Slashdot Mirror
Japan Display Squeezes 8K Resolution Into 17-inch LCD, Cracks 510 PPI At 120Hz
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.
to the company's press release.
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.
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.
doing the quick math, 4k@60Hz require 14Gbps of bandwidth, so 8k@120Hz should at least be able to push 112Gbps... Not anytime soon.
According to my calculations, 7680*4320 pixels * 24 bits/pixel * 120 Hz equals about 95 gigabits/second. Wow.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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