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

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: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: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

[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

[ChunderDownunder]

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

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

[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: 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.

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: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]

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.