Slashdot Mirror
The World's First 88-inch 8K OLED Display (engadget.com)
From a report: Come CES, LG will be letting attendees get up close with its new 88-inch 8K OLED display, which is both the largest and the highest-resolution OLED panel to date. But as far as specs go, that's all we have for now. Previously, the largest OLED screen size was 77 inches, and it "only" came in 4K. While this combination is currently offered to consumers by the likes of LG Electronics, Sony and Panasonic, they all source their large OLED panels from LG Display.
How many defective pixels will THIS wonder of the world come with?
slashdot: A failed experiment.
8000x1 pixels?
... as a monitor. Because no videos will be in 8K!
my zx81 has 16k
in metric: 223 cm
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
crap, i just got a 4K television!
I would be impressed if that was 8K vertical resolution. With widescreen displays big horizontal resolutions are not very impressive in my opinion.
And still almost no content
I can watch that youtube clip from from 2015 called Ghost Town in 8k the way it was meant to be streamed. Though I will need a new computer capable of processing it and faster internet to be able to load it.
Just buy a nice 4k projector from Sony or JVC. You'll get a bigger, less expensive picture, and the resolution difference probably won't be as great as you imagine.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
That's 1912 inches smaller than Frank's TV.
#DeleteFacebook
I wonder if I sell my entire body for parts, will I be able to afford this TV set?
At some point, shouldn't we as a society consider doing something else with our capacity for building infrastructure, other than laying fiber to transmit ever higher resolution TV to every eyeball? Roads and bridges are still nice to have.
Considering how its "easy" to get an LCD TV (or whatever Samsung's "quantum dot" actually us) in this size class, its thus far been impossible to find OLED beyond 77" (/w insane price).
As such, I'm very much looking forward to seeing a display like this go into mass production. (Heck, I'd be equally happy if they did it in only 4k.)
Right now, I'm still using an old Samsung 61" back-projection DLP set (a late model, so it actually looks good) and have wanted to upgrade to something bigger for a while (moved and its now in a bigger room). I've been waiting for OLED to scale up and mature, so this is definitely a good sign.
A display comprised of an array of 100 million light bulbs (assuming RGB sub-pixel configuration) does not seem particularly bright idea (pun intended) from a failure standpoint. You'll never be able to manufacture an array with all working pixels they each have a chance of failure and all non-uniformly degrade with use. Anyone who really intends on benefiting from 8k resolution and OLED quality will notice failures of individual elements as sure as they will notice overall steady desynchronization of uniformity resulting in a dirty veneer as light elements degrade at different rates over time.
Technically it is possible to recalibrate displays the same way they were calibrated at the factory by adjusting LUTs for each element yet nobody seems to be offering this capability. I suspect necessary calibration equipment costs at least as much as the display itself.
In the real world you'll take your 88-inch 8K display home and watch highly compressed crap designed to be acceptable to the lowest common denominator like everyone else where the difference between QLED and OLED won't be worth shit.
I saw an article that mentions the viewing distance you need to be from a TV before you can actually see the difference in resolution. For a 1080p display, you need to be at most 3 times the height of the screen away. E.g. for a 55inch screen, that's 3 meters. Any further and people with normal vision won't be able to differentiate between 1080 and 720.
As the resolution increases, this distance reduces according -- double the resolution and halve the distance. So for a 4k screen it's 1.5x the screen height, and for 8k is 0.75x the screen height.
The height of a 16:9 screen is approx half of the diagonal, so in this case ~44 inches. So following the rule above, one would need to be less than 3 feet from the screen in order to appreciate the uplift in resolution.
Basically what I'm saying here is that an 88" screen isn't big enough for my living room!!!
Even on my 60" 4k OLED I honestly can't see the individual pixels unless my nose is right up to the screen.
Besides, there's still hardly any 4K content, let alone 8K.
I can't imagine where you'd find a good source of 8K content that isn't compressed to fuck (so actually no visually better than compressed 4k) or even how you'd play it.
....For media with frame rates invented in the 19th century by Thomas Alva Edison.
Motion blur needs to go. 4K is enough, double the frame rate.
Modern electronics as a whole is pointless.
When the first STN displays came out, there were a lot of issues with non-working and marginal pixels. How often do you see modern phone or TV displays with *any* defective pixels? I don't know if you're old enough to remember TV sets with CRTs - but you'd go to a store and see a wall of them, all displaying somewhat different colours and brightness (even between the same model). A big reason why they went away was because LCDs provided much better colour management at a lower manufacturing cost.
If you think 100 million "light bulbs" or LEDs, which are diodes, is an issue from a failure standpoint what do you think about an i7 processor which has over 700 Million of more complex devices using the basically same technology? What about a 128GBit DDR4 chip?
Back when I did memory testing, two of the things we discovered was that:
a) memory chips are actually analog devices made up of arrays of capacitors with current "gates" (which have PN junctions, like a diode, built in). Which each capacitor and gate having different electrical characteristics.
b) the electrical parameters of each device changes over time.
There was a lot of work done to ensure that these devices work reliably for years within spec and, from the perspective of the user, they were digital devices - why would you think that the same approach wouldn't be done for OLEDs with the end result being a technology that works when required for years on end and provide (moving) images that are superior (in terms of size, density, colour reproduction, black levels and cost).
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
And my projector is still better.*
* for certain values of "better."
I never plan to buy a "TV" again. Don't see the point. Projectors let me decide on the screen size. Can be 45in or 120in or bigger with more light control. I get to decide.
If you like the box to stare at, you can get one of those with a reflective screen on it.
8K at such a low density isn't much more impressive than a 4K at 1/4 the screen area.
Now, 8K at 1/4 the screen area would make an absolutely beautiful display, and I might just be first in line.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
8k, 88" display? For what? Seeing the hairs on a fly? Considering the junk on tv these days, what's the use?
Lots of 8s. Lucky Chinese numbers. ;)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
So I can use them instead of drywall or paneling for the walls inside my house.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
theyre still broadcasting in 720p/1080i. No wonder netflix/amazon/hulu is eating their lunch.
And we have determined that people want big televisions and also want 16 lane highways so we raise taxes and do both.
What's the problem with that?
And it is all couch potatoes.
So why does my phone have higher resolution than my 17" laptop? Even my 2006 laptop (also 17" display) had a higher native resolution. Everything dropped back to "Full HD".
There is no content that comes out at 8k. No BluRay disk, no tv broadcast (or wirecast or whatever). Very little content, and no supported devices. Its a nice idea, but you will be not just be the first on the block, or the first in the city, but the first in your region of the country with one of these, and by the time content catches up (in 20 or so years or more), yours will either be worn out or not meeting the much later standards. If you have a super-high resolution video card on your computer (or can gang two video cards together), you can have an 8k computer monitor. Perhaps something that is used in a mission room where you still want very high resolutions. Apart from that, its a lot of prototype for even more money.
Waste of time and money.
Almost all cameras now produce resolutions above 8K, so slide shows of still images would look fantastic on an 8k TV.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm still waiting for a TV with a true Quantum Dot display. That will beat the crap out of OLED.
The current quantum dot TVs are just LCD TVs with a QD enhanced backlight. But at lease those are letting Samsung perfect the quantum dot tech.
4K UHD (2160p) is a resolution of 3840 × 2160 (16.6 megapixels)
8K UHD (4320p) is a resolution of 7680 × 4320 (33.2 megapixels)
When will we get the 16K UHD, which supposed to be (8640p), with a resolution of 15360 x 8640, a total of 66.4 megapixels?
Let me introduce you to my little friend named celluloid film...
I got the big James Bond collection two Christmases back, and it came with material about making it, proudly showing the huge scanner that went over every frame at 4K. The images were knocked down to "mere" blu-ray. So they can do a 4K version of the box set some time if people will buy. If 8K was going to be a thing, they'll have to haul out the negatives or prints again and run them through THAT scanner. Maybe they didn't because it would not have been worth it, only showing the grains in the film more clearly??
I think Bond films were "mere" 35mm, not 70mm (or 65mm or whatever) that a relatively small number of movies were shot in. I think Branagh's Hamlet was the last one where they bothered with that film stock.
So I suppose they can start shooting in 8K from now on, if cheap enough, but will 8K make a difference to digital versions of older movies?
My all-time fave movie, Apocalypse Now, was one of the 70mm movies. THAT movie, I might buy in 8K if I could tell the diff from 4K, which I suspect I couldn't. If the market is that small, will the tech fly?
I've got the perfect system for you over here, it's an 8 core i8 with 8 extended 88-inch 8K displays, an 8 Terabyte disk, an 8-inch optical drive, and 8 USB ports, 8 pci-e slots, and 8 optical drives... running windows 8, with 8 slightly outdated GTX 880's.