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.
I can't wait for this in a laptop. I'm tired of horrible resolution and smaller laptop screens.
Learn to love Alaska
Why ? At normal viewing distance I can't see the pixels on my 28" 4K monitors.
-Matt
Any monitor would crack at 510 pounds per square inch regardless of the Hz.
PlanetVulkan.com
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.
to the company's press release.
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
Until Apple copies this and calls it Retina Hyper HD?
4k already needs DisplayPort 1.2 to be able to push data at 60Hz. What interface can conveniently push 8k at 120Hz ??
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
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
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?
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.
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
some people like hamburger grease all over their touchscreen!
"...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.
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.
Why?
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Good, now we need the screen to be 5" and we'll finally be ready for VR.
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).
It's still a useful measure of speed; it just hasn't improved in a while.
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?)
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
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
This is nice, but what we need is the industry to fix, once and for all, the dead pixel/stuck pixel problem first.
Kriston
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