Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the pushing-the-envelope dept.

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.

8 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. How many defects? by FrankHaynes · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    --
    slashdot: A failed experiment.
    1. Re: How many defects? by DontBeAMoran · · 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
    2. Re: How many defects? by dabadab · · 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.
  2. This will work! by SmaryJerry · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:This will work! by ffkom · · 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.

    2. Re:This will work! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      640 x 480 should be good enough for anybody.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:This will work! by Kjella · · 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
  3. Viewing distance by Tomahawk · · 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!!!