The World's First 88-inch 8K OLED Display (engadget.com)

How many defects? by FrankHaynes · 2018-01-01 07:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

How many defective pixels will THIS wonder of the world come with?

--
slashdot: A failed experiment.

Re: How many defects? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 07:13 · Score: 1

But does it matter if you can't see them?
The big ones were annoying back in the day, but these small pixels at anything over 4 feet should be invisible...
Re: How many defects? by DontBeAMoran · 2018-01-01 08:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Dead pixels that don't light up? You'd need a nearly completely 100% white display to notice them.
Defective pixels stuck to "on"? Extremely annoying.

--
#DeleteFacebook
Re: How many defects? by ShanghaiBill · 2018-01-01 09:08 · Score: 1

Defective pixels stuck to "on"? Extremely annoying.
"Stuck on" is extremely rare for OLED. "Stuck off" is common, and most big screens will have a few. But as you say, you won't even notice unless you are OCD enough to look for them.
I saw a big OLED monitor at Costco. It looked really nice. Very bright vivid colors, and the black was totally black. It was also really expensive, so I will wait. I predict that within 5 years, LCD monitors will be in the dustbin of history. Once OLEDs reach price parity, no one will want an LCD.
Re: How many defects? by DontBeAMoran · 2018-01-01 09:50 · Score: 1

I don't want OLED. The quality degrades over time and not equally on each colour.
Posted from my computer with the same VP171s I used for over a decade and still working fine.

--
#DeleteFacebook
Re: How many defects? by dabadab · 2018-01-01 09:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

I predict that within 5 years, LCD monitors will be in the dustbin of history. Once OLEDs reach price parity, no one will want an LCD.
OLED still has a very serious burn-in problem and that just does not seem to go away in the mid term - so no, OLED will not replace LCD in the monitors any time soon.
The burn-in is not that problematic in TVs and OLED is already dominating the high-end - if the prices keep dropping, LCD will be driven back to the lower end of the TV market.
But monitors - I expect seeing mostly LCDs there for a long time.

--
Real life is overrated.
Re: How many defects? by ArtemaOne · 2018-01-01 09:56 · Score: 1

Sounds like Plasma
Re:How many defects? by stephanruby · 2018-01-01 11:21 · Score: 1

The ones at CES won't have any defects. That's how it works. Make a batch of 10,000, send the one or two that don't have any defect to CES. Not that this matters much, it's not like we have any movie filmed at that resolution anyway.
Re:How many defects? by Anubis+IV · 2018-01-01 12:33 · Score: 1

Does it matter? Serious question. A display like this isn’t for precision work. It’s for enjoying the most cinematic experience possible in your palatial estate. At typical viewing distances for a display of this size you’d be hard-pressed to notice any individual dead or stuck-live pixels, even under adverse conditions.
Why look for things to complain about, rather than just enjoying them for what they are?
Re: How many defects? by backslashdot · 2018-01-01 15:17 · Score: 1

Intolerance of dead pixels is why these things are so expensive. That said, I agree we should never be tolerant of them, let them improve manufacturing technology.
Re: How many defects? by iamgnat · 2018-01-01 15:28 · Score: 1

OLED still has a very serious burn-in problem and that just does not seem to go away in the mid term - so no, OLED will not replace LCD in the monitors any time soon.
I've got the 2nd to the last pre-4k 55" LG (3 years old?) and I haven't seen any sign of burn in. It replaced a Pioneer Elite Plasma 50", so I know all about burn in (fuck you NBC logo!).
I read about the burn concern before buying it, but I simply couldn't stomach the piss poor LCD quality after living with true blacks on the Plasma for so long (the refresh is also far smoother on the OLED so I've never noticed that irritating "soap opera" effect either). I generally try to avoid burn in after owning a Plasma, but since every channel likes to have their logo on the screen 24/7 it's hard to avoid the "static" image issue. To my relief, however, I see no signs of burn in at all.
I also have zero dead pixels that they are complaining about above.
My only one complaint is how fragile the damn thing is. The Plasma took some good whacks in it's time and wasn't moved about all that carefully, but it too a small high velocity projectile to take it out. The first OLED had to be replaced a month in after a rather light object deflected wrong and hit the screen. At worst I would have expected a scratch, but it damaged the glass and the panel wouldn't turn on anymore (the Plasma would turn on, but it was useless). Now we treat it with kid gloves which is rather annoying with a 5yr old running around...
Re: How many defects? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 16:02 · Score: 1

I don't want OLED. The quality degrades over time and not equally on each colour.
Posted from my computer with the same VP171s I used for over a decade and still working fine.
I've been using 4k tvs as monitors at my house for a couple years and the biggest issue is that even if you try for a tv with low reflections, you still get a lot of reflections, though it is manageable. I recently found out about this dell monitor 43 lcd
which might be a bit better. Apparently OLEDs are not magically better. As near as I can tell my next computer monitor is going to be something actually sold as a monitor again since they try a little harder for low reflections.
Has anyone found a good solution for low cost 4k monitors that have low reflections? You obviously don't need multiple monitors if you have one big tv. I know the problem with matte surfaces is you basically take a cut in resolution, though in some cases that seems worth it. I suppose you could put a filter in front of the screen. Has anyone tried that?
Re:How many defects? by mikael · 2018-01-01 16:06 · Score: 1

Samsung or Sony will come out with a 88" inch 3D HD SmartTV OLED. Last time I checked the UK Argos catalog, the cheapest TV was £75 and the most expensive was a TV costing around £6500. Highest price now is 75 Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart TV at £3500

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:How many defects? by darkain · 2018-01-01 19:07 · Score: 1

Japan had 8k broadcasts for the Olympics two years ago https://www.pcworld.com/articl...
Re: How many defects? by DigiShaman · 2018-01-02 01:43 · Score: 1

Over the holiday, I was window shopping for a potential new large screen TV at my local Costco. I was thinking 4K "OLED". There was of course, the LG OLED, and then Samsung's QLED (Quantum dot display). Side by side comparison, QLED was far richer in color depth, rendition, and contrast compared with the LG OLED.
Turns out, QLED leverages existing LCD manufacturing infrastructure. If I had to make a guess based on what I've seen, I think QLED will win the TV format. OLED might stick around for mobile devices (maybe), but as far as TV use is concerned, I think it will be another "Plasma 2.0" tech that will fade out of existence.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re: How many defects? by Bengie · 2018-01-02 06:20 · Score: 1

Depends on the defect. I have a live sub-pixel that I can see from ~6 feet away on my 23" 1080p LCD in a well lit room, a funny angle, and glare on the screen. I'm at work.
Re: How many defects? by JackieBrown · 2018-01-02 07:27 · Score: 1

I ended up mounting all my TVs after mine fell on a large doggy bed (pretty much a giant pillow) and the damn thing crushed in the top area. No visible crack but you could definitely see the bump in the screen. And that was the only part of the TV that would light up.
Mine lasted about 3 months before the fall and was my first time in trying to use an extended warranty I bought from Walmart that specifically said it covered accidental drops. What I missed was that it was a general warranty and next to accidental drops, it stated hand held devices only. My fault I guess but is the last TV i buy from Walmart.

This will work! by SmaryJerry · 2018-01-01 07:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

... as a monitor. Because no videos will be in 8K!

Re:This will work! by Wookie+Monster · 2018-01-01 07:37 · Score: 2

...except OLED displays aren't very good for monitors. Although the displays do have countermeasures, static images can still cause burn-in artifacts.
Re:This will work! by Mal-2 · 2018-01-01 08:04 · Score: 2

I have a four-monitor setup specifically so that I can put windows in specific places and then not move them for hours, or even days. Even my LCD monitors start to display "burn-in" with this use, but it disappears after a night powered off. If I had a massive 8K display, I would be doing the same thing: placing windows in various places so that I don't have to swap between background and foreground tasks. I'd probably see damage to the OLED within months, and a screen saver won't do shit if I'm actually using the machine.

--
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Re:This will work! by Kjella · 2018-01-01 08:08 · Score: 2

... as a monitor. Because no videos will be in 8K!
As far as I know Red, Panasonic, Sharp, Canon all have an 8K camera in the $100k range. You also have a ton of cameras between 4K and 8K down to around the $5k range. There's probably a market for these at some high end movie studios, sure there's no consumer format but I hardly expect this to be at a consumer price either...

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re: This will work! by Ogive17 · 2018-01-01 08:22 · Score: 1

I believe Japan is looking to broadcast their Olympics in 8k. The content may not be here yet but it will be by the time the price comes down.

--
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Re:This will work! by ffkom · 2018-01-01 08:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Just look at the sad situation regarding 4k content: The vast majority of even high-budget movies is still produced with 2k digital intermediates, and fake-4k is "derived" from this via mere upscaling.

And amongst the very few productions that actually use 4k digital intermediates, many of them reach that kind of resolution in only a few scenes, when there is outdoor daylight and the picture is not mostly blurred by the "artistic over-use" of unnaturally shallow depth of field (aka "bokeh").

I for one would not expect any sizeable amount of 8k productions that would earn that label anytime soon. Chances are, even if the recording hardware allows for 8k resolution, 8k movies will be even more "fake-8k" than 4k ones are fake already.
Re:This will work! by AmiMoJo · 2018-01-01 08:32 · Score: 1

They started doing test filming and broadcasting last year in Japan, but I don't think you can receive it without special equipment. In any case, the 2020 Olympics will be the first thing widely broadcast in 8k.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:This will work! by ColdWetDog · 2018-01-01 08:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

640 x 480 should be good enough for anybody.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:This will work! by Kjella · 2018-01-01 09:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

Just look at the sad situation regarding 4k content: The vast majority of even high-budget movies is still produced with 2k digital intermediates, and fake-4k is "derived" from this via mere upscaling. And amongst the very few productions that actually use 4k digital intermediates, many of them reach that kind of resolution in only a few scenes, when there is outdoor daylight and the picture is not mostly blurred by the "artistic over-use" of unnaturally shallow depth of field (aka "bokeh").
True, though in their defense releasing a UHD version also gives you Rec. 2020 color and HDR even if the resolution is just an upscale. And in many cases they have gone back to the original film assets for the non-VFX scenes. And there's an increasing trend to do it properly for new films (Chappie, Deadpool, Dunkirk, Logan, Interstellar, The Revenant for example) so... it's getting there.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:This will work! by Chris+Mattern · 2018-01-01 09:20 · Score: 1

640 x 480 should be good enough for anybody.
Non-HD Starcraft forever!
Re:This will work! by donaldm · 2018-01-01 13:44 · Score: 1

... as a monitor. Because no videos will be in 8K!
You have not been keeping up with technology. Tokyo Olympics in 8K resolution. There are plenty of other references for 8K if you care to look.
To be fair I will concede that 8K has very little content available at the moment but then again 4K when it first came out also had little content. Even 1080p content became commercially viable when Bluray (yes I do know about HD-DVD) became the industry standard. Currently in order of the most content for media is DVD followed by HD Bluray (ie. 1080p) then UHD Bluray (ie. 4K).
BTW. Streaming is by far the largest means of display content and in the future (eg. 5, 10, 20?? years) physical media will die out.

--
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
Re:This will work! by Joce640k · 2018-01-01 21:02 · Score: 1

...except OLED displays aren't very good for monitors. static images can still cause burn-in artifacts.
So? I'll just get another one if that happens.

--
No sig today...
Re:This will work! by esonik · 2018-01-02 04:29 · Score: 1

Bokeh is a side-effect of using large aperture lenses, which you need to collect enough light, especially if the light gets distributed on many pixels.
If you want large depth of focus (i.e. less bokeh) you'd have to close the aperture, reducing the amount of light that hits the sensor. That is problematic in low light situations.
Guess what: if you see a real movie shooting you'll notice that they put a tremendous amount of lighting on the scene - for a reason.
The other thing is that depth of focus leads the viewer to focus on the relevant content, not the background and it also creates a bit more depth feeling.

thats 223 cm by polar+red · 2018-01-01 07:39 · Score: 1

in metric: 223 cm

--
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?

Re:thats 223 cm by Joce640k · 2018-01-01 21:04 · Score: 1

If they use metrix they'd have to make it 888cm for the soundbite.

--
No sig today...

Re:What resolution? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 07:45 · Score: 1

8K = 7680x4320

Nothing if value by thinkwaitfast · 2018-01-01 07:45 · Score: 1

And still almost no content

Re:Nothing if value by Greyfox · 2018-01-01 09:56 · Score: 2

It's not too hard to find a 4K camera. I've started to see a bunch of Skydiving/Wingsuiting videos on YouTube in 4K. If Hollywood isn't careful, they'll be overtaken by amateur content in the next couple of years.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:Nothing if value by thinkwaitfast · 2018-01-01 10:41 · Score: 1

Hollywood has already lost to amateur content for the vast majority of content. And there is a very finite number of times Jeb can jump out of a helicopter.
Re:Nothing if value by Greyfox · 2018-01-02 00:06 · Score: 1

You just gotta think outside the box! 4K Wingsuit Porno!

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Projector time by chispito · 2018-01-01 08:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

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!

Re:Projector time by phantomfive · 2018-01-01 10:12 · Score: 2

the resolution difference probably won't be as great as you imagine.
But the color will be better.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Projector time by Shados · 2018-01-01 10:48 · Score: 2

This is an OLED screen, which is all about picture quality. Getting screens this size isn't a big deal. Getting an mass produced OLED TV at this size is.

Meh by DontBeAMoran · 2018-01-01 08:16 · Score: 2

That's 1912 inches smaller than Frank's TV.

--
#DeleteFacebook

Re:Meh by chaotixx · 2018-01-02 04:39 · Score: 1

Right. Call me when I can watch The Simpsons from 30 blocks away.

Question by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · 2018-01-01 08:17 · Score: 1

I wonder if I sell my entire body for parts, will I be able to afford this TV set?

Re:Question by ColdWetDog · 2018-01-01 08:43 · Score: 1

Probably easier than you can afford the bandwidth to download anything longer than an advertisement.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Question by rrohbeck · 2018-01-01 11:57 · Score: 1

Bah. Bittorrent FTW.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:Question by mentil · 2018-01-01 21:48 · Score: 1

Just don't sell your eyes.

--
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.

How much is enough? by Mr.+Jackson · 2018-01-01 08:36 · Score: 1

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.

Re:How much is enough? by ThosLives · 2018-01-01 10:38 · Score: 2

The "market" can only (at best) make profitable decisions, it cannot make wise decisions.
It may not be the case that "government" makes wise decisions, but something other than the market itself is necessary to make decisions based on things other than profit.

--
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Re:How much is enough? by naughtynaughty · 2018-01-01 10:44 · Score: 1

They build roads and bridges too.
It isn't a matter of one or the other
Re:How much is enough? by ChunderDownunder · 2018-01-01 20:00 · Score: 1

Stick free wifi on the subway and you won't need huge upgrades to roads and bridges because everyone will spend their time down under the city!

Looking forward to this by Octorian · 2018-01-01 09:03 · Score: 1

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.

OLED is pointless by WaffleMonster · 2018-01-01 09:06 · Score: 1

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.

Viewing distance by Tomahawk · 2018-01-01 09:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

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!!!

Re:Viewing distance by rrohbeck · 2018-01-01 12:03 · Score: 1

> one would need to be less than 3 feet from the screen in order to appreciate the uplift in resolution.
That sounds perfect on the desk in front of you

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:Viewing distance by mentil · 2018-01-01 21:54 · Score: 1

Such calculations are ubiquitous on the Internet, but AFAICT are full of shit. I looked at a 55" 4k TV in a store from as far away as I could get (maybe 15 feet away) and could still tell in some scenes that the resolution was higher than 1080p.

--
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Re:Viewing distance by TheSync · 2018-01-02 07:34 · Score: 1

Such calculations are ubiquitous on the Internet, but AFAICT are full of shit. I looked at a 55" 4k TV in a store from as far away as I could get (maybe 15 feet away) and could still tell in some scenes that the resolution was higher than 1080p.
The eye has many kinds of "resolution". One is "Snellen Acuity", which is what they measure with an eye chart. It measures your ability to resolve the different between two lines (and thus discriminate between letters). It follows it "3 picture heights for HD, 1.5 picture heights for 4K" rule.
More sensitive is "vernier acuity", this is your ability to tell if a line is straight or not.
So you may feel like an image has more detail with 4K due to vernier acuity even if you are more then 1.5 picture heights away. But you wouldn't be able to discriminate between the smallest possible letters on a 4K screen if you are more than 1.5 picture heights away.

8k is a pointless fad. by JustNiz · 2018-01-01 09:43 · Score: 1

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.

Re:8k is a pointless fad. by TeknoHog · 2018-01-01 10:53 · Score: 1

640k pixels should be enough for everyone.

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Re:8k is a pointless fad. by locopuyo · 2018-01-01 11:19 · Score: 1

Every word of what you just said was wrong.
There's tons of 4k content on Netflix and Amazon and every new movie on blu ray is in 4k. And you can hook a PC up to it and game in 4k. Even the newest consoles can game in 4k now.
I'm not sure what your vision is, but I can easily see the individual pixels on my 65" 4k OLED up close to the screen.
Sharp even did an experiment and proved anyone with 20-20 vision can see the differences between resolutions and would benefit from resolutions much higher than 8k. There are diminishing returns, but saying higher resolution is pointless is just wrong.

--
The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
Re:8k is a pointless fad. by dfghjk · 2018-01-01 11:29 · Score: 1

Good to see you upholding the tradition of speaking in total ignorance. I might suggest you first look up "fad".
There is high quality 8K source material, just not necessarily available to the public at this time. No need to that to change unless displays exist.
Everything you've said here was recently said about 4K.
Re:8k is a pointless fad. by JustNiz · 2018-01-01 12:21 · Score: 1

> I might suggest you first look up "fad".
noun: fad; plural noun: fads
an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived and without basis in the object's qualities; a craze.
Yep thats what I meant.
> There is high quality 8K source material, just not necessarily available to the public at this time.
Well its existence is irrelevant to 8k TV owners then isn't it?
Re:8k is a pointless fad. by JustNiz · 2018-01-01 12:22 · Score: 1

The article is talking about 8k not 4k.
> I can easily see the individual pixels on my 65" 4k OLED up close to the screen.
Exactly as I said.
Re:8k is a pointless fad. by AHuxley · 2018-01-01 14:35 · Score: 1

Classic film can be scanned to support 8K. the back catalogue of old movies is ready.
"Compressed" is not a problem for fast gig internet connections that can keep up with the demands of one 8K movie to a consumers account and their one 8K display.
New movies can be made 8K ready as 8K equipment exists to make a 8K movie.
Content, connection is not a problem.
Play back with todays advanced and fast gpu and cpu products is no problem.
Accepted DRM to protect a movie is understood so on average a movie can be streamed, rented, sold globally.
All that is missing is the new ads to really sell what 8K offers over HD, 4K.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:8k is a pointless fad. by WaffleMonster · 2018-01-01 19:47 · Score: 1

Classic film can be scanned to support 8K. the back catalogue of old movies is ready.
Just because film can be scanned at any resolution completely ignores the underlying issue. What people care about are outcomes not process. They want 8k quality not an 8k process with much lower effective resolution.
As point of reference IMAX uses 70 mm film and it's only 2k. There is no back catalogue of anything ready for 8k.

"Compressed" is not a problem for fast gig internet connections that can keep up with the demands of one 8K movie to a consumers account and their one 8K display.
Problem isn't so much customers Internet connection as what is required to serve unicast content to millions of customers concurrently at this level. Given people are currently tolerating 720p with noticeable compression artifacts the assumption content would be willing to expend 36 times the acceptable bandwidth just to provision one customer with a single 8k is inconsistent with reality.
Even these mythical Japanese 8k broadcasts are limited to less than 100mbit meaning outcomes by far are being limited by compression rather than resolution assuming h265 and non-static content.

New movies can be made 8K ready as 8K equipment exists to make a 8K movie.
Storage requirements alone to manage an 8k workflow are astronomical with per-frame costs on the order of hundreds of megabytes. A single second of video captured at @ 60 fps requires at least 6 gigabytes.
Very difficult to justify this kind of expense when no human person is physically capable of benefiting from the result. The only way 8k is rational is with a massive FOV (e.g. VR/wrap display) to keep pixels per degree in line with the limits of human vision.

All that is missing is the new ads to really sell what 8K offers over HD, 4K.
Meanwhile in the real world most 4k UHD releases sold today are little more than upscaled scams praying on user ignorance.
Re:8k is a pointless fad. by AHuxley · 2018-01-02 01:48 · Score: 1

What one scan was set at and released with at in the past is not limit on what 8K can be scanned from many the other old films.
Pay to get a better scan, have the old film thats ready for an 8K scan? The 8K scan will be made and can be sold, rented, streamed as needed.
Re "single 8k is inconsistent with reality."
With some cash a real gig internet connection can be connected in some parts of the works.
Such fast networks can support a 8K movie as needed.
Re "Storage requirements alone to manage an 8k workflow are astronomical with per-frame costs on the order of hundreds of megabytes. A single second of video captured at @ 60 fps requires at least 6 gigabytes."
Hardware and software will allow editing of 8K movies as they can now for lower resolutions. People at home might have to upgrade. Production equipment is ready for real people who can pay.
Re "Meanwhile in the real world most 4k UHD"
The how and why of past 4K and HD marketing, media used is not a limitation of 8K.
Re "100mbit meaning outcomes by far are being limited by compression"
What one broadcaster selects for their 8K is not a limitation of what others can do with their 8K online, streaming, sales, rentals.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

If OLED is pointless then... by mykepredko · 2018-01-01 11:00 · Score: 2

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

Re:If OLED is pointless then... by WaffleMonster · 2018-01-01 18:52 · Score: 1

Modern electronics as a whole is pointless.
I would rather stick to the issue at hand rather than playing what about x, y and z games.
In this specific instance people have a choice between display technologies. For example QLED vs OLED. QLED does not have the same failure modes and problems as OLED. Simply ignoring the issue by making nonsensical generalizations is unproductive.

When the first STN displays came out, there were a lot of issues with non-working and marginal pixels.
Still a lot of issues.

How often do you see modern phone or TV displays with *any* defective pixels?
I certainly hope progress is being made in this area.
Personally noticed this in numerous displays purchased over time. Every vendor has a dead pixel "policy" they try to invoke with regards to returns in order to assert to customer this is "normal" acceptable defect. Such policies are always placed prominently in FAQs and policy statements so they can be referenced by CSRs with ease. They try to assert you can't return a display for this reason as if it's the vendors decision in the first place.
This is why I have a personal policy of always buying displays locally so I can return them easily if there are dead pixels without ever stating it as the cause of return.

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.
Gamut of CRTs closely match capabilities of human vision and was the basis of sRGB standard. Something CRTs get without even trying most current displays especially those based on white LCDs *STILL* are unable to fully reproduce. Try lowering the brightness of a standard LCD display with a solid color or white and what you'll always see is a gross blue tinge. I personally use a calibrated CFL display because I was not willing to put up with LED based monitor or shell out the kind of cash for a current model professional display with non-white LED illumination.
Calibrating displays especially if your only talking about white point adjustment as you seem to be referencing is a trivial matter.
Calibration is lost in different ways over time depending on technology. For CRTs its mostly change in phosphors. CFL/LED backlighting is due to degradation illumination element over time. Something easily accounted for by a calibration sensor. OLED is per-pixel degradation which makes it massively more complex and costly to recalibrate vs other available choices of display technologies.

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?
There are production failures in everything. It is a very big deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Over time different circuit elements have different failure and degradation modes that must be considered specifically. It is no more correct to assume LEDs have the same characteristics as low current transistors as it would be to assume static ram elements have the same characteristics as a flash element.

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).
The issue is baked in as a fundamental limitation of the approach itself. You can mitigate it with varying degrees of success or

88" is fairly easy. Waiting for 44". by bill_mcgonigle · 2018-01-01 11:13 · Score: 1

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)

More is better I guess? by p51d007 · 2018-01-01 11:18 · Score: 1

8k, 88" display? For what? Seeing the hairs on a fly? Considering the junk on tv these days, what's the use?

Re:More is better I guess? by rrohbeck · 2018-01-01 12:04 · Score: 1

Seeing all the hairs somewhere else in the torrented porn, duh.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:More is better I guess? by DNAgent · 2018-01-01 17:19 · Score: 1

Are any studios shooting 8K porn though? Only a few are even doing 4K AFAIK.

Re:Meh this is nothing by The+Grim+Reefer · 2018-01-01 11:21 · Score: 1

my zx81 has 16k

Only with that big clunky RAM pack. How much issue do yo have with wobble? Damn near everyone that I knew had that issue. I guess I was lucky as I didn't.

8s! by antdude · 2018-01-01 11:29 · Score: 2

Lots of 8s. Lucky Chinese numbers. ;)

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).

Waiting for something bigger. by fahrbot-bot · 2018-01-01 11:58 · Score: 1

So I can use them instead of drywall or paneling for the walls inside my house.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

I have seen the future... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 13:53 · Score: 1

And it is all couch potatoes.

4k is useless, human eye limitations, etc., etc. by _Shorty-dammit · 2018-01-01 14:52 · Score: 1

Waste of time and money.

What about slideshows? by SuperKendall · 2018-01-01 16:23 · Score: 1

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

Waiting for true Quantum Dot TVs... by grimr · 2018-01-01 17:33 · Score: 1

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.

Re:The World's First 88-inch 8K OLED Display .... by dohzer · 2018-01-01 17:55 · Score: 1

4K is enough

I'm pretty sure you're meant to add "for anyone" to the end of that phrase.

Re: What resolution? by darkain · 2018-01-01 19:09 · Score: 2

The same people who invented the sizes for storage devices

Re: What resolution? by Joce640k · 2018-01-01 20:47 · Score: 1

Nope. Somebody smart enough to realize that calling it a "7680x4320 pixel" TV would be a stupid thing to do.

--
No sig today...

Re:4K, 8K, will there be a 16K? by Zefirowy · 2018-01-01 23:17 · Score: 1

Something wrong with your math maybe? 4K is 3840 × 2160 = 8.3 megapixels, 16K is 15360 x 8640 = 132.7 megapixels...

Question: are old films 8K ? by rbrander · 2018-01-01 23:30 · Score: 1

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?

Re:Question: are old films 8K ? by SuiteSisterMary · 2018-01-02 07:14 · Score: 1

Well, you can always scan the film down to finer and finer degrees, but at that point, you're just getting finer and finer resolution of the film grain. For 35mm film, I don't think there's a ton of use in going past 4k, and 4k digital cameras are considered 'equivalent' to 35mm film for filming movies, in terms of resolution and color range.
Hell, IMDB says that Skyfall was filmed in '2.8K;' the cameras used can go all the way up to 2880x2160.

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Re:Question: are old films 8K ? by TheSync · 2018-01-02 07:28 · Score: 1

Most digital cinema movies are 2K resolution, which right there tells you the value of 4K/8K for television.
I think you can get some minor benefit from 4K on TV's of size over 90" diagonal, but really not worth it on anything smaller.

Re:Oh no? by esonik · 2018-01-02 04:17 · Score: 1

35mm film is the "Full HD" of film (still and moving) i.e. not very high resolution.
Much larger formats are in use since the early days of photography when high resolution is needed (as opposed to low cost, which 35mm did provide).

A fair number of movies were shot in high resolution film:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

For stills "medium format" is about 6cm x 6cm. Implying there is a large format as well: 8" x 10".

For example the photos on the lunar surface were taken on 70mm film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Final note:
As proven in Blade Runner (which was shot on film), film does have infinite resoultion: https://youtu.be/qHepKd38pr0

Slashdot Mirror

The World's First 88-inch 8K OLED Display (engadget.com)

86 of 136 comments (clear)