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.

Comments

What applications?

[AK Marc]

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

Re:What applications?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the idea is that the pixel density is so great that the pixels are not even on your mind.

Re:What applications?

[Darinbob]

Small features, yes. But you *expand* digital images to get a better look. No one's eyes can reliably see details that fine.

Not wasted

[alvinrod]

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.

Re:Not wasted

[jaa101]

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".

16:9?

[ArchieBunker]

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

Re:What interface ?

[Overzeetop]

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.

Re:Phones are higher density

[ChrisMaple]

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.