Japan Display Squeezes 8K Resolution Into 17-inch LCD, Cracks 510 PPI At 120Hz

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japan Display Squeezes 8K Resolution Into 17-inch LCD, Cracks 510 PPI At 120Hz

Posted by timothy on Sunday October 4, 2015 @11:27AM from the now-don't-strain-your-eyes dept.

MojoKid writes: By any metric, 8K is an incredibly high resolution. In fact, given that most HD content is still published in 1080p, the same could be said about 4K. 4K packs in four times the pixels of 1080p, while 8K takes that and multiplies it by four once again; we're talking 33,177,600 pixels. We've become accustomed to our smartphones having super-high ppi (pixels-per-inch); 5.5-inch 1080p phones are 401 ppi, which is well past the point that humans are able to differentiate individual pixels. Understanding that highlights just how impressive Japan Display's (JDI) monitor is, as it clocks in at 510 ppi in a 17-inch panel. Other specs include a 2000:1 contrast ratio, a brightness of 500cd/m2, and a 176 degree viewing angle. While the fact that the company achieved 8K resolution in such a small form-factor is impressive in itself, also impressive is the fact that it has a refresh rate of 120Hz.

178 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What applications? by AK+Marc · 2015-10-04 11:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can't wait for this in a laptop. I'm tired of horrible resolution and smaller laptop screens.

--
Learn to love Alaska
1. Re:What applications? by gweilo8888 · 2015-10-04 11:37 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Applications like "viewing with your eyeball actually pressed to the cover glass." You know, real critical ones.
  
  Nothing at all to do with getting the biggest feel-good number on the spec sheet, No sir, not at all.
2. Re:What applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 11:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, the idea is that the pixel density is so great that the pixels are not even on your mind.
3. Re:What applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 11:59 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  No, the idea is that the pixel density is so great that the pixels are not even on your mind.
  But that is already true with current retina displays. Even 4k is total overkill for a 17 inch monitor. You won't notice the difference.
4. Re:What applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  And better color! I have a bunch of Java devs that work for me that all have Dell laptops. The screens are so bad that unless you're in a dark room, you can't see the yellow warning underlines. Also, GNOME seems to be going more and more to low contrast, so it is getting harder to see on crappy monitors.
5. Re:What applications? by Beck_Neard · 2015-10-04 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  I 100% agree that this would be a kick-ass display for a laptop, IF:
  1. The OS and programs were actually written to support it,
  2. The display has good contrast and color reproduction (which, at these high PPIs, is far more important than sheer resolution anyway), and
  3. Pushing all these pixels doesn't heat up or slow down the system unacceptably.
  Unfortunately we're probably a bit far from ANY of these being true, so the experience might as well be a net negative one. Windows has laughable high-resolution support (and Linux doesn't fare too awesomely either - and I'm a devout Linux user). And doing anything on an 8K display is likely going to eat into your battery like no tomorrow, both in terms of powering the display itself and powering the graphics chipset hardware.
  I have a Galaxy S6 edge that has an insane AMOLED 2560x1440 display. I'm absolutely in love with the display, but power consumption is a huge issue.
  
  --
  A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
6. Re:What applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 12:15 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You're wrong. For looking at a website, sure this may be overkill. But for medical applications -- reading digital x-rays and MRI scans, for instance -- it's most definitely not overkill; very, very small and low-contrast features on medical images often are of crucial importance.
7. Re:What applications? by allcoolnameswheretak · 2015-10-04 12:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It's not so great. I've seen an image of the new display on the Internet and it has the same pixel density as my monitor.
8. Re:What applications? by AK+Marc · 2015-10-04 12:33 · Score: 2
  
  AMOLED is supposed to be brighter and lower power than the alternatives. My current phone is 2560x1440 and lasts much much longer than my S3 with much lower resolution. The problem may be TouchWiz, not the resolution.
  
  It wouldn't be hard for purpose-built hardware to fake a lower resolution. Don't make the GPU drive an 8k monitor, if the source is 720. Have the GPU drive 720, and either in the GPU or monitor, upscale to fit the monitor. Tricks like that, which work fine in a laptop where you are guaranteed which monitor will be plugged into the video card shouldn't be hard to keep down power usage.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
9. Re:What applications? by AK+Marc · 2015-10-04 12:39 · Score: 0
  
  Smoother fonts reduce eye strain. Your eye doesn't see the pixels at all, but the image the represent.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
10. Re: What applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Holograms happen >1k ppi, at least w/ occlusion or reflective based screens. Emission could probably work too.
11. Re:What applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 13:01 · Score: 0
  
  What application?
  Real time simulation of the running of complicated machinery based on CAD schematics, all rendered in 3D
12. Re:What applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 15:04 · Score: 0
  
  In general, the high def displays are nice, but in some ways, we are winding up with the video equivalent of 128 bits, 192 kHz, where it is useful for a few tasks (for example having enough headroom for mixing/mastering), but unlike audio, video uses a lot of I/O, and driving an 8k monitor at 120 Hz is almost pointless. Unless there is a need for it, it is a lot of excess CPU, GPU, and heat for little gain.
  For video that takes advantage of that, is another thing. I'm sure Sony will be happy to provide you a format that can handle 8K, but it will have the latest generation of DRM, and even "last year's" stuff like Blu-Ray has yet to be actually cracked. Don't forget buying all new equipment to handle the HDCP upgrade spec.
  All and all, the numbers are cool, but realistically, something like Apple's high res Retina displays with 4x the pixels than a normal screen is approaching a point of diminishing returns where it requires a ton of CPU, heat tolerance, GPU, and power for not much gain. Going from 480i to 1080i is a big jump. 1080i to 8192p? Not that big.
13. Re:What applications? by Darinbob · 2015-10-04 15:29 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Remember to use gold plated connectors to get the best visual fidelity.
14. Re:What applications? by Darinbob · 2015-10-04 15:30 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Small features, yes. But you *expand* digital images to get a better look. No one's eyes can reliably see details that fine.
15. Re: What applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 15:42 · Score: 0
  
  Except at those levels, it's impossible for anyone to see the details without "zooming in" to make the pixels take up more space on the screen so you can see it. Of course when taking an xray / MRI / some other image with high resolution requirements, you want the number of pixels as high as you can get them, as that preserves more detail. The human eye however has a maximum resolution that's not about to change anytime soon without genetic engineering, so when you attempt to view (display) an image, if the pixel count is higher than the resolution of the human eye, you literally cannot see the details pass a certain point. As such there's no benefit to packing more information (pixels / details) into a display when we cannot use it. All this "achievement" is is yet another instance of make it sound good to stupid consumers who will buy anything because it has a bigger number on it. There's no benefit here unless overcoming the challenges in getting the technology to this point allows advancement in other areas. Beyond that, it's milk the consumer / waste money on something useless.
16. Re:What applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 15:57 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  But what else am I going to connect my diamond plated, gold enfused, gas pumped Monster Cables too?
17. Re:What applications? by hackwrench · 2015-10-04 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  This feature will probably cause the display to make text display even smaller because the OS (actually only sure about this with Windows) acts like has no clue that a 17" monitor isn't that big of a display and only goes by number of pixels and doesn't offer a way to make text all that large, and all of the browsers are just as bad.
18. Re:What applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 17:11 · Score: 0
  
  My 14" laptop is 1080p and I definitely see individual pixels if there is reasonable contrast. I have 28" 4K desktop screens and I see those pixels too. The screens are identical dot-pitch to my laptop. Those are at a full arms length away, so it isn't that I am sitting too close with a loupe or anything like that.
  I find that I use smaller fonts for the desktop, terminals, browser, etc. compared to my desktop. But, I am not sure if that is because it is closer and easier to see, or that I find it too crowded and limiting with large fonts, now that I have gotten used to the 4K screens in the office. I find it very frustrating when I have to scroll so often.
19. Re:What applications? by dsmatthews9379 · 2015-10-04 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you could use it in one of those 3D printers that uses a resin tank? With 0.5 reduction lens you get thousandth of an inch accuracy at over 8 inches range.
20. Re:What applications? by BcNexus · 2015-10-04 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  VR VR VR - Use the technology to build VR headsets. Imagine a full-hd 1080p or higher VR headset with a tiny display or displays for the eyes.
21. Re:What applications? by AK+Marc · 2015-10-04 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  Old Windows was not as bad at setting text sizes better in the OS. But it was ugly, and the new ways got worse. Last time I tried, zooming in the OS and the application left the tool bars and menus tiny, and everything else huge. I have a 30" 2560 x 1600 I sit too far away from, based on OS sizing. But a good distance and resolution for games.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
22. Re: What applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  Not surprised, grandpa.
23. Re:What applications? by Guy+Harris · 2015-10-04 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  The answer given by The Fine Press Release to your question is "not only products*[2] for video image production, but also medical monitors and gaming PC monitors which require, high resolution and depth in image quality, and many more." with footnote 2 saying
  
  According to the roadmap for 4K/8K Television & Broadcasting of Japan's Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, it is expected that commercial 4K broadcasting over CS, CATV and IPTV to start in 2015. Experimental 4K/8K broadcasting over BS is anticipated in 2016, with commercial 4K/8K broadcasting over BS aiming to be active no later than 2018.
  (I don't know what "BS" means in this context, except that it presumably isn't intended to mean what I, at least, and many others usually assume it means. Then again, maybe that roadmap is BS....)
24. Re:What applications? by mwvdlee · 2015-10-04 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  Until we get down to Planck-scale, the pixels are still too "digital".
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
25. Re:What applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  To be honest, as a programmer I often need to use 128 bit integers, I do many calculations with 64 bit integers, and sometimes they need to be multiplied or divided at full precision before being rounded.
  In C this often not a problem since gcc and clang emulate integers of double the maximum native size of the platform.
  However modern languages like D and Swift refuse to use those emulated double width integer. Which means you have to use a large integer library which is probably overkill and slower than using native 64x64->128 multiply instruction for example.
26. Re:What applications? by Pentium100 · 2015-10-04 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  Finally an LCD that will be able to display lower resolutions without (noticeable) artifacts, like a CRT. Now, fix the input lag and black levels.
27. Re:What applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 20:10 · Score: 0
  
  Applications like "viewing with your eyeball actually pressed to the cover glass." You know, real critical ones.
  That is, VR. If you have tried the Oculus Rift or whatever, you would know the individual RGB dots are clearly visible, and that is a 1080p screen. A 4" 8K display would do wonders.
28. Re:What applications? by TheRaven64 · 2015-10-04 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on how far away from it you sit. I had a monitor that resolution and could see artefacts at a comfortable desktop distance (it was above and behind my laptop screen. Now I have a 4K display there, and I can only see pixels if I lean forward.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
29. Re:What applications? by Pentium100 · 2015-10-04 20:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  120Hz is good, 8K native resolution is also good, even if I would not use the monitor at that resolution. One of my problems with LCDs is that they distort the image if the resolutions do not match. CRTs do not have this problem. An 8K 17" LCD also won't have this problem. Whether I would set it to 1920x1200, 1280x800 or 1152x864 (4:3 with pillarbox), the image would look just as nice as on a CRT.
  120Hz means faster image update rate at any resolution (unlike my CRT which can do 160Hz at some low resolution but only 85Hz at 1920x1200, a LCD that does only 60Hz at its max resolution does not get any faster at lower resolutions).
  I am only concerned now with the input lag and black levels, but it seems that one day I will be able to replace my CRT monitor with a similar size LCD (24") that will have higher resolution and none of the annoyances of current LCDs.
30. Re:What applications? by AmiMoJo · 2015-10-04 21:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Panasonic sells 4k monitors of this size in volume to the medical industry, and for engineering work (CAD). It's likely that they will upgrade to 8k soon and use that to spur development of the technology. Those industries will pay 5x as much for a GPU because it is guaranteed to produce correct output (gamers won't notice a single pixel being slightly the wrong shade of green now and then), so it's clear that there is demand from them. They basically want to eliminate any visible aliasing issues entirely, which is also why they pay for very high end printers.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
31. Re:What applications? by Alioth · 2015-10-04 23:15 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  In other words, virtual reality. The problem with the current VR headsets like the DK2, is you have effectively a 1080p display that fills most of your field of vision, in other words, yes - you can see the pixels and they are pretty big. The screen door effect is also pretty bad. Text is very difficult to read using the Rift DK2 unless the text is very large.
  Developing very high PPI displays will be a real benefit for VR headsets. Tne next crop (the Vive/SteamVR and Oculus CV1) have better resolution (IIRC it's something like 1200 pixels vertical) and probably will have much less of a screen door effect, but the resolution really needs doubling at least for a VR headset to truly feel HD.
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
32. Re:What applications? by Alioth · 2015-10-04 23:17 · Score: 2
  
  Oculus Rift DK2 is already 1080p vertical resolution, but it's nowhere near enough. The next versions will be about 1200 vertical which will help. Really the displays in the headsets need to be approaching 4K for a full-on-HD experience.
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
33. Re:What applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 23:23 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  No, the idea is that the pixel density is so great that the pixels are not even on your mind.
  But that is already true with current retina displays. Even 4k is total overkill for a 17 inch monitor. You won't notice the difference.
  This is only true in Apple marketing land. Apple retina marketing has misled a lot of people into believing that their "retina" displays match the maximum resolution of human vision, but they do not. This page details how we can see 530 ppi at 20 inch viewing distance, which is higher than even the display this story is about: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
34. Re:What applications? by tomxor · 2015-10-05 00:29 · Score: 2
  
  My monitor is 22" 1080p and I don't see pixels.
  Your monitor has < 100 PPI
  The only reason you don't perceive pixels is due to anti aliasing or because you're using it as a TV.
35. Re:What applications? by azcoyote · 2015-10-05 00:51 · Score: 2
  
  Remember to use gold plated connectors to get the best visual fidelity.
  I've been getting 8K resolution for years just by jamming my Denon Link Cable directly into my eye socket to interface with the optic nerve. It only hurt the first few times.
  
  --
  Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
36. Re:What applications? by mr_mischief · 2015-10-05 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  In Japan "BS" referring to TV means broadcast satellite, as opposed to broadcast from terrestrial towers.
37. Re:What applications? by michelcolman · 2015-10-05 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Apple found a pretty good solution to this. The retina displays use a coordinate system where integer coordinates correspond to double pixel boundaries. So with the same coordinates, everything looks the same size as before but just gets sharper. The size of menu bars, icons, etcetera is still the same number of "points" but twice as many pixels. Little or no programming effort required.
38. Re:What applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-05 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  You can't expand an area to inspect unless you are already suspicious of that area.
  If an x-ray image is 50MP (I have no idea, but let's just say for sake of argument), you can't expect a doc to scroll around the whole thing on a 1920x1080 display. You'd expect them to have perhaps a 40+ inch display with the highest resolution possible. They can detect problems much faster and with a greater degree of accuracy.
  This has been true since much-better-than-full-HD on CRT displays in days of yore.
39. Re:What applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-05 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  If you're honestly stuck on a CRT there is no help for you.
  There are dozens of products that will give you everything you want, and more. CRTs are hight voltage, high freqency analog electronics that degrade. Badly. There is no possible way any CRT currently operational has characteristics that are desirable.
  You're just willfully ignorant. Or stubborn. Likely both. You also need glasses.
  Yes. You do. There has never, ever, ever been a CRT fabricated that has a pixel pitch that even approaches 2015 consumer grade 100 dollar TN LCD pixel size. You can crank up the res, but all you will see is blur. (Ironically this blur simulates the effect that we need 8k displays for)
  What you are experiencing is nostalgia and confirmation bias.
40. Re:What applications? by del_diablo · 2015-10-05 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  >There are dozens of products that will give you everything you want
  Thats why one starts a argument like that by listing said products.
  Examples would need to have a few specific qualities like:
  -Being able to run 480p/i without degrading quality
  -No input lag
  -Black and white levels
  -Saturnation levels
  So far, the first point is a very huge problem. LCD has no scaling capabilities, before you reach a 4-5x resolution. The second problem is a huge one, since there is no industry standard for it, so there is no way of avoiding it.
  BW levels can sorta be solved by OLED, which is neat.
  Saturnation levels is a huge problem. The general trend seem to be for LCD's to either low degrade on view angle, good saturnation, or okay white levels.
41. Re:What applications? by azav · 2015-10-05 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'm typing this response from a 17" Mac laptop right now.
  Daily, I work on a 15" MBP Retina, but I hate the fact that the screen is so small. I need a Thunderbolt display right next to it for decent display of the content.
  Yeah, I want to see 17" displays again too. Badly.
  
  --
  - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
42. Re: What applications? by Coren22 · 2015-10-05 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  The human eye however has a maximum resolution that's not about to change anytime soon without genetic engineering,
  
  Yeah, and we are still nowhere near max resolution.
  http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
43. Re:What applications? by wirefarm · 2015-10-05 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  As a biological research scientist, let me tell you that this will have *lots* of applications.
  You have no idea how bad a typical computer display looks when you stick it under a microscope.
  
  --
  -- My Weblog.
44. Re:What applications? by Pentium100 · 2015-10-05 07:18 · Score: 2
  
  On a CRT:
  Black levels are better - the black part of the screen emits as much light as a monitor that's completely off.
  There is no input lag, at all.
  1440x900 looks just as nice as 1920x1200, no scaling artifacts.
  The colors do not change, no matter the viewing angle.
  Now, the last part is taken care of by the 8K display, now just the input lag and black levels remain.
  "Contrast" is a bit different. Some monitors claim to have high contrast, but actually have really crap black levels, it's just that at full brightness it is as bright as a 60W lightbulb. I do not need that. I need the black color to be black, not gray.
  Which is actually one of my complaints about my new plasma TV. I bought a plasma TV (one of the last) because the black levels are better on a plasma. Still, compared to my CRT TV the black levels are crap (so, an LCD would be even worse), however, it turns out that it is possible to adjust them by turning some potentiometers on the power supply board - I am waiting for the warranty to expire and I will adjust it.
45. Re:What applications? by AK+Marc · 2015-10-05 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  The first hit for a Panasonic got a result for a $30k 30 inch monitor. That's got a few specialized uses, but I have QHD in a 5" screen for under $500 on my phone, to think that it's almost 100x as much to get the same DPI in a 4x larger screen seems insane. 4k laptop screens should be the norm, but I have trouble finding a laptop that matches my 5" phone, in any screen size.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
46. Re:What applications? by AK+Marc · 2015-10-05 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Why are you using a microscope on a display, rather than sizing up the image on the display?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
47. Re:What applications? by wirefarm · 2015-10-05 11:09 · Score: 2
  
  If I did that, what would I do with the microscope? I just finished paying for it
  
  --
  -- My Weblog.
48. Re:What applications? by stoatwblr · 2015-10-05 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  1440dpi is regarded as the minimum print resolution for glossy magazines. Many of the upmarket ones use higher densities than that....
49. Re: What applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-08 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  . Windows has laughable high-resolution support (and Linux doesn't fare too awesomely either
  I have a 4k laptop and I disagree. Unless you're talking about Windows XP and Linux distros from that era.
ok, but... by m.dillon · 2015-10-04 11:37 · Score: 1

Why ? At normal viewing distance I can't see the pixels on my 28" 4K monitors.
-Matt
1. Re:ok, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  Head-mounted VR displays.
2. Re:ok, but... by locopuyo · 2015-10-04 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  I can, but I have 20-10 vision. But I suspect you could actually tell the difference if you had 20-20 and you set a 28" 4k and 8k side by side. Even if you can't quite discern an individual pixel you would probably still see some aliasing until you get 2x or even higher pixel density than an individual pixel is discernible at.
  
  --
  The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
3. Re:ok, but... by jones_supa · 2015-10-04 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  Why ? At normal viewing distance I can't see the pixels on my 28" 4K monitors.
  Because it happens to be possible, and people love big numbers. Hardly many need 32 GB RAM either, but there are suckers that build gaming machines with 32 GB.
4. Re:ok, but... by mwvdlee · 2015-10-04 19:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure if you studied still images, trying to find the differences, you'll find some.
  But what if it's a moving picture or you're just trying to read text; does it make any difference in real-world use?
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
5. Re:ok, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 20:03 · Score: 0
  
  If you want to read text on an moving object on your screen the most important factor is frame rate.
  I've seen a demonstration from the BBC of an HD monitor driven at 300 fps together with a camera doing the same.
  It makes night and day difference, details on moving objects become very crisp as your eyes are now able to smoothly track the image traveling across the screen.
6. Re:ok, but... by mr_mischief · 2015-10-05 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  Real-world use for lots of people includes looking long and hard at still images. Graphic artists, medical imaging specialists, photographers, archivists, and more. Not everyone needs the highest end for their everyday use. That's okay. Not all of us drive an Indy car or fly from city to city in an F16 either.
7. Re:ok, but... by mwvdlee · 2015-10-05 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Those people just zoom into images, which is much easier and clearer.
  If you need to lean into your screen to see details, you're doing it wrong.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
8. Re:ok, but... by mr_mischief · 2015-10-05 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  You can't see the whole image if you have an 4k image on a 4k screen and zoom in. You very seriously can't see all the data from an 8k image on a 4k screen. In graphic arts, a person might be making content for a 30-foot tall video billboard. A doctor might want better resolution of a full MRI, and then zoom in even finer. There's no dichotomy here. You aren't going to lose zooming.
Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI by fleabay · 2015-10-04 11:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Any monitor would crack at 510 pounds per square inch regardless of the Hz.

--
PlanetVulkan.com
1. Re:Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI by grim4593 · 2015-10-04 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  That would be psi not ppi.
2. Re:Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI by sexconker · 2015-10-04 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Not a CRT.
3. Re:Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI by Urquhardt · 2015-10-04 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Suggest you turn on your sarcasm detector.
4. Re:Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI by Noah+Haders · 2015-10-04 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  What if the monitor weighed 2000 lbs and sat on a base that was 2"x2"?
5. Re:Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI by Khyber · 2015-10-04 13:46 · Score: 2
  
  "The symbol for "pounds per square inch" units is "psi" not "ppi". You dumb fuck."
  Those are letters and abbreviations, not symbols, you dumb fuck.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
6. Re:Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI by fnj · 2015-10-04 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  A letter is a symbol, you ... oh wait, I'm not playing this game.
7. Re:Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 15:58 · Score: 0
  
  Now get back to sticking your dick in your retard sister.
  ppi = penises per ... dammit I can't think of a good 'i'
8. Re:Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI by evilsofa · 2015-10-04 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  ppi = penises per ... dammit I can't think of a good 'i'
  Only because you haven't watched enough porn. Individual, innocent, insertion, interview, Italian...
9. Re:Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 16:45 · Score: 0
  
  Now get back to sticking your dick in your retard sister.
  Just because you do it does not mean that everyone else does it.
10. Re: Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 21:17 · Score: 0
  
  Your best response was "I know you are but what am I?" Wow, what a fucking burn.
11. Re:Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 21:44 · Score: 0
  
  whoosh
12. Re:Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI by TeknoHog · 2015-10-04 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  Any number of Pounds Per Inch would actually create a ginormous pressure, given the infinitesimal area of one inch.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
13. Re:Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI by NoBrakes58 · 2015-10-05 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Then you'd still be 10 psi short.
14. Re:Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI by Khyber · 2015-10-05 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, no. Psi used in engineering and science is denoted with .
  I think you need to go back to fucking your sister - see I don't even have one, which shows your own utter retardation.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
15. Re:Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI by q4Fry · 2015-10-05 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Pounds per inch could be a spring rating. Newtons per meter is arguable more useful, but if you want to use non-SI units, you can.
16. Re:Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI by Khyber · 2015-10-05 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  Also, pounds and inches aren't metric, so there is NO SI SYMBOL in the first place.
  But engineers use the Greek letter Psi for air pressure. At least those with any classical education.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Not wasted by alvinrod · 2015-10-04 11:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Before anyone goes around calling this pointless, the Japanese (as well as many other Asian countries) character system benefits from a higher resolution more than the writing systems used by most all Western countries. The symbols are far more dense, which makes the additional resolution more useful.

Here's a good image that shows off that difference that additional resolution can achieve.
1. Re:Not wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 11:51 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Well, no, it doesn't. I appreciate the logic of what you are saying, but it is based upon the premise that anyone will be able to tell the difference!
  550ppi is silly high pixel density. Silly. Very, very silly. There is no one, except a mutant, and alien, or someone with a bionic eye that is going to be able to tell the difference between 550 and say, 300ppi.
  The only real value of this is saving a graphics card, or CPU some effort in converting 8k down to 4k or 1080p.
2. Re:Not wasted by viperidaenz · 2015-10-04 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  I can see the pixels on my phone if I look carefully. I don't have the best eyesight either.
  It's screen is 423 ppi. 5.2" 1080p
3. Re:Not wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 12:06 · Score: 0
  
  That extra apostrophe must be like an ice pick in your eyes, then?
4. Re:Not wasted by drinkypoo · 2015-10-04 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  The only real value of this is saving a graphics card, or CPU some effort in converting 8k down to 4k or 1080p.
  There's no value in that, because scalers are very good now. But the human eye can tell the difference between 300 and say 600 dpi, to which 550 is close enough, especially when viewing images with a lot of stippling. For photographs, the difference will be imperceptible.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
5. Re:Not wasted by jensend · 2015-10-04 12:29 · Score: 0
  
  Sure you can, by holding your phone at a viewing distance WAAAY closer than would be comfortable for a 17" monitor. The real question is not pixels per inch but pixels per degree (or per radian) at normal viewing distance. And there is no way on earth 500 ppi makes any sense at the >2ft viewing distances normal for a monitor.
  If you view your phone, your monitor, and a movie screen from distances that allow them all to occupy similar viewing angles, then it makes sense for them all to have similar resolutions, not similar PPI.
  Just as a matter of basic freshman physics (Rayleigh criterion) humans do not have the optical hardware to see sub-arcminute sized detail. 4K pixels are arcminute-sized at IMAX viewing angles. So there is little or point to display resolutions or content-delivery video formats beyond 4K.
6. Re: Not wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  Come on. Japanese characters at 4K at 27" is way more than ample. 8k at 17" is just silly. This isn't for desktop computer / laptop usage. It's probably industrial
7. Re:Not wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  I love resolution/ppi examples shown using lower res/ppi displays. It must be true!
8. Re:Not wasted by Visarga · 2015-10-04 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  Now that we have good enough screen resolution, maybe we can make a phone that lasts for a full day. That would be sweet.
9. Re: Not wasted by bmo · 2015-10-04 13:07 · Score: 2
  
  >It's probably industrial
  Or medical.
  X-rays are sent 'round the hospital not on film these days, but as files. 7-8 years ago XGA flat panels and similar were pretty standard at RI Hospital. The thing is, when you have a fracture that is the head of your radius pushed into your radius, it's very difficult to see the actual break with that fuzzy resolution (because it looks normal). After going home with some Oxycontin (urgh, never again) I had to take the actual films to my orthopedist who put them on a wall mounted light-table and then it was plain to see. Even my untrained eye caught it.
  If it was an 8k display at RI Hospital, they would have seen it.
  (there is nothing you can really do for that kind of fracture anyway except to use a sling when the pain gets irritating - if a doctor puts a cast on you in the ER, go to your ortho and have it cut off the next couple of days, or else you're looking at surgery on your elbow later (my ortho told me this and he was right)).
  --
  BMO
10. Re:Not wasted by Kjella · 2015-10-04 13:16 · Score: 2
  
  Back in the real world, The Martian was mastered in 2K and hardly anybody noticed. I have a UHD monitor and using RAW still photos I can tell the difference between a photo natively cropped to 3840x2160 and one that's between downscaled to 1920x1080 and back at my typically sitting distance but you need to watch some fine detail. There's no way I'd see anything past 4K. In theory a person with 20/10 vision (yes, they do exist) sitting in the middle of a large screen cinema should be able to see 7K, but that's only when trying to read one of those eye charts at maximum contrast.
  Most of the comparisons you see are not apples-to-apples comparison, they show you one 4K screen and one not-4K screen and surprise surprise the one they want to sell looks much better. I look forward to 4K BluRay though, in addition to resolution with HDR, Rec. 2020 and 10 bit color it will improve contrast, colors and banding All three of those are probably just as noticeable as the change in resolution, though I suspect it'll take a while before we have TVs that can take full advantage of it.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
11. Re:Not wasted by jaa101 · 2015-10-04 13:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Just as a matter of basic freshman physics (Rayleigh criterion) humans do not have the optical hardware to see sub-arcminute sized detail.
  Yes, they really do. Arcminute resolution is only 20/20 vision (by definition) whereas more people manage 20/15 (corrected, better eye)[1]; that's 45 arcseconds. Almost 1% of people manage 20/10 or 30 arcseconds.
  Staying with 45 arcseconds, viewing distance to see the pixels on this display is then 9". If it were a 4K display of the same size the number would be 18".
12. Re:Not wasted by AHuxley · 2015-10-04 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  Even older movies can get cleaned, 8K scan of the original negative depending on the decade scanned in.
  So the huge back catalogue of classics is just another generation of scanning and cleaning away :)
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
13. Re:Not wasted by ChrisMaple · 2015-10-04 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  In scanning old movies, we're coming up on the limits imposed by film and lens resolution. 8k may provide benefits for movies made with the utmost care, but I'd guess most movies won't provide additional quality beyond 4k scanning.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
14. Re: Not wasted by Clsid · 2015-10-04 14:50 · Score: 0
  
  I think you are confusing image capture resolution with image display resolution. Retina grade displays are more than enough for what you are describing provided you have a very high resolution image.
15. Re:Not wasted by frnic · 2015-10-04 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, you are wrong, there is an excellent reason to have 8K displays - to sell them. The exact same reason we have always sold on spec's. Most people buy based on "mostest". Because, well they are told it is best...
16. Re:Not wasted by TechyImmigrant · 2015-10-04 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  I saw the Martian 3 hours ago. At no point did I look at the screen and consider the resolution of the images. Whatever it was, it was sufficient to see people and stuff. The people and stuff interacted in way that rendered an adequate but not awesome movie.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
17. Re:Not wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 16:05 · Score: 0
  
  back in the day (Apple Laserwriter II vs HP Laserjet days) it was subtle, but easy for me to see differences in laser printouts done on a 300 dpi vs 600 dpi, with "normal" text - 10 or 12 pt typefaces. But I have to be looking for it, and it just doesnt matter in practice for just about everything anymore.
18. Re: Not wasted by bmo · 2015-10-04 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are confusing image capture resolution with image display resolution.
  It doesn't matter what image image capture resolution you have if your display resolution is orders of magnitude less.
  So no, I'm not confusing the two.
  >I said 7 years ago
  'Splain to me how RI Hospital had access to Retina display resolution. Give three examples.
  I'm pretty sure it is you who are confused.
  --
  BMO
19. Re:Not wasted by Solandri · 2015-10-04 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  Back in the real world, The Martian was mastered in 2K and hardly anybody noticed. I have a UHD monitor and using RAW still photos I can tell the difference between a photo natively cropped to 3840x2160 and one that's between downscaled to 1920x1080 and back at my typically sitting distance but you need to watch some fine detail. There's no way I'd see anything past 4K.
  I use a projector at home on a screen 14 feet away to project a 150" image (about 11 ft x 6.5 ft) in FHD (what I assume you're calling 2k). It sucks. It's blurry in general, and in bright scenes with little motion or with computer images (I play games on it too) you can see the individual pixels. I cannot wait for 4k projectors to come down to a reasonable price so I can replace it. And no, I don't have super-vision. I haven't had an eye exam in 2 years and I estimate my vision is currently about 20/30 with astigmatism.
20. Re: Not wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 17:20 · Score: 0
  
  I know nothing about this hospital you mention, but there were some very high resolution displays commonly sold to radiology departments 8+ years ago. They were often grayscale only and higher dynamic range. Things like the IBM "big bertha" LCD but without an RGB mask on them, so each of those sub-pixels was a separate grayscale pixel. They might have cost as much as a small car, but then that was peanuts compared to the MRI, CT, X-ray and image archive systems they were often sold with...
21. Re:Not wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 17:27 · Score: 0
  
  I guess I do have pretty good vision (when corrected by my glasses) as I see individual pixels on my 40" FHD television if it is showing a computer desktop. Or if the media computer outputs 1080i signal as 1080p just by merging two fields, I clearly see the combs which are one pixel-width alternating lines fringing anything that is moving in the scene. And this is at about 10 feet away, sitting on my couch across the small living room.
22. Re:Not wasted by hcs_$reboot · 2015-10-04 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  , the Japanese (as well as many other Asian countries) character system benefits from a higher resolution more than the writing systems used by most all Western countries.
  Yeah, but what's the point having a resolution greater than what the human eye can resolve? IOT, if the human eye cannot see the difference between 4k or 4000k what is the point of 8k?
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
23. Re:Not wasted by mwvdlee · 2015-10-04 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  Ironically, the "3mm" markers use a font that is roughly 3x the size of the strangely un-anti-aliassed fonts rendered in the image.
  Zoom your browser to ~50% and imagine the characters are even smaller than that; do you consider text of that size to be reasonably readable even from a 4800dpi print?
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
24. Re:Not wasted by mwvdlee · 2015-10-04 19:40 · Score: 0
  
  The example image given by grandparent renders fonts at the equivalent of ~3pt; unreadably at any dpi.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
25. Re:Not wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 20:16 · Score: 0
  
  I went to the eye doctor for some issue and she measured my vision to be 20/10, interestingly enough I wear glasses and I was 40 years old at the time.
  Yes it means I could read the fine copyright print underneath the eye test :-)
  I always thought I had normal vision or even worse because I was wearing glasses.
  It probably explains why I see the difference between 2k, 4k and 8k displays, I've actually seen those at broadcasting tradeshows.
  I've also seen HDR monitors used with cameras, I wasn't completely impressed yet, but that could be because of the capture device was not high dynamic range enough. The image had a grey glow on it as if the brightness was turned up to much. Could also have to do that no tone mapping was being done since it is for monitoring purposes not for pretty pictures.
  8k displays are amazing, but it causes hyper reality since everything can be sharper for object close by and far away as it is projected on a single focal plane. Very dream like.
26. Re:Not wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 20:17 · Score: 0
  
  It looks to me like neither of the sets of characters in that image are antialiased. Antialiasing helps in exactly this situation - it would probably let the lower-resolution character set look indistinguishably good from the higher-resolution set in this case.
27. Re:Not wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  Well, no, it doesn't. I appreciate the logic of what you are saying, but it is based upon the premise that anyone will be able to tell the difference!
  550ppi is silly high pixel density. Silly. Very, very silly. There is no one, except a mutant, and alien, or someone with a bionic eye that is going to be able to tell the difference between 550 and say, 300ppi.
  The only real value of this is saving a graphics card, or CPU some effort in converting 8k down to 4k or 1080p.
  Apple has mislead a lot of people with their retina marketing into believing human vision has lower resolution than it really has. This article details how the human eye can see 530 ppi at 20 inch distance, which is *higher* than the display in this story. http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
28. Re:Not wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 23:48 · Score: 0
  
  , the Japanese (as well as many other Asian countries) character system benefits from a higher resolution more than the writing systems used by most all Western countries.
  Yeah, but what's the point having a resolution greater than what the human eye can resolve? IOT, if the human eye cannot see the difference between 4k or 4000k what is the point of 8k?
  The human eye can see 530 ppi at 20 inch distance, which is higher than the display in this story (source http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html). Apple retina marketing has mislead a lot of people.
29. Re:Not wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-05 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  8k might be pretty close to pointless on photos and video, but it's not pointless on high-contrast vector graphics.
  I have a "Retina" Macbook Pro with 15" 2880x1800 panel, and it is not hard to say that reading text on this display causes drastically less eyestrain than on a 1920x1080 display of the same size. The benefit is undeniable, unless your eyesight is really different from mine.
  But this is still only a start! Grab a vector document with black non-vertical/horizontal hairlines on a white background, and no matter what sort of a renderer you use to view it, the resolution of the panel and its' pixel grid becomes nauseatingly apparent. Surely one can live with it, but claims that we would have reached point of no benefits on display resolutions can't hold, if I can see these artefacts without specifically looking for them.
  My personal bet is that there are real benefits to be seen on 15" panels at least up to ~8k resolution. Of course, there are technical issues to be solved, such as pixel apertures, but claims of "no improvement" simply don't make sense. On some source materials, limitations are still quite glaring on 4k resolution, and I am financially interested to pay for these limitations to disappear, instead of living in an artifact-ridden "good enough" world.
30. Re: Not wasted by bmo · 2015-10-05 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  >but there were some very high resolution displays commonly sold to radiology departments 8+ years ago.
  Which did not make their way to the ER department.
  >as much as a small car
  And this is why.
  --
  BMO
31. Re:Not wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-05 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  As long as I don't have to buy this, yet another grandiose waste of hardware, I don't care how they specify the limitations of the box. All displays are inherently limited. 4K?, 8K? That is a limitation to me, not an advancement. Get your shit straight retards.
32. Re:Not wasted by Zeroko · 2015-10-05 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  I printed out some documentation in a 2pt font, & I definitely could read it. (I have no idea what it was for any more, but I did not want a bunch of pages to carry around...I think it came out to 2 pages front & back at that resolution.)
33. Re:Not wasted by mwvdlee · 2015-10-05 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, it'll still be readabe, but not in any comfortable way.
  You say you did it to fit more on the paper, which means you'd normally print larger.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
34. Re:Not wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-05 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  The font size at that image is at most 7 pt. I think most Japanese expect 10-12 pt (16 x 16 pixel grid) from their fonts on a standard computer screen at the stupidly low 96 dpi.
  Even compact 'bunko' books (A6 paper, 105×148mm) use around 8-9 pt fonts.
  Also, you don't generally need to see every stroke in the character to know which one it is. You discern a lot of words by the character shapes and the context (previous and following characters). Just like fluent readers of latin scripts only 'read' the outline of the word -- not a single letter at a time.
  Third, characters with that many strokes are pretty rare since the post-WW2 language reform in Japan. The average kanji character has 5-12 strokes. Anything over 20 is rare. Traditional Chinese characters (Taiwan, Hong Kong) tend to have loads of strokes though.
  Fourth, the characters in that screen shot are 'wasi-taka ga mau sora.' Sky where the eagles and hawks whirl. I'm not quite sure how the first word is pronounced -- it's not in my dictionary. It's 23 + 24 strokes for eagle and hawk, and 15 for the kanji for 'mau'. The final character, 'sora', has 8 strokes.
35. Re:Not wasted by BadDreamer · 2015-10-07 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  I have 20/10 on one eye and 20/12 on the other. I'm hardly an anomaly. I didn't notice that The Martian was mastered in 2k, because it was a movie. I had other things to focus on than the detail sharpness.
  When I'm working in front of a computer screen things are different. I do not directly perceive the individual pixels, but I clearly notice that text is fuzzy and that colors bleed on my 1440p 27" screen at home. At work I have a 1080p screen and it's even worse. An 8k screen would help with this a fair bit, even if I'd probably start noticing the same thing after using such a screen for a while as well.
  TV is really a side track. Yes, it's nice that we get better resolution on movies and TV shows, but where it really makes a difference is in productivity work. I'd love to have an 8k screen when I work with writing, for example. And right now I'm drawing some fairly complex network diagrams - more resolution would make me work faster, as I could keep zoomed out yet read what the labels say. I can't do that on a measly 1440p screen.
Direct Link by jaa101 · 2015-10-04 11:54 · Score: 3, Informative

to the company's press release.
16:9? by ArchieBunker · 2015-10-04 11:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

If it's 16:9 ratio I'm not interested. You can pry 16:10 displays from my cold dead hands.

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
1. Re:16:9? by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2015-10-04 12:46 · Score: 2
  
  You work in windowed interface. When the pixel density goes up, the importance of aspect ratio goes down.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
2. Re:16:9? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 12:52 · Score: 0
  
  4:3 was just fine with me. The extra vertical resolution is nice, as most documents are vertically oriented. Particularly paper-based documents can be displayed side-by-side perfectly. Additionally, if you are editing full-sized video or the like you have room for toolbars and the like as well.
  But everyone knows the real reason they went with 16:9; it was because it is cheaper to just have one screen resolution everywhere.
3. Re:16:9? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 13:36 · Score: 0
  
  If it's 16:9 ratio I'm not interested. You can pry 16:10 displays from my cold dead hands.
  Uh, I don't think that means what you think it means.
4. Re:16:9? by ChunderDownunder · 2015-10-04 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  pro-tip: dual external monitors.
  One landscape, one rotated for portrait.
  I am studying at university. Portrait is great for viewing most documents for print except when book chapters from the library are scanned in landscape in 2-page view. Landscape is fine for web pages that wrap text horizontally but not so much when they have fixed width margins for ads on the side.
5. Re:16:9? by wwalker · 2015-10-04 18:48 · Score: 0
  
  Do you mean 8:5?
6. Re:16:9? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 20:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No, he means 16:10. You may think you're awesome remembering grade school math, but comparing 16:10 to 16:9 is more intuitive, even for geniuses like you.
7. Re:16:9? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-05 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  I like to think of them as 1,25 (5:4); 1,33 (4:3); 1,5 (3:2); 1,6 (16:10); 1,78 (16:9) etc.
  I think I'd most like a 3:2 screen. It's a good compromise between widescreen video and real work. 1536x1024 pixels or something. That would be a whopping 20 % larger than my current screen.
8. Re:16:9? by orgelspieler · 2015-10-05 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not the only one who does this?! It's great when I have a document to read while making a presentation (among other potential task combinations).
  OT side-note: I like to use my background to cycle through family photographs. The problem with our setup is that it makes it hard to do that (at least on Windows). If you set "Picture position" to tile, you can do it. But depending on how you set up your screen alignment, you have to mess with the way the pictures are arranged in the background. For instance, I have the screens bottom-aligned, so my background photo on the portrait is split so that the top X pixels of the photo are on the bottom-right of the background jpg.
So how long by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 12:03 · Score: 1

Until Apple copies this and calls it Retina Hyper HD?
Can we get it in Android tablet form? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 12:13 · Score: 0

Can we get it with a fast 64 bit Android tablet?
Windows support for scaled interfaces is patchy, all those legacy apps designed to work at 96 dpi were never designed to scale, and it shows! This is why a lot of Windows 8 and 10 tablets are still 1280x768 pixels at logical res of 96dpi!
Android does a much better job of supporting high resolution displays. So the only main stream OS that could use it is Android.
We use Android for our professional trading platform, and we need more screen inches and more pixels, and this seems to be perfect.
1. Re:Can we get it in Android tablet form? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  Can we get it with a fast 64 bit Android tablet?
  Why would you waste a perfectly good display like that?
2. Re:Can we get it in Android tablet form? by ChunderDownunder · 2015-10-04 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  some people like hamburger grease all over their touchscreen!
What interface ? by x0ra · 2015-10-04 12:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

4k already needs DisplayPort 1.2 to be able to push data at 60Hz. What interface can conveniently push 8k at 120Hz ??
1. Re:What interface ? by x0ra · 2015-10-04 12:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  doing the quick math, 4k@60Hz require 14Gbps of bandwidth, so 8k@120Hz should at least be able to push 112Gbps... Not anytime soon.
2. Re:What interface ? by Lost+Race · 2015-10-04 12:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  According to my calculations, 7680*4320 pixels * 24 bits/pixel * 120 Hz equals about 95 gigabits/second. Wow.
3. Re:What interface ? by Overzeetop · 2015-10-04 12:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  DP 1.3 is 32.4Gbps (25.92Gbps net through after overhead) which is sufficient for 8k/30Hz full 24bit video at ~25Gbps, and 8k/60Hz using 4:2:0 subsampling. That's clearly not ideal for a computer screen, where you would want 4:4:4, but is probably good enough for nearly any screen up to about 40-50" (and likely on towards 100") regardless of distance when reproducing video (moving) content.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
4. Re:What interface ? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 13:01 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  eDP 1.4a allows for a single link of up to 16 lanes at HBR3.
  That's 103.68Gbps usable, enough for 7680x4320/120Hz 24bpp without any chroma subsampling shenanigans.
5. Re:What interface ? by Crypto+Gnome · 2015-10-04 13:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  http://arstechnica.com/gadgets...
  
  Apparently Embedded DisplayPort (eDP) 1.4a is claiming enough bandwidth and functionality to support 8k@60Hz, and in Feb this year they were expecting products to be available in 2016.
  
  "Embedded" means the spec is for laptop/tablet/phone and other all-in-one type devices (eg iMac).
  
  --
  Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
6. Re:What interface ? by Whiternoise · 2015-10-04 14:47 · Score: 2
  
  Could you multiplex several ports? Skylake is capable of driving 3x4k monitors at 60Hz. In principle there's no reason why you couldn't treat each quadrant of the display as a separate screen and send the relevant pixels to it (assuming rendering at that speed isn't a problem).
7. Re:What interface ? by Shadow99_1 · 2015-10-04 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  As someone with a Skylake chip when I just last week rebuilt this machine... It may theoretically be able to power 3x 4k monitors, but I seriously doubt it could do much with them once it did. My new gear didn't like my old Radeon HD 6970 I wanted to use with it, so since I built it I've been running it's integrated GPU. Tomorrow a new shiny Radeon R9 390 arrives though and that... I can see doing something with multiple 4k screens.
  
  --
  we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
8. Re:What interface ? by AmiMoJo · 2015-10-04 21:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Consumer 8k is still a few years out. NHK, who invented it, are planning to start broadcasts in time for the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo. To that end they are ignoring 4k completely so they can concentrate on 8k.
  It's a big project. As well as 8k capable interconnects for consumer products, they need to develop new cameras (manual focus is far too difficult to be practical at that resolution, and current auto-focus is inadequate), new editing equipment, new make-up and sets, and of course a new broadcasting system that can compress ~100Gb/sec+ of data in real time and send it over existing channel bandwidth, for reception on a basic wideband antenna.
  Oh, and it supports 22 channel sound, but it's not clear if that will be used for broadcast.
  I saw a demo of it years ago and it was amazing. Really something else, incredibly life-like.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
9. Re:What interface ? by MTEK · 2015-10-05 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  superMHL
  The six lane version supports 8Kp @120Hz and 4:2:0 36-bit color
10. Re:What interface ? by antdude · 2015-10-06 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  I'm waiting for holograms. :P
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Phones are higher density by viperidaenz · 2015-10-04 12:23 · Score: 1

Like the LG G3 with 2550x1440 resolution in a 5.5" screen, giving 538ppi
It came out in June 2014
What can actually drive an 8k display at 120hz?
DisplayPort 1.3 only supports 60hz 8K with 4:2:0 sub sampling
1. Re:Phones are higher density by Overzeetop · 2015-10-04 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  Which brings up an interesting point. Desktop machines struggle to drive 4k monitiors with hundreds of watts of graphics power. Phones (like the G3) drive their QHD displays with a total thermal envelope of about 5W. Even scaling up, 9 phones is 45W to drive this many pixels. Why the disconnect?
  (note this doesn't really address the connection - phones get ultra-short cables and small total pixel counts compared to this)
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
2. Re:Phones are higher density by ChrisMaple · 2015-10-04 14:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Graphics cards in computers draw most of their power doing lighting calculations for games, many calculations for each pixel. Phones just pass along pixel information from the source material, with nothing more complicated than scaling going on.
  Even a high end computer video card uses a lot less than maximum power when it's doing as little work as a phone does.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
3. Re:Phones are higher density by viperidaenz · 2015-10-04 14:22 · Score: 2
  
  Desktop machines don't struggle at all. The phones will just be rendering 3D at a lower resolution and upscaling it.
  If you do the rendering at 720p and upscale it to 1440p... perhaps with a bit of filtering or anti-aliasing, it will still look good on a 5.5" screen.
4. Re:Phones are higher density by Troed · 2015-10-04 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  Or the just announced Sony Xperia Z5 Premium - 3840x2160 5.5" screen with 806 PPI.
  806.
  http://www.sonymobile.com/glob...
  
  --
  it's in my head
I'd rather have bigger displays by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 12:33 · Score: 0

The older I get the bigger the display I need so that I can see more code at the same time. Also, would be nice if the display uses less energy than before.
Monster cable already supports it by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2015-10-04 12:40 · Score: 1

You need to have solid gold conductors to support this kind of quality in display. Sure, it is digital transmission with automatic error correction, but with the $7999 per meter Monster HDMI cable every one is a perfect straight line and every zero is a perfect circle. True videophiles can tell the difference. If you don't pay for it, you are just confessing your inferior vidophilabiltiy.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:Monster cable already supports it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 14:24 · Score: 0
  
  You don't need solid gold. Anyone who uses monster cables knows this. Maybe if you took an electronics course, you would realize that your anti snob, snobbery of monster is ill informed. For the record, I've been using monster cables on my bose 901's for over 20 years and have yet to see a problem.
As someone who deals with architectural drawings by Overzeetop · 2015-10-04 12:53 · Score: 2

Wow - this would be great...though in a larger size - say 60ish inches; enough for a 30x42 plan at nearly 150 dpi with room on the side for toolbars. Throw in a wacom/n-trig digitizer interface and a stand that lets me mount it like a drafting table and I'd be in heaven.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Blind as a Bat-Man by PopeRatzo · 2015-10-04 13:48 · Score: 1

I wish I could see the difference between a regular display at and 4k one. 8k is just too damn many pixels.
I should have listened to my Ma when she said not to sit so close to the TV screen, but Julie Newmar as Catwoman was too much to resist.
http://www.julienewmar.com/ima...

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:As someone who deals with architectural drawing by ChrisMaple · 2015-10-04 14:23 · Score: 1

this would be great...though in a larger size - say 60ish inches ... that lets me mount it ... I'd be in heaven.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Getting accustumed to bullshit. by geekmux · 2015-10-04 14:39 · Score: 1

"...We've become accustomed to our smartphones having super-high ppi (pixels-per-inch); 5.5-inch 1080p phones are 401 ppi, which is well past the point that humans are able to differentiate individual pixels."
It would seem that due to this the only thing we humans are getting accustomed to is believing the marketing hype and bullshit.
Your next cell phone will have sonar and infrared capability...not that you'll be able to see or hear any of it, but that won't matter. Somehow vendors will assume we asked for it, and therefore justified a $3000 cell phone price. It's all about the bells and whistles these days.
what about more realistic displays? by Wycliffe · 2015-10-04 14:45 · Score: 0

Just like we have reached the end of usefulness for Gigahertz as the deciding factor for cpu, we're coming to a point where more pixels is pointless. I would much prefer more realistic displays. I want a display that can display an image that looks like you are looking out a window. There is still a huge difference between a window and a display. I'm waiting for the day where I can put fake "windows" in my house and look out over the grand canyon.
1. Re:what about more realistic displays? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 17:37 · Score: 0
  
  The problem there has many parts, all studied in VR research for decades.
  A flat rendering meant to emulate a real view needs to be tracking the viewer's eye and be rendered for that perspective. Each eye needs its own perspective to represent stereoscopic effects properly. This needs to be fast enough to keep up with your movement or you get the VR-induced nausea or just lose the suspension of disbelief. Ask for the display to support multiple viewers at once and now it needs to track all their eyeballs and somehow produce that many different views. The ultimate limits here are either goggles for each eyeball or some kind of lightfield emitter that can flood the room with directed photons just in case an eyeball happens to be viewing from any particular vantage.
  Also, the resolution needs to match the best part of the eyeball or else track the extremely quick movements of the eye to provide sufficient resolution to the fovea while spending less effort on the periphery. This is much harder than the basic eye-tracking problem above for stereoscopic display.
  Also, the dynamic range needs to be quite large if you expect to represent a window at different times of the day with real sunlight and shadow, or subtle twilight and starlight effects.
2. Re:what about more realistic displays? by BlueTemplar · 2015-10-04 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  Or you need a display being able to replicate the whole of a light field, like an hologram.
  (I'm talking about *real* holograms here, not fictional Star Wars volumetric display "holograms")
  Significant progress has been done in recent years in creating actual holographic displays on which the image can be changed :
  (as compared to non-changing holographic "prints" like this one : https://www.youtube.com/watch?... )
  http://phys.org/news/2013-06-c...
  http://phys.org/news/2015-02-f...
  http://phys.org/news/2015-02-h...
  (though you'd need a mighty good graphic card to push 45 billion pixels per second?)
Re:As someone who deals with architectural drawing by geekmux · 2015-10-04 14:52 · Score: 1

Wow - this would be great...though in a larger size - say 60ish inches; enough for a 30x42 plan at nearly 150 dpi with room on the side for toolbars. Throw in a wacom/n-trig digitizer interface and a stand that lets me mount it like a drafting table and I'd be in heaven.
Nope, sorry. We reserve only our best 8K displays for nothing larger than a 6" screen.
Yeah, fuck all that actual useful shit we could use this technology on, we need 8K smart phones for Instagram filters obviously. Oh and Candy Crush.
A total non-article article by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 16:47 · Score: 0

Article barely even discusses the display and only in large generalities at that.
Why by Brad1138 · 2015-10-04 17:11 · Score: 1

Why?

--
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
1. Re:Why by bdubSOv1iKIJ403M · 2015-10-04 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  Even if something like this is totally worthless, its' existence should make the eventually make the midrange 2k @ 17"- 25" displays, cheaper than they are today. And I could certainly use a few dirt cheap 2k desktop displays.
A step towards presence. by DMJC · 2015-10-04 17:48 · Score: 1

Good, now we need the screen to be 5" and we'll finally be ready for VR.
That's not beyond human vision by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 18:33 · Score: 1

No, 401 PPI on a phone is not "well past the point that humans are able to differentiate individual pixels". Unless of course you're either old or have some other kind of condition that prevents you from having better than 20/20 vision even with glasses on. It's a myth that 20/20 vision is "perfect", it's actually the bare minimum for adequate vision.
While there is no consensus on a single magic number, there are plenty of studies showing that people with excellent vision can discern beyond 900 PPI with a smart phone at 30 cm (the distance used by Apple when talking about their "retina" displays).
1. Re:That's not beyond human vision by geekmux · 2015-10-05 00:04 · Score: 0
  
  ...While there is no consensus on a single magic number, there are plenty of studies showing that people with excellent vision can discern beyond 900 PPI with a smart phone at 30 cm (the distance used by Apple when talking about their "retina" displays).
  No consensus? Where do you think we got the notion that 20/20 vision is the gold standard of perfect vision from?
  We can easily find a consensus or common ground and determine what the average consumer can discern on a smart phone display. It's called decades of vision testing across a few billion people. And yes, average vision is more than enough, so let's drop the conversations about the fraction of the population that can see a fly on a horses ass at 500 yards and call this what it is; marketing hype and bullshit.
  When we reach this conversation again at the 16K or 32K display point where there will be little argument that pushing the technology further is pointless due to the human eye, do you honestly think manufacturers will suddenly stop? Perhaps you can take a break and grab a pair of 100,000 Hz headphones and "listen" to some music while you think about how reserved marketing and manufacturing can really be...
2. Re:That's not beyond human vision by robi5 · 2015-10-05 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  By this logic, why did print resolutions go past 300dpi? There is no reason at all to expect monitor resolutions to stay inferior to print resolutions.
  Also, no matter what the averages are from however many billion measurements, there's always a market for those who are more discerning than the average.
  Btw. 20/20 never ever meant perfect vision, and, given the variation in the anatomy of the eye, probably there's no such thing.
3. Re:That's not beyond human vision by geekmux · 2015-10-05 02:08 · Score: 0
  
  By this logic, why did print resolutions go past 300dpi? There is no reason at all to expect monitor resolutions to stay inferior to print resolutions. Also, no matter what the averages are from however many billion measurements, there's always a market for those who are more discerning than the average. Btw. 20/20 never ever meant perfect vision, and, given the variation in the anatomy of the eye, probably there's no such thing.
  There's also a market for diamond-encrusted cars and solid gold toilets. And I don't have an issue with marketing to that, as it can be very profitable. What I find issues with is when 8K displays become the baseline standard for smartphones when literally no one is driving that demand, and yet we all pay the price for this excess. New cell phone prices aren't dropping, and we're already seeing this concept in cars with the new "base" model coming with more standard features than fully-loaded models of yesteryear. The concept of "options" has become exactly that; nothing more than a concept.
  The inherent problem with allowing vendors to define (or create) demand is consumers finding the cost of everything increasing, and due to features we never asked for to begin with. The problem becomes exponentially worse when the tech lives and breathes inside a monopolistic vacuum, with collusion defining the price consumers will ultimately pay no matter what.
  Perhaps my argument will become clear when we find vendors still pushing for resolutions beyond 3000DPI on 32K screens. Believe me, they don't even have a half-assed reason to stop at where human capacity drops off when profit is the name of the game.
4. Re:That's not beyond human vision by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-05 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  genius, there's a difference between 300 dpi which are black and white pixels and monitors which allow for anti-aliasing and sub-pixel positioning.
5. Re:That's not beyond human vision by robi5 · 2015-10-05 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  > There's also a market for diamond-encrusted cars and solid gold toilets.
  Nice strawman, but comparing 600dpi and 1200dpi printing to solid gold toilets is excessive... like solid gold toilet excessive. And yes there's a market for that, but let's consider that niche and leave it at that.
  Of course your flawed point above doesn't mean that the essence of your previous post is invalid, as evidenced by how Intel introduced the Pentium 4 at the time - competing on just the PR metric of the CPU frequency. But in the big scheme of things, the market rectifies it... as with the case of the Pentium 4 :-) Not only that, but also, we're still on the same frequency where the P4 peaked, and it didn't stop sales; progress shifted to parallelism and efficiency.
  With displays, sure, it would be good to increase the color spectrum, lower the power consumption, make it thinner or less fragile, make it transflexive, or holographic, etc. Some of these (e.g. color spectrum, response time, thin borders) do show various levels of improvement over time. But, as with semiconductors, one of the low hanging fruits is miniaturization, i.e. trying to do essentially the same thing on a finer scale. If I can increase product sales by quadrupling the resolution less expensively than I can by increasing the color spectrum by 10% then I'll do the former.
  This doesn't mean that resolution is the only thing. But it's on the uptick now since the initial iPhone, through the retina iPhone, to the 400-600dpi Androids. I don't choose a 600dpi phone over a 400dpi phone if its BOM is a lot higher (i.e. the street price is slightly higher). But some stuff scales more with physical size than resolution, once that resolution has become mainstream. The LCD is somewhere in the range of $20 per phone so don't worry much.
  What's good however is that we're getting past the desktop resolution winter. Back in the last millennium it was easy to get a CRT with a resolution of 1600x1200 and more was possible. Then the age of desktop LCDs came and it made almost everyone stuck at 1920 x 1200 or worse, for almost twenty years. My 13" Thinkpad 600 from 1997 had a resolution of 1280 x 1024 and then for almost 20 years, laptops with 1366x768 and some FHD ruled. So it's high time that desktop and laptop users benefit from what the mobile users benefit from: pixels that are hard or impossible to make out. The ultimate threshold is not what's invisible individually. It's useful to go a couple of times past what the human eye can't see even in proximity, because that'll eliminate the need for aliasing, and it'll allow smooth upscaling of whatever content (try to upscale a 800x600 desktop to 1024x768 lots of distortions unlike upscaling to 1600x1200 - round multiple - or some random large 6439x4389 - indecipherable pixels).
  It's not true that there's no utility to progress even if you don't need that resolution today. For example, VR requires incredibly high resolutions. Technology always works by realising gains via exploiting low hanging fruit, economies of scale, mass market etc. - only then can new technologies proliferate, as they don't need to pay for the entire tech tree from the discrete transistor or LED up to whatever we have now. VR is an expected future application, and there may be future unexpected applications, the same way the Web wasn't really anticipated by Babbage.
  You personally may be content with a phone with state of the art internals but a low res screen. You can buy an iPhone with a 326dpi resolution and the fastest mobile CPU/GPU on Earth. Or you can buy a non-flagship Android. But if you find that you can't buy the phone of your high general expectations and low DPI, then maybe you're the niche market. Maybe they'll cater for such niche markets the same way you can buy diamond studded cars. Features need to be in some balance and even in this niche, you can probably buy a diamond studded Ferrari more easily than a diamond studded Yugo.
Gigahertz just hit a wall by grimJester · 2015-10-04 20:32 · Score: 2

It's still a useful measure of speed; it just hasn't improved in a while.
Less pixel density than the Galaxy S6 by Craggles · 2015-10-04 22:35 · Score: 1

Which has 577 ppi pixel density
"1440 x 2560 pixels (~577 ppi pixel density)" on a 5.1 screen.
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s6-6849.php
Close to enough for the latest DSLRs by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 23:36 · Score: 0

The recent release of the Canon 50megapixel 5Ds/r means we can now take photographs that are a bit over 8k pixels wide. The screen is arguably the best match to that camera :-)
Basic un-maths by Pope+Raymond+Lama · 2015-10-05 00:22 · Score: 1

Is it just me that was completely "shoot this guy off the internet", when TFS multiplied "4k by four yet once again" to get to 8K??

--
-><- no .sig is good sig.
1. Re:Basic un-maths by michelcolman · 2015-10-05 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it's just you. Everyone else understood that 8K doesn't just mean 8000 pixels per horizontal line (give or take a few) but also twice as many of those lines. Both horizontal and vertical resolution are doubled. We're not talking megapixels (that would be "M") but horizontal pixels.
Primary developer? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-05 00:51 · Score: 0

Ho Lee Phuk
Fix the stuck pixel problem first by kriston · 2015-10-05 02:50 · Score: 1

This is nice, but what we need is the industry to fix, once and for all, the dead pixel/stuck pixel problem first.

--
Kriston
Resolution confusion by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-05 05:08 · Score: 0

What percentage of HD TV owners listen to LD+Lossy Music?
I project a 1080p display only about 10 feet in front of me and I can see pixels and antialiasing. Therefore I can accept higher resolution video for the consumer.
I also started buying 24bit music and can assure you there's more on most of masters than you might have heard at 16/44. And don't get me started on "lossy", aka, we don't care that it's less, we like it less.
Would you buy a 300dpi printer? by billstewart · 2015-10-05 10:40 · Score: 2

How long ago did 300dpi printing become obsolete? These days I usually print drafts at 600dpi, because laser printers and LANs are fast enough that it's not annoying, and I don't usually explicitly notice jaggies at 300dpi, but you can still tell that the higher resolution looks better, if you care.
But that's black and white text printed on dead trees, not screens. Sure, it's harder to notice minor resolution differences with color photographs than with letters that have well-defined edges, and even harder to tell with moving images, but if you're using anti-aliased text on your screen, because it just looks better than non-anti-aliased, that's because you need more pixels. And yes, you've got enough GPU horsepower these days to trade the processing needed for anti-aliasing against the higher screen resolution, but you're doing it because your screen resolution isn't high enough.
I'm using a 17" 1920x1080 screen, and I'd like more pixels. This is generally good enough, with anti-aliased fonts, and the 22" 1080p screen at my office looks surprisingly good, but I'd still prefer 2560 instead of 1920, and the big advantage of 4K would be to have two readable pages side-by-side, which means more pixels vertically. (Sure, 16:9's fine for watching movies, but that's very seldom what I'm using that screen real estate for.)

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I remember this being said about... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-05 11:11 · Score: 0

...800x600 monitors a couple decades ago. Was that you?
Coren22 "security guru" wannabe fails security by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-06 05:00 · Score: 0

YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE vs. threats:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You admit you use admin priv
&
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
---
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?
---
Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!
I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
You told me you learn from guides? I write good ones that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...
+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
You did all that? No & that's a small part of what I could put out.
APK
P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" as far as security
...apk