgrade bandwidth unless someone holds a gun to their head after being beaten bloody.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I love that they're still using mid-20th century naming conventions for new whiz-bang technology.
"Super-Hi Vision" sounds a lot like the old film technologies of the 40's and 50's, like Super Cosmocolor and Super Panavision 70 or CinemaScope.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's NHK who named it. And it beats the FUHD that others are using. Just not a great acronym that time.
The problem isn't that people don't understand the difference between linear and area measurement scales (so 8K is four times the number of pixels as 4K), but the fact that anyone lets these marketing drones get away with calling 7680 pixels "8K". 8K is either 8192 in binary terms, or 8000 in decimal terms.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
That sounds spectacular, but we're going to need a motherboard big enough to hold 2000 GPUs in SLI/Crossfire configuration.
Indeed. May as well say:
It might not be immediately clear, but 55" is far more screen area than 27.5", which suggests this whole "inches" system of measuring size is a little odd. On paper, you might imagine that 55" has twice the area of 27.5", but instead, it's 4x.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Well, yes, resolution is a measurement and MP is a unit for that measurement.
That's like saying a 4x increase in length corresponds with a 4x increase in meters.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
I, for one, am looking forward to watching my DVDs with 10x10 pixels per pixel.
My post was a response to megapixels being somehow "broken." I don't know what they meant, but thought it worth defining MP for them.
Blu-ray resolutions are not pointless. For an obvious example, compare the sharpness of subtitles between a dvd and a blu-ray some time.
Don't forget that IBM had a decent 3840x2400 22" IPS panel in production as early as 2001. It was rather expensive, and had to be driven as multiple sub-panels. It also had a very low refresh rate compared to what one would find normal today. Seems like mentioning numbers with more than two digits causes consumers' eyes to glaze over, hence '4K' as a blanket term for stuff with roughly 4000 pixels in width.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
The 4k is the width though, so it'd be HD1 (1280), HD2 (1920), etc. etc.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I would - I want a decent large, high-res computer monitor. And even if we could get streaming up to blueray standards, there would still be lots of room for a higher resolution display - just look at the dramatic improvements good upscaling brings to DVDs: often better than the current streaming options.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Two reasons: Big TVs, and decent computer monitors. A 30" 4K monitor has a resolution only barely as good as a high-end CRT screen from 20 years ago, and even back then people were looking forward to the pixels finally shrinking to the point where they weren't glaringly obvious - back before LCDs at 1080p cast us into the New Pixelated Age of computing.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Wake me when we get to 11k.
Resolution has always been a one dimensional measurement. Sharpness is measured in one dimension, and is perceived in one dimension. Going from 640x480 to 1280x960 looks twice as good, not 4 times as good.
A 4x increase in resolution is not a 4x increase in pixels, it's a 16x increase in pixels, assuming the aspect ration is unchanged.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Huge pixel count. Great. Seriously, I like it. I can view DSLR photos in full resolution.
But it's going to take a long time for bandwidth available to most folks to catch up with the needs of 3840x2160. Hard to imagine the data flow necessary for 7680x4320 being available to most of us for years. In fact, that's about the fastest being rolled out to residences today. Then what? Then there'll have to be sources. Netflix's servers don't provide 1080p for me now, having an ISP that doesn't interfere and 50Mbps bandwidth on DSL, which should be just about enough for even uncompressed video.
Hey, at least the focus is on pixel count instead of idiotic curved screens and 3D. What would be real advances? Holographic 3D and quality programming. Now we have who knows how many TV channels and networks, but only about the same number (very few) of quality shows as we had 50 years ago, not long after the FCC head's "television is a vast wasteland" comment.
Absolutely. Too bad there are so many problems with BluRay players. The only reason of which I'm aware that BluRay machines have frequent software updates is so DRM can be frequently changed. We should all just say no to future media that doesn't have unchanging specs.
It derives from cinema, where 2k projectors output 2048x1080: 16:9 productions still use a 1920x1080 subframe, but most movies are either in 2.40:1 or 1.80:1 which is wider than 1920x1080, hence the extra width supported by digital cinema projectors.
Somewhere along the line, someone figured 2160p was too strange a number to use for consumer 16:9 televisions, so they went with "4k" by which to mean "16:9 in a 4k frame."
Wonder what the public key field is for?
https://www.tacc.utexas.edu/vi...