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
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
4k already needs DisplayPort 1.2 to be able to push data at 60Hz. What interface can conveniently push 8k at 120Hz ??
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?
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
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.
It's still a useful measure of speed; it just hasn't improved in a while.
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.
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