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.

Comments

How many defects?

[FrankHaynes]

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

Re: How many defects?

[DontBeAMoran]

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.

Re: How many defects?

[dabadab]

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.

This will work!

[SmaryJerry]

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

Re:This will work!

[Wookie Monster]

...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!

[Mal-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.

Re:This will work!

[Kjella]

... 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...

Re:This will work!

[ffkom]

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!

[ColdWetDog]

640 x 480 should be good enough for anybody.

Re:This will work!

[Kjella]

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.

Meh

[DontBeAMoran]

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

Viewing distance

[Tomahawk]

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:Nothing if value

[Greyfox]

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.

Re:Projector time

[phantomfive]

the resolution difference probably won't be as great as you imagine.

But the color will be better.

Re:How much is enough?

[ThosLives]

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.

Re:Projector time

[Shados]

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.

If OLED is pointless then...

[mykepredko]

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).

8s!

[antdude]

Lots of 8s. Lucky Chinese numbers. ;)

Re: What resolution?

[darkain]

The same people who invented the sizes for storage devices