Sharp Unveils 27-inch 8K 120Hz IGZO Monitor With HDR (monitornerds.com)

Sharp has unveiled a next-gen monitor that is an absolute mouthful. It measures in at 27-inches and features a 8K resolution (7,680 x 4,320), HDR (high dynamic range), and a 120Hz refresh rate. Monitornerds reports: Sharp says that the IGZO name is an acronym for the semiconductor materials used in the monitor's backplane. It is comprised of indium, gallium, zinc, and oxygen. This material can also be utilized with several types of panels such as IPS, TN, and even OLED. The IGZO technology has benefits compared to standard silicon semiconductors in which the electron mobility is 20 to 50 times higher which translates to higher frame rates. It also uses smaller transistors, which translates to higher pixel density as well as lower power consumption. The panel which is show at the Sharp exhibit is a 27-inch model with a very notable pixel density of 326ppi: double in comparison to the average 150ppi of 4K monitors. It has a stunning 33 million pixels under its belt as well as HDR technology which promises that this monitor can deliver stunning images with ease. Sharp didn't disclose a price for the television, nor did they say whether or not the unit will be mass produced. However, we can imagine the monitor will cost a pretty penny if it ever makes it to the market.

Comments

Too small

[geoskd]

You wont be able to read text or tell the difference at that fine resolution and screen size, so whats the point?

Maybe if it were a 50+ inch display I might get excited, but this is just a waste.

Re:Too small

[Anonymous Coward]

While it's true that small ppi fonts would be illegible, that's not really what this is about.

Your visual system (Everything from eyes to optic nerves to visial cortex) is very good at contrast and edge detection. Aliasing and gradient artifacts stick out like a sore thumb.

While you can't pick out two billion colors side by side, you can tell when a gradient transition isn't smooth or when there is patchy spotting in dark areas. The only way to display these things gracefully is having a lot of very small pixels that support a very great range of colors and a great range of brightness levels. The number of pixels need to go /beyond/ your visual perception because information can still be gleaned by averaged neighbors (blurring)

What I want to know is what interconnect they are using. Some new revision of displayport? 8k, high bit depth, 120hz is a staggering amount of data. Can anyone do the math? Aren't we talking 30 gigabit range?

Re:Too small

[wonkey_monkey]

You wont be able to read text

Err... just make the text bigger. Problem solved.

or tell the difference at that fine resolution and screen size

That depends how close you sit to it.

Re:Too small

[Anonymous Coward]

while on the subject, what's with the 120Hz refresh rate? The human eye can detect up to around 30fps. Isn't 120Hz an overkill? Or maybe I'm confusing two different things.

Re:Too small

[ChunderDownunder]

small ppi fonts would be illegible

Then they're doing it wrongly. :) A point is defined as a physical size (e.g. 12 points = one sixth of an inch), not a pixel density. Didn't we solve this 25 years ago with TrueType?

Anyway, to answer the OP's question, because they can. This will require a corresponding quantum leap in video card performance, as you mention.

Re: Too small

[Type44Q]

With those bleeding-edge specs, I'd guess it's a proprietary or semi-proprietary connection that'll be obsolete before the rest of us are even considering an 8k display...

Re:Too small

[Chas]

while on the subject, what's with the 120Hz refresh rate? The human eye can detect up to around 30fps. Isn't 120Hz an overkill? Or maybe I'm confusing two different things.

Actually the human eye can detect differences in refresh rate well above 30fps. And wide variances in FPS (zooming from 30 to 90 and back down) causes its own sort of motion artifacting.

Re:Too small

[Anonymous Coward]

ppi != points

Re:Too small

[Anonymous Coward]

When people misuse 'quantum leap' it bugs me almost as much as when they misuse decimate.
A quantum leap is the SMALLEST possible change in energy levels of an electron. It's such a poor metaphor for large improvements it pains me.

Re:Too small

[Anonymous Coward]

7680 x 4320 x 32 / 8 x 120 = 15,925,248,000

So just over 15 GBytes/sec uncompressed.

With compression, still a GB/sec or more.

Re:Too small

[Espectr0]

The human eye can see way beyond 30 fps, even over 60. Find a videogame like mafia 3 which is capped at 30 fps, then go play something else like the new Doom you will see the difference

Re:Too small

[swb]

From what I can figure, a 50 inch monitor is the point.

I'm probably going to pull the string on a 40 or 43" 4K TV as a monitor replacement because it will be useful at 100% scaling at that size screen and 4k resolution.

1920x1080 is like Fisher Price dot pitch on a large screen and approaching less useful on anything over 24".

Re:Too small

[ChunderDownunder]

Yes I know that. But like I was saying, I thought we solved that a long time ago with vector font formats such as TrueType.

Re:Too small

[ChunderDownunder]

Sorry, I was referring to the Scott Bakula TV show.

Re:Too small

[Anonymous Coward]

no, you just bought into console makers bullshit about how they cant make anything 60 fps so they just tell you "you cant even tell the difference so why bother"

Re: Too small

[Kjella]

Actually I read about this in another article and it has 8 DisplayPort connectors in the back, probably acts like a video wall to the computer. As far as I know there's no single connector that can do this even at the prototype stage.

Re:Too small

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, carry on then.

Re: Too small

[Anonymous Coward]

2K laptop screen is already 'retina display' as apple would say: pixels are small eniugh that you don't see them pretty much

anything smaller is just a waste of gpu

Re:Too small

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to know. Apparently I confused the max human detection rate with the rate needed to achieve fluidity of motion.

Re:Too small

[guruevi]

OP is using Windows. Any other OS has never experienced the issues. It's funny that even though Windows 10 can detect a HDPI now, the scaling of it's fonts is uneven that even the configuration panel has items that look 150% enlarged and bold while others are 'correct'.

Re:Too small

[Kjella]

The human eye can see way beyond 30 fps, even over 60. Find a videogame like mafia 3 which is capped at 30 fps, then go play something else like the new Doom you will see the difference

Games are not a good test because they don't do motion blur, they have variable rendering rates and your perception is more tied to the length of the input feedback loop than the actual motion. If you take some silly high frame rate video like 1000 FPS and blur frames together to produce lower FPS video you'll find that most people cap out around 35-40 FPS. Not if you drop 24 out of 25 frames, that'll look choppy as hell like low FPS in a video game. But 25 frames blurred together to make one will be near visually transparent, people aren't able to pick out the individual frames. Of course this assumes theoretical screens that don't suffer any form of ghosting, in the real world you actually want a bit higher FPS to compensate. But for the cinema experience I think HFR movies with 48 FPS is roughly as smooth as it gets. You can certainly see object that appear for a shorter time, but you can't say if they were there 1ms or 2ms or 5ms.

Re:Too small

[zippthorne]

Didn't we solve this 25 years ago with TrueType?

We did not. All of (or now, some of, but that's really kind of worse) operating system widgets assume and use pixel-based font-sizes. At the OS level, you can specify to use a different pixel size, but UI elements will have mis-sized features and cropped text if you do that, so it's made to be a pain to do, with the exception of certain features of specific applications.

Re:Too small

[zippthorne]

Quantum of Solace, however, was (presumably accidentally) actually appropriately named - when do you actually see Bond have any solace in that movie?

Re:Too small

[Anonymous Coward]

We have solved this with TrueType.

That is the whole "point" of TrueType fonts.

Re:Too small

[zippthorne]

Eh, try this test then:

Look at a picture in the picture viewing app on your monitor at 1:1 resolution. Then, drag the picture left and right. Alternately, look at a web page with smooth scrolling turned on and.. scroll.. it.

If your monitor is 60hz or less, you will almost certainly be able to notice the issue. I submit that 120hz is not enough make moving a static picture around look like you're simply moving a static picture around.

Re: Too small

[Anonymous Coward]

Er,it will be good enough for the public,there are plenty of people in the world that no matter how good the graphics system is,they always know what is going on in front of their eyes,that's why VR will fail,the human body and brain takes data from all sorts sensors and experiences to do what it does with the human visual system,until people realise this and start to work with the entire bodies systems,then it's all just more twinkley little lights in front of eyes...

Re:Too small

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pull the string"? What are you, a cat?

Re:Too small

[Psicopatico]

Didn't we solve this 25 years ago with TrueType?

I solved this 25 years ago with myopia and astigmatism.

Re:Too small

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I was referring to the Scott Bakula TV show.

What does this have to do with Star Trek Enterprise?!

Re:Too small

[Dogtanian]

Quantum of Solace, however, was (presumably accidentally) actually appropriately named - when do you actually see Bond have any solace in that movie?

The title would imply that he was getting the smallest possible amount, but that would still be more than none. Anyway, I'm not sure that this doesn't count as a quantum of "solace", if not a lot more. :-)

Anyway, yeah. The title of the film was a bit of a contrivance (especially given the criminal organisation was apparently called Quantum), given that it was taken from an entirely different short story by Fleming that only had the character of Bond in common and wasn't even really about him per se; but in which context the title made complete sense.

Re:Too small

[serviscope_minor]

Depends what you mean by cap out. The eye isn't a fixed frame rate sensor. It's fearsomely complex, and perception is mixed up with tasks etc.

For example, I can, it could detect flicker in my peripheral vision up to about 80 Hz. I tested that with a Matrox card plugged into an SGI monitor (only the Linux drivers would enable sync on green), so clearly my eyes can perceive things that fast to some extent. I also find leaving shots in films have a thunk thunk thunk effect which is uncomfortable to watch. It lessens with blur but never looks quite right.

Your rods and cones respond at different rates, and so your rod heavy peripheral vision is less sensitive to color and lower resolution, but much faster and good in low light. But it's worse. Hold your hand out at arms length and give the thumb's up gesture. See your nail? That's the size of your high resolution vision. You build up an image by scanning that all over the place, which means that while full field vision can be roughly captured at 50 ish Hz, you can see small bits much faster.

Re:Too small

[Greyfox]

Displays for VR still have a long way to go to get rid of the screen door effect. That might be what they're pushing toward.

Re:Too small

[Anonymous Coward]

Currently I have a 40" 4K (Crossover 404) and quite like it. I do find that as screen sizes go up, I want to dim them down more, so being *flicker-free* (see PWM) becomes important in the monitor you pick.

Re:Too small

[flargleblarg]

small ppi fonts would be illegible

Then they're doing it wrongly. :)

No, they aren't. "ppi" here doesn't stand for "points per inch"; it stands for "pixels per inch."

There are always 72.27 points per inch. Always. (Unless you're using PostScript, in which case there are 72 points per inch.) So "small points-per-inch fonts" is essentially meaningless, and is not what they meant.

Re:Too small

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm reading this on a 5K iMac, and I can't see the pixels even when I look up close for them. 8K? Why?

Doing the needful

[edittard]

It measures in a 27-inch

What does it measure in there?

Re:Doing the needful

[Quirkz]

Underwear, obviously.

Re:Doing the needful

[rubycodez]

Well consider that in the US bra cup sizing system, difference between measuring torso around breast and under the breast difference is used to determine cup size. If the difference is 4", that's a D cup size, 5" is E (or DD) and 6" is F (or DDD). O size is cup for 15" difference. A Z cup would be for 26 inches of difference. So this 27" is just one more inch of breast measurement bigness beyond the hypothetical Z hooter holder. I trust this makes everything quite clear.

Re:Doing the needful

[ChrisMaple]

On Beyond Zebra.

Good luck

[Anonymous Coward]

To drive this monitor, you'll need at least one of these:
- for gaming, you will need a GPU that will not become available for another five years
- for local playback, a playback device capable of driving the display and 8K videos
- for streaming, a playback device capable of driving the display and 8K videos and an internet connection that isn't available where you live and/or an internet connection that you cannot afford and/or a monthly cap that will be gone before the title even shows up in the movie

Re:Good luck

[darkain]

WALP, I'm half way there with the unmetered gigabit FTTH! Now I just need to upgrade from dual-1080p displays to this thing, and buy a whole new computer, again, which I just did a month ago.

Re:Good luck

[Anonymous Coward]

To drive this monitor, you'll need at least one of these: - for gaming, you will need a GPU that will not become available for another five years - for local playback, a playback device capable of driving the display and 8K videos - for streaming, a playback device capable of driving the display and 8K videos and an internet connection that isn't available where you live and/or an internet connection that you cannot afford and/or a monthly cap that will be gone before the title even shows up in the movie

You must be upset because you just purchased a low-resolution 4K TV/monitor.

I am quite sure that people said that with 1080p and 4K so give it 2 to 5 years I would love to hear your comments again.

Re:Good luck

[AHuxley]

A single gpu for usable 4k gaming exists in consumer product lines today than is within the price range of savings on an average working wage.
With the next gen 4k games will be fully supported on any game quality setting. 8k playback, sound and gui support would not be that much of an issue later.
An 8K video and sound codec is a set standard that can be coded for on hardware and software.
Fast optical connection do exist in many nations and are cheap per month with different free data caps for media content.
Get the 8K data down at the provider server level with no data caps in a nation and its good.
No need to stream from the US to the world. Each service provider gets a new secure 8K content server and optical back to only a set of their locally networked consumers.
If a provider is really good they could even offer a faster optical speed just for encrypted content over an optical streaming network.
The internet neutrality speed stays the same but the 8K stream always gets fast, perfect network conditions.
Like TV and internet down the same pipe is protected now.

Re:Good luck

[yurikhan]

You’re saying that as if gaming and movies are the only uses for a computer monitor. Or for a computer, for that matter.

Re:Good luck

[Cederic]

Still no 4K TV services in these parts.
Still no graphics cards capable of the graphics fidelity expected by gamers at 4K.

8K HDR would be nice for photo editing. Except it still can't display a 50Mpixel image 1:1 so I may as well just stick with my existing 27" monitor.

Seriously, 8K isn't something to be jealous of. It's something to shrug at, acknowledge the technology behind, reject due to its simple impracticality.

Pixel density good for VR displays only

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't see much use for 27 " screens.

Re:Pixel density good for VR displays only

[ChunderDownunder]

I have a 19 and a 21 inch monitor on my desk. I imagine moving the screen back 10cm would compensate, although I might require a broader table!

Bandwidth?!

[ernstp]

The bandwidth needed for that!?

Re:Bandwidth?!

[pushing-robot]

Depends on the color. Normal (24bpp RGB) means around 50GBit/s at 60Hz. HDR may increase the bitrate, chroma subsampling (lower color resolution) may decrease it.

DisplayPort 1.3 tops out at 26GBit/s, barely enough for 30Hz 24-bit.

DisplayPort 1.4 is the same speed but adds compression that should permit 60Hz HDR.

HDMI doesn't currently support 8k at any refresh rate but may be superseded in a couple years by SuperMHL, which supposedly will handle 8K at 120Hz.

Monitor or TV at 120 hz?

[SmaryJerry]

There is an important distinction that needs to be made. One place it was monitor and another it says TV. Which is it?

Re:Monitor or TV at 120 hz?

[duke_cheetah2003]

There is an important distinction that needs to be made. One place it was monitor and another it says TV. Which is it?

These days, it really doesn't matter. Pretty much every TV has HDMI input and appropriate resolution for a monitor. TV just has extra bits for a remote and tuner. Both my 'monitors' are TV's, as in they have remote and tuner, but I just use HDMI input for my PC. Occasionally I'll watch TV on one of them.

Re:Monitor or TV at 120 hz?

[ArylAkamov]

Do you have overscan issues when using a TV with HDMI?

All the ones I have used, I have to manually input a close-to-but-not-quite standard resolution. Right now I'm at 1862x1036.

Re:Monitor or TV at 120 hz?

[Anonymous Coward]

All Samsung TVs can turn off overscan with the P Size button.
I'm sure other manufacturers have that ability somewhere.

Re:Monitor or TV at 120 hz?

[SimonTheSoundMan]

UHD TV standard that is coming to broadcast has to support 120 and 100 fps. This is the second screen to be revealed that will be compatible with the new standards that are coming. Current TVs on the market will not be compatible with what is coming, they may fudge it by giving yo a downgraded image however. Blame TV makers for rushing to the market before the EBU, ATSC etc have ratified their standards, DCI have pushed something through the door with UHD Bluray but misses a lot of good features.

Re: Monitor or TV at 120 hz?

[Anonymous Coward]

Picture size -> Just Scan

At That Size

[Anonymous Coward]

4K, 8K, just doesnt matter... maybe on a 55 or bigger... Also, can we get more 4K content before we start this craziness?

Re:At That Size

[SimonTheSoundMan]

8k isn't coming until 2020. 4k UHD 1 is being tested this year and launched next. UHD Bluray is not the same as the television standards that are coming.

~300 DPI

[DrYak]

You wont be able to read text or tell the difference at that fine resolution and screen size, so whats the point?

If you sit on the other side of the living room ? Yeah maybe.

On the other hand, this screen has a pixel density which is approximately in the ~300 DPI range.
This put it in the same ballpark as eReader (and the various Apple Retina thingies)
Which is a very nice resolution to have for close range.
Which means this can be very useful as monitor on your desktop, to which you sit close and which you use to display tons of small windows.
Basically the equivalent of a multi-monitor setup, but all in a single package.

Maybe if it were a 50+ inch display I might get excited, but this is just a waste.

Which, while keeping the same pixel density, means such a display would be in the "16K" resolution.
As this kind of resolution isn't even declared as a standard, it would be hard to advertise for a television screen.
Which means a sizeable portion of customers to which it could be marketed too (all the "living room" users), in adition to the desktop computers / smart table /etc. crowd.
Which means they probably won't be interested to demo their "300DPI-range technology" at 50"+ sizes until they can manage to market it to the sheeple too.

Re:~300 DPI

[thegarbz]

As this kind of resolution isn't even declared as a standard, it would be hard to advertise for a television screen.

When has that ever stopped a marketing department?

It's 8K and HDR! The advertisement writes itself*

*With a tiny footnote saying that there's no such thing.

Gamers

[JustNiz]

The article makes several references to satiating gamers appetites but this is not a monitor that a gamer would want, at least not for the next 5 years, because even the newest GPU tech isn't ready for this.
Apart from the fact that this monitor needs 8 DP cables (so would require a tri-SLI setup just to connect it), beyond a certain resolution (that we've already reached) gamers care more about FPS and being able to use high quality graphics settings than they care about pixel count. Gaming @ 8k/120Hz is not going to be practical with GPU tech for a few years yet (before anyone claims the nVidia Pascal TitanX could do it, I have one and I know it won't).
I haven't yet seen an 8k monitor in the flesh, but I'm currently skeptical that you'd even be able to tell any difference between 4k and 8k on a 27" screen.

Re:Gamers

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me definitely answer the question of whether you can tell a difference, with this graphic:

http://www.avsforum.com/photopost/data/2089333/4/4c/4cd4431b_200ppdengleski.png

Short answer, no, no one will fucking care.

Re:Gamers

[yurikhan]

The problem with that graph is that its upper limits are completely unrealistic. 60ft viewing distance, that’s, like, viewing across a hall which is 6 standard dungeon cells wide! (And if you stand a 120in monitor on its corner, it will reach the ceiling.)

Find the point at 27in (this monitor being discussed), 2.5ft (normal viewing distance for a *computer monitor*). It’s close to the lower edge of the green 8K zone.

Re:Gamers

[iampiti]

IMO the amount of polygons and quality of textures are much more appealing than increasing the number of pixels that much. I'll take full hd with detailed textures and lots of polygons over mediocre visuals at 8k

Re:Gamers

[JustNiz]

Totally agree.

Re:Gamers

[JustNiz]

I love the way you use "standard dungeon cells" as the most naturally easy-to-visualize unit :-)

Re:Gamers

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me definitely answer the question of whether you can tell a difference, with this graphic:

http://www.avsforum.com/photopost/data/2089333/4/4c/4cd4431b_200ppdengleski.png

Short answer, no, no one will fucking care.

I'm currently siting about 2 feet from a 24-inch monitor. According to that graphic if I scaled my monitors up to 27-inch at that distance then 8k is almost high enough resolution (although I may sit a little further away with the bigger monitors).

Now all we need...

[John Allsup]

Now all we need is some 8K porn to watch on it.

Re:Now all we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you've got some clogged pore fetish you really don't want to look that closely.

Take my money

[Anonymous Coward]

All $500 of it.

Adaptive Sync?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless this has FreeSync, I don't care.... Because any monitor that can do up to 120hz is a "gaming" monitor, and without adaptive sync this is a waste of money (gSync also exists, but I don't like silo'd tech like that)

I'll take three.

[Chas]

Let me just cough up $24,000...

look at the dimensions

[FudRucker]

and at 120hz i bet you wont need a space heater in a cold room with that monster

It's a beast

[MTEK]

8K120+HDR is something like 15 GB/s (capital "B"). Anandtech reported that it has eight DisplayPort cables feeding it.

Re:It's a beast

[Gravis Zero]

The obvious solution is to move to using a fiber optic cable... which is actually what is used for all the absurdly large displays.

Re:It's a beast

[AmiMoJo]

There must be a new HDMI version in the works, as they are going to have consumer products on sale for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

This monitor is probably aimed at professional use, editing and the like. Last year they started testing live recordings in 8k but viewing on mostly 4k equipment. The cameras are incredible - they have to use auto focus because the human eye looking at a small camera mounted screen isn't good enough.

Re:It's a beast

[MTEK]

There must be a new HDMI version in the works

While I wouldn't rule that out, superMHL, which was announced over a year ago, can handle the bandwidth requirements. Lattice Semiconductor already has superMHL products ready for next-gen A/V receivers, and you may see it in graphics cards as early as 2018.

I'm ready for 8K

[Early Six Digit UID]

I'm completely ready for 8K. Having several completely readable terminal/text editing windows open along with documentation and other media or doing cartography/other visual media creation would be awesome at 8K. Right now I'm using a 34" 3440x1440 monitor and it's still somewhat grainy. I welcome displays so fine that I can't see the pixels. Once I can get an 8K @ 60Hz display for $1500, I'm going on a spending spree and replacing all of my monitors at home.

IGZO sounds too much like VIZIO

[JoeyRox]

The latter being an off-brand supplier of cheap flatscreen TVs. Sharp might want to rethink their name/branding for this technology.

Re:IGZO sounds too much like VIZIO

[Anonymous Coward]

This. I've worked for twenty-two years for a company that is partially owned by the same family that owns Sharp, so we have to buy their TVs. They're just a disaster. They usually fail quickly. I know in the nine conference rooms in the location where I work, we've replaced every Sharp TV in the past three years because they're just so unreliable. They need to distance themselves from the Sharp garbage name.

Re:IGZO sounds too much like VIZIO

[AmiMoJo]

They have been using IGZO for years. It's synonymous with the best LCDs available, used in everything from phones to massive TVs.

Re:IGZO sounds too much like VIZIO

[Jesus_666]

Those don't sound anything like each other. If the name is similar to any other manufacturer's it'd be Eizo. Not a bad brand to be confused with (which Sharp won't).

Re:IGZO sounds too much like VIZIO

[thegarbz]

Sharp might want to rethink their name/branding for this technology.

It is neither branding nor is it Sharp's technology.

It's a semiconductor material: indium gallium zinc oxide. It was developed over 10 years ago and is licensed to both Sharp and Samsung, though it looks like Samsung have yet to use it for anything.

Re:IGZO sounds too much like VIZIO

[thegarbz]

[Citation needed] While IGZO was licensed to Sharp and Samsung 4 years ago I have yet to hear it make its way into a single product.

Re:IGZO sounds too much like VIZIO

[AmiMoJo]

Literally the first result on Google is a thread from 2013 asking about the merits of IGZO panels: http://www.overclock.net/t/144...

They have been around much longer than that, just read the Wikipedia article.

Re:IGZO sounds too much like VIZIO

[thegarbz]

Yes and the only information in that entire thread is:
"Sharp makes some smaller IGZO-TFT panels - 4k at 23.6'' (LQ236D1JG01) and 5k at 27'' (LQ270D1JG01) but I don't know which monitors are using them (yet)."

It is also the only google thread comparing the technologies where if you type IPS vs PVA or OLED you get thousands of pages with in depth and detailed comparison between them.

So do you know of a monitor with this technology? Because the main thing Google is bring up is today's story.

"Math is hard." -- Barbie

[Anonymous Coward]

Under what system of mathematics is 7680 = 8K?

7680 = 7.5K (7.5x1024 - the K that computer nerds know and love)
7680 = 7.68k (7.68x1000 - the metric k that marketers use to make their dicks^Wdisks seem bigger)

Neither of those is close enough to 8K to reasonably call it 8K. You might as well get pissed that your C-average kid didn't make the honour roll.

Even the poltroons who pimp UHD TVs as 4K will grudgingly admit, when confronted, that when they say "4K" they actually mean "UHD". Is there a QUHD label out there? (Quad Ultra-HD. Or, since HD is only 1280x720, it would more accurately be QUFHD: Quad-ultra-full-HD.) Or "QQFHD"? (Quad-quad-full-HD) Or maybe "OFHD"? (Octo-Full-HD)

Re:"Math is hard." -- Barbie

[ChrisMaple]

"K"is a variable. In this case it equals 960.

Re: "Math is hard." -- Barbie

[John Allsup]

More simply, 7680=8000 to one significant figure.

Re: "Math is hard." -- Barbie

[Anonymous Coward]

More simply, 7680=8000 to one significant figure.

Will you sing the same song when they re-double it, announcing a "16K" display that's only 15360 pixels wide? And then a "32K" display that's only 30720 pixels wide? Dogs need to be trained not to poop in the house. Marketers need to be trained not to exaggerate.

Okay...

[Carewolf]

I have been defending 4K screen against those claiming it doesn't matter, but THIS, this is stupid..

Something else

[ChrisMaple]

Instead of this, how about a 4k - 40 inch - 60 Hz. - wide gamut display that costs less than $1000.

Re:Something else

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a Phillips BDM4065UC last year for around $900 through Amazon.
4K, 40", 60 Hz.

Text is still a bit small at 1:1, but mouse wheel zoom works in the browser.
Glad I got one last year, I thought I was overpaying as an early adopter at the time.

Re:Something else

[mentil]

There are Sony ones you can buy on Amazon for $650 today.

Re:Something else

[Babel-17]

Sony XBR X800D, 43 inches, 650 dollars, and pretty sweet. I bought one. One caveat is that even the latest HDMI spec doesn't allow 3840 x 2160 at ten bit with 4:4:4 chroma subsampling, it doesn't have the bandwidth. The panel is ten bit but for PC use I had to choose between outputting at ten bit or 4:4:4. Either way looks great, but I went with 4:4:4 (within nVidia's Control Panel. And the Sony itself needs set its HDMI to enhanced output to enable seeing the option for 4:4:4 chroma subsampling in the nVidia Control Panel). But the limitation doesn't feel like an issue for any content I watch. The other minor caveat is that its brightness limitations mean HDR won't be as spectacular with the effects that depend on lots of brightness. You need to spend more money on a bigger set to get that as well, it seems. Great review here: http://www.rtings.com/tv/revie... AVS members owners forum here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/... I posted some of my impressions there.

...a "mouthful"???

[Anonymous Coward]

How about an "eyeful" ??? It's a monitor, not your Mom's dildo.

How about the input lag?

[Z80a]

This is basically the most important measure of any screen used for gaming, but manufacturers completely deny this information from the consumers.
Also getting a decent support to 240p would not hurt.

Re:How about the input lag?

[TheSync]

Most of the TV video latency now is due to pixel processing (such as high-quality upscaling, motion interpolation, and other weird stuff).

Professional displays use 1:1 pixel scaling of the input to reduce latency. But that means you need an HD screen for an HD signal, a 4K screen for a 4K signal.

Now imagine Beowulf cluster of those

[Anonymous Coward]

...

When this is used as a television.....

[BlytheBowman]

Expect people to hook it up to their cable/media box with a composite video cable running at 480i, and setting it up so the picture is a bad case of Stretch-O-Vision (even though the source is in widescreen/letterbox format) with much of the picture cropped out (I've personaly seen way too many cases of this with todays media setups)

Gimme 8K anyday...

[Angeret]

I've noticed a fair number of comments about the silliness of having a small but very high DPI screen - the "Oh, you won't notice the difference so there's no point" type ones. The real world doesn't have a DPI count, so as far as I'm concerned the higher the DPI a monitor has, the better. Put a window showing a pleasant view and a 1080 display dressed as a window showing the same view side by side and you can easily tell the difference. Do it with an 8K display and it becomes somewhat more difficult. Depending on the quality of the display, it may become impossible.

I'm running a 4K 40" monitor at the moment - 4K for the image quality, 40" so I can read what's on the screen when not playing games (with scaled up text because my eyes ain't what they used to be) and get more of an immersive feel when playing games (more game in my FOV, less surrounding wall). Make that an 8K display and give me the video cards to drive it (or *really* good VR) and you'd be hard pressed to make me move from my desk.

Re:Gimme 8K anyday...

[TeknoHog]

I'd like a display with the readability of paper. This means at least 300 dpi, preferably closer to 600, so you wouldn't need the blurring we fancily call anti-aliasing. I won't even start with the lighting/contrast issues...

Re:Gimme 8K anyday...

[Angeret]

Pretty much the Note 7's display - as long as it's not on fire. Doesn't matter if it's light text on a dark background or vice versa, it looks stunning, it looks like you're just holding something printed in very high resolution on smooth plastic. For best results, about 30-40% brightness gives that effect.

I do hope there's not a second recall - I like this phone :)

Re:Gimme 8K anyday...

[TeknoHog]

Pretty much the Note 7's display - as long as it's not on fire.

If it's prone to catching fire, then that just makes it even more like paper :D

Seriously, though, this fad with phones is getting ridiculous. I'm trying to do real work on a real computer, which involves things like a keyboard and displays you don't want to carry around everywhere. Yet all the nicest computing tech is going into phones, which don't even have keyboards, despite most people using them more for writing text than talking.

Mouthful?

[xwhite]

Sharp has unveiled a next-gen monitor that is an absolute mouthful

I think you are doing monitors wrong.

Lower power consumption?

[Anonymous Coward]

It also uses smaller transistors, which translates to higher pixel density as well as lower power consumption.

That would seem to contradict decades of experience with transistor scaling in integrated circuits, specifically: "Leakage increases exponentially as the thickness of the insulating region decreases." 1