LG To Show Off New 55-Inch 8K Display at CES 179
MojoKid writes One of the most in-your-face buzzwords of the past year has been "4K," and there's little doubt that the forthcoming CES show in early January will bring it back in full force. As it stands today, 4K really isn't that rare, or expensive. You can even get 4K PC monitors for an attractive price. There does remain one issue, however; a lack of 4K content. We're beginning to see things improve, but it's still slow going. Given that, you might imagine that display vendors would hold off on trying to push that resolution envelope further – but you just can't stop hardware vendors from pushing the envelope. Earlier this year, both Apple and Dell unveiled "5K" displays that nearly doubled the number of pixels of 4K displays. 4K already brutalizes top-end graphics cards and lacks widely available video content, and yet here we are looking at the prospect of 5K. Many jaws dropped when 4K was first announced, and likewise with 5K. Now? Well, yes, 8K is on its way. We have LG to thank for that. At CES, the company will be showing-off a 55-inch display that boasts a staggering 33 million pixels — derived from a resolution of 7680x4320. It might not be immediately clear, but that's far more pixels than 4K, which suggests this whole "K" system of measuring resolutions is a little odd. On paper, you might imagine that 8K has twice the pixels of 4K, but instead, it's 4x.
We don't care how many pixels it has (Score:4, Insightful)
8K can display a line half the thickness of 4K. That's what matters.
Re:We don't care how many pixels it has (Score:5, Interesting)
In larger panels, there is still a good deal of room(at least for users with decent eyes) to use additional pixels to add additional effective 'space' into a monitor of the same size. No longer being able to see the nasty huge pixels that result when some terrible person smears 1920x1080 over a 27 inch screen is nice(seriously, guys, WTF is up with the increasing sizes of 1920x1080 monitors? Used to be you could get 19.5/20-inch ones quite easily, now the market is rotten with 22 inch and higher); but it's the increase in work room that really makes the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
What's with the decreasing size of 1080p monitors? Seen a 15.6" 1080p and it is fairly hard to use with Windows 7's file manager. I have not tried scaling yet as the owner is the kind to jump at me if I do or change anything on that laptop.
That is annoying for young (enough) users esp. as the thing is used with a touchpad.
27" 1080p has "too big" pixels but it's what users want. Had a 20" visible monitor running at 1280x960 and it was pretty sweet.
Re:We don't care how many pixels it has (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
1920x1280? When was that a standard?
Did you mean 1920x1200?
Re: (Score:3)
8K can display a line half the thickness of 4K. That's what matters.
It's more complex for 8k video, although I agree that's what counts for mostly static computer displays. Details are very thin but I doubt this monitor supports 8k video.
8k video was pioneered by NHK in Japan, and I was lucky enough to see a demo of it a few years ago. As well as 8k resolution the frame rate has been increased to 120Hz native, and the colour depth expanded to 12 bit per channel and the RGB coverage is much higher than either HDTV or current digital cinema. The result is incredibly life like
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? HDMI can't handle the bandwidth, but DisplayPort supports 8k at 60Hz and 24bpp - any problems with video will be in finding a video card to drive it and content that can use it. Though as with watching DVDs at 1080p, good upscaling should make for dramatic improvements with existing content.
Re: (Score:2)
So half the frame rate and only 8 bits per channel instead of 12... In other words DisplayPort doesn't support true 8k video yet.
Re: (Score:2)
"8k" refers to resolution only. I could say whatever magical system you're thinking of doesn't support "true 8k video" because it doesn't support 240 Hz because that's what you need for 3D.
Re:We don't care how many pixels it has (Score:4, Interesting)
You do realize HDMI maxes out at 60Hz as well, right? All that "120Hz" bullshit is just marketers selling you crappy post-processing filters in the TV. And while HDMI did technically upgrade from a maximum of 24bpp to 48bpp in 2006, there's essentially zero content that actually uses that capacity, and that very few people can clearly distinguish the additional slight variations in color anyway, except in the most contrived tests - compression artifacts are *far* more visible, and going to 48bpp tends to make those much worse.
Re: (Score:3)
That's useful for technical matters like bandwidth calculation but the user cares about clarity. 8K can display a line half the thickness of 4K. That's what matters.
When we're talking about this level of resolution, perhaps the upper limits of human eyesight is what truly matters.
Of course, that assumes that consumers use common sense when purchasing TVs the size of drywall sheets. Highly unlikely, especially during Superbowl season.
Re: (Score:2)
"Content" is an obnoxious red herring.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially when the resolution is an integer multiple of what the existing 'content' was designed for, and a PC with suitably punchy GPU (which actually isn't much punch these days unless you are gaming, where things can admittedly get damned expensive at high resolutions, this isn't the bad old days when you had to buy some freaky Matrox unit to get a VGA out that didn't turn into blurryvision when it met a real monitor) can drive a seriously enormous screen, who cares?.
Quit carping about how Sony hasn't yet graced us with Premium Ultra HD Content on Blu-Ray 2.0 and embrace the fact that you can buy a terrifying pixel-battery of your very own at surprisingly attractive prices. Still a few kinks to work out at very high resolutions that currently available displayport or HDMI standards can't drive properly; but that's really the remaining issue.
Re: (Score:3)
TVs are very different to computer monitors in one important aspect: image processing. Computer monitors go for accuracy, but even basic TVs do a fair bit of processing to make the image look good. Some of it is to make up for limitations of the TV itself, like enhancing motion clarity, but a lot of it is to make up for limitations of the source material. Broadcast HD is actually fairly crap if you watch it on a normal computer monitor without any processing.
Many TVs have a "game mode" which disables proces
Re: (Score:2)
>Even game mode doesn't disable everything though.
Don't I know it, and the "enhancement" wreaks havoc on a pixel-perfect input.
"PC mode" though seems to (usually) be a substantial further improvement, but it isn't always obvious how to enable it. For example on my older Samsung it is engaged by changing the video source name to "PC" - despite the fact that nothing in the documentation makes any suggestion that the name is anything other than a user convenience - and it's changed in a completely differen
Re: (Score:2)
TVs are very different to computer monitors in one important aspect: image processing. Computer monitors go for accuracy, but even basic TVs do a fair bit of processing to make the image look good. Some of it is to make up for limitations of the TV itself, like enhancing motion clarity, but a lot of it is to make up for limitations of the source material. Broadcast HD is actually fairly crap if you watch it on a normal computer monitor without any processing.
Many TVs have a "game mode" which disables processing to get the latency down. Try switching to it with an ordinary broadcast HD feed to see how awful it looks with minimal enhancement. Even game mode doesn't disable everything though.
Horse shit.
The first thing I do on any TV is disable every single fucking enhancement.
They make games, pc output, broadcast, cable, dvd, bluray, even fucking vhs look like absolute trash.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually DisplayPort 1.3 (released Sept. 14th) supports 8K @ 60Hz, if only at 4:2:0 subsampling. Now, finding actual hardware that supports 1.3 might be a challenge, but the standard itself is available.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly true, and while I suspect it may support 4:4:4 at 30Hz, which is sufficient for most text-oriented usages, I couldn't find anything conclusive.
On the other hand, just because 4:2:0 is unacceptable at HD resolutions, doesn't necessarily mean it's unacceptable at 8K, where the pixels are going to be too small to resolve individually - a 40" 8K monitor is after all going to have almost twice the DPI of those high-end CRTs of 20 years ago. I'd have to see it in action, under decent lighting conditions
Re: (Score:2)
"Display Stream Compression" (deemed a "visually lossless" algorithm) should be or was to be an alternative to 4:2:0
I just learned that it did not make the cut to be included in the DP 1.3 spec sadly (maybe in a DP 1.3)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/... [anandtech.com]
Re: (Score:2)
in DP 1.3a, maybe.
Re: (Score:3)
Another limit is lenses. For most lenses compatible with a 35 mm format, 4k is close to where the image doesn't become any more detailed by using a higher resolution sensor. That's not to say that equipment with good detail at 8k can't be made, but it means lots of money and loss of depth-of-field.
Too small to be of any benefit. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Too small to be of any benefit. (Score:5, Informative)
THAT CHART IS WRONG.
Seriously, I can easily see jaggies where it says I shouldn't be able to, IT IS WRONG by a large factor.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite so - such numbers typically refer to the limit at which the typical human eye can resolve individual pixels, but it's well known that the eye can still perceive visual texture (such as jaggies) at much higher resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure about your eyes, but the graphic appears to be pretty close to the values I'm getting when calculating when the resolution is better than "retina" [isthisretina.com] for most people.
Of course, video compression can alter your results. And sub-pixel motion can cause moiré patterns [wikipedia.org] that are quite noticeable even on retina displays.
Re: (Score:2)
"better than "retina" [isthisretina.com]"
Supposedly my screen is like retina at 6 foot.
"the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels" This is what needs clarifying.
I can clearly see a line of white pixels between lines of black pixels at 8ft.
Most of all, at 7feet some web fonts look atrocious to me, I block web fonts on a site by site basis because of this. The font letters am looking at as I type this is constructed of lines 1 pixel wide, if I turn on 'font smoothing' that looks really bad at a distance beyond t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people don't put their TV in the living room. I have my TV mounted relatively low and I do sit only a few feet away from my TV. I only have 42" but I can definitely see individual pixels on non-antialiased text or other sharp graphics. It's a dedicated home theater area, not a general purpose room. I'm not the only one. I would still like larger for immersion, but I will unfortunately be able to see more pixels edges at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could get off your butt and go to a movie theater to watch movies.
Movie theaters have a far poorer selection of catalog titles than, say, Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, Lets see, a few dozen movie tickets so that I can drive across town to watch whatever film is being spoon-fed to me at the time, in the presence of hundreds of potential inconsiderate jerks, while dealing with sticky seats, grossly overpriced snacks, and hopefully not too many technical difficulties.
OR... for the same price I could buy a halfway decent TV and speakers and be able to watch whatever I want, whenever I want, in the privacy of my own home - where the snacks are cheap, alcohol can flow free
Re: (Score:2)
PS, a simple test of whether an upgrade to 4k would be beneficial to your enjoyment is the 'sharpness' setting. If you can tell the difference at normal viewing distance when altering the god awful sharpness thing then you would notice the difference between 1080p and 4k (I turn sharpness off, it is an abomination of an 'enhancement' that doesn't belong on HD screens.)
Or draw a couple of diagonal lines in a graphics editor - one with anti-aliasing and one without - if you can tell which line is which then a
Re: (Score:2)
That chart must be for the middle aged or older not wearing glasses or refusing to get them. Or maybe it's using comcast's 1080p thats compressed to hell and back.
Re:Too small to be of any benefit. (Score:5, Interesting)
At 55" and average viewing distances of 8ft you're not going to notice all the detail of even 1080p. [carltonbale.com] You literally need to be sat a couple of feet away to get the full benefit of 4K on a 55" display.
The people who are replying that the viewing distance charts are wrong need to understand what the recommendations apply to.
First, they apply to the average person, whoever that may be. Since we all have slightly different eyesight, there are people who will see jaggies at the recommended range and people who will not.
Secondly, the vast majority of the distance recommendations refer to televisions and video, not computer monitors and text or still images. Computer monitors tend to have more precise pixel color and lighting control which makes them sharper but also makes it easier to see jaggies.
The point is that the charts were developed for TVs playing video and they tend to be accurate for this usage. Any application beyond that is pretty much out of scope.
Re: (Score:2)
Also - they typically refer to the distance at which the eye can resolve individual pixels, but it's well understood that it can still perceive visual "texture" at much smaller angular resolution.
Video cards? (Score:2)
Maybe this will drive some faster video cards.. I run 3 30" monitors (7680x1600); and while 2D and work productivity is no problem.. and, believe me, if you have the means I highly recommend picking them up - 3D surround gaming, even with SLI current-generation cards is a challenge.
What's even more impressive is how fast the 4K panels are dropping in price. Manufacturing FTW.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't see the difference: WRONG (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a 46inch 1080p screen, at normal viewing distance I can make out jaggies and I hate font smoothing because it looks blurry. I've seen that chart that says what distances different native resolutions are effectively discernible and IT IS WRONG by 50% - I can see the difference clearly where the chart says I shouldn't be able to.
Re: (Score:3)
Any other super-human abilities you feel like sharing twice?
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that the ability to see was super-human.
Re: (Score:2)
My superpower is that I can tell what all the people on the TV are going to say before they say it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in his head .. oOOooOoOoOoOoO
Re: (Score:2)
I've had that problem - try watching something other than your own home videos, that will usually clear it up, though you may have to avoid Hollywood blockbusters as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one shortcoming of that chart is that it assumes 20/20 vision, that's the threshold for "normal" sight that doesn't need glasses but many people have better than that - 20/16 at least is not unusual - or can see better than that once they wear glasses/contact lenses. I think the most extreme cases are something like 20/8, meaning they can see from 20 feet what a normal person would have to be at 8 feet to see. I think it depends on source material and compression though, I've got a 28" UHD monitor (38
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, plenty can see better than 20/20, but a whole lot can't even see 20/20 with correction. I would guess maybe 1/3 the population is significantly below 20/20.
Re: (Score:2)
Such claims seem to be based on a flawed understanding of how the human eye works. It's the same reason that the iPhone "retina" display was claimed to be better than human vision could discern the pixels on, even though it clearly looks worse than even the new "retina" screens which themselves look worse than QHD phone screens.
The idea was that if you put thin parallel lines next to each other at some point they blur into one because the human eye can't pick the individual ones out. Unfortunately the human
About time (Score:4, Funny)
5.5" phone screens are at 2560x1440, with 4k on the way. 8k on a monitor...what's the hold up?
Phones seem perfectly able to light the screen and drive the pixels at less than 4W TDP. Seems odd that 8k is such a large challenge given volume, mass and power budgets 20-100x that of a phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not throwing them away. Last I knew, if a panel has a defective quadrant, you get 3 quarter-size panels out of it after it's cut. It doesn't get put into a TV until after QA. And this means that the 8K display is just a perfectly defect-free panel that was probably intended to be 3 or 4 4K panels. Large 4K TV's is part of the natural progression of ramping up production of smaller 1080p TV's. And 8K is coming from smaller 4K production ramping up.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that simple though. A 50" 8k display only works out as 4x 30" 4k displays, and there isn't a huge market for 25" 4k displays at the moment either. On top of that, 4k yields are not particularly brilliant either because while there is a market for 27" 4k monitors, there isn't much of a market for 13.5" 1080P displays.
Re: (Score:2)
there isn't a huge market for 25" 4k displays at the moment either
6" phones and tablets
there isn't much of a market for 13.5" 1080P displays.
That's becoming a fairly standard laptop screen size.
Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
However during that time they let the technology stagnate. So the process to make better hi-res screen wasn't in the R&D pipeline.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean no disrespect to the (likely substantial) engineering effort and cleverness that goes into cramming 2560x1440 into some
Re: (Score:2)
The yields on 5.5" screens are much better. If you have a 1m^2 substrate you can either make it into a single large monitor or many smaller 5.5" displays. A single serious defect writes off your entire large monitor, but only one of your many 5.5" panels.
In addition, because a 60" 8k monitor costs a very large amount of money people expect perfection from it. Accurate colours, even backlighting, no visible dead pixels. That reduces your yields even further.
Re: (Score:2)
I want 8K phone displays. Entirely so we can use them as VR displays.
Re: (Score:2)
5.5" phone screens are at 2560x1440
Or 1280x1440 if you don't believe that an RGBG quad should be counted as 2 pixels just because it's twice as wide as it is tall ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
HDMI can't handle it, but as of DisplayPort 1.3 can, and at 60Hz no less. It'd take a heck of a GPU to render 3D at that resolution, but mostly static 2D should be a non-issue. And if you're using a CCD bigger than your head (not unreasonable for professional filming), 8K is unlikely to present any serious challenges.
As for 160DPI, that's slightly higher than the 150DPI of typical high quality magazine printing, though admittedly you're not getting the benefit of "analog anti-aliasing". It's a real shame
Re: (Score:2)
You don't actually think intensive 3D apps are being rendered at "retina" resolutions do you? Upscaling is comparatively cheap, and 2D is basically a non-issue, even at those resolutions. Hell, DisplayPort 1.3 has even standardized a way to send a 8K@60Hz signal between separate devices.
8K!? but I haven't even bought a 4K yet (Score:2)
Do we need this? Is there really a sizable market for people who must have the latest even if the current stuff is good enough?
Re: (Score:2)
I use a 40" 1080p monitor - I promise you it's not remotely "good enough", except in the sense that I wanted a big-screen monitor and that was the best available. 4K will at least bring its resolution in line with my almost adequate 20" monitor. 8K will be the first actual improvement in "standard" screen resolution in what, a decade or so?
Oh... you're talking about TV. Yeah, I don't see much point there either - 1080p already lets me see way more skin imperfections and bad makeup jobs than I have any de
Re: (Score:3)
There was no consumer media for HDTV for a long time before Blu-Ray. A long time after a lot of people already had HDTV's.
The London 2012 Olympics was shot in 8K. There were only a few public screens in Great Britain where you could actually watch it, but the cameras are there. Japan and Korea are leading the way with cameras and content broadcast tests.
Digital sound has been above the Nyquist limit for some time now. The resolution war won't end until we surpass that limit. Sort of. We'll have wall-s
Re: (Score:2)
We'll have wall-sized 20K TV's in 10 years, but computer monitors will still only be 1080p...because stupid.
Nah, The reason PC monitors have been stuck in the HD-age is because LCD TVs were damn cheap to produce and took practically nothing to repurpose into monitors. Since the death of CRTs, TVs and Monitors have converged into more-or-less the same device, at least as far as manufacturers are concerned. The second that 4K TVs become dirt cheap to produce in 13"-30" sizes, you will see 1080 monitors going the way of the dodo. Same with 8K, etc.
There is nothing odd about it. (Score:2)
4k monitors (Score:4)
You can even get 4K PC monitors for an attractive price
Citation needed (...please!)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what's attractive to you, but ~$500 at 28" is it for a lot of people:
http://www.monoprice.com/Produ... [monoprice.com]
They have crossed below that line several times.
Re: (Score:3)
You can even get 4K PC monitors for an attractive price
Citation needed (...please!)
Dell 28 Ultra HD 4K Monitor [microsoftstore.com] on sale for $300. I don't know about you, but that is a very reasonable price to me. It is certainly not the best. You get what you pay for. But this one has the 4Ks.
What's the Motivation? (Score:5, Interesting)
8k won't be ready for anything any time soon. HDMI 2.0 doesn't even support 8k 30Hz, and few TVs have Displayport. 4k Blurays are taking their time arriving to market, and 50GB arguably won't be enough for 8k without a codec upgrade which would itself require a new disc player. What portion of existing bluray players have old HDMI ports or processors that can't handle 4k content? It's not like 4k TVs are high-margin items anymore -- I saw a nice 50" one at Walmart for $699 a few weeks ago, and there were cheaper ones online. The price has hit rock bottom before there's even the demand for them. Unlike 4k cameras, there are only a couple prototypes of 8k cameras, so almost all content will be rendered CG for a while.
I'd read countless arguments on Slashdot that human eyes can't discern resolution higher than 1080p in a 50" TV over 10 feet or so, before I actually watched a demo 4k TV running 4k content, for about 15 minutes. If you have a 50" TV in your bedroom, 5 feet away from where you're sitting, you can definitely notice a huge improvement in detail. I stepped about 15 feet away and in most scenes it was still usually an obvious, substantial improvement over 1080p.
An electronics retailer in Europe held a contest, setting a cordon that people had to stay behind, more than 10 feet away from two televisions, and were asked which was the 4k tv and which was the 1080p. 98% of people correctly guessed which was which. Maybe people asked others who cheated, but it suggests that "most people can't tell" is bullshit. I seem to recall when the Apple retina display claims first came out, a scientist mentioned that humans' actual acuity was about 50% better than what Apple was claiming. It's also worth noting that while a single still retina image may be at a certain DPI, there are psychovisual effects (like depth perception) that can improve the resolution inside the brain, beyond what one retina picks up at one time. The eyes also saccade all the time, which I seem to recall can be interpolated to improve resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
An electronics retailer in Europe held a contest, setting a cordon that people had to stay behind, more than 10 feet away from two televisions, and were asked which was the 4k tv and which was the 1080p. 98% of people correctly guessed which was which. Maybe people asked others who cheated, but it suggests that "most people can't tell" is bullshit.
This electronics retailer wouldn't happen to be in the business of selling people expensive new 4k TV sets by any chance? There's a lot of ways you could configure a 4K and 1080p TV to get that result like contrast, color and Netflix 4K probably got as many compression artifacts as an upscaled BluRay. I have a UHD monitor for gaming and such but TVs are way ahead of the content, I've no idea why 4K TVs are actually selling.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the more expensive one was 4k?
Re: (Score:2)
A 50" 1080p TV has a dot pitch of approximately 0.58 mm. That's huge.
My 27" 1440p monitor has a dot pitch of 0.23 mm. I can clearly see pixels jaggies 2' away. It's not capable of producing fonts smaller than 8 px without collapsing the whitespace in and between letters. I can clearly read an 8 px font on that display from 7' away.
The pixels in the 50" TV would be discernible at 5'. I would have to be 18' away from that TV before I couldn't read an 8 px font on it. I would discern detail three times farther
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, not much content to justify it as a TV in the near term, but...
DisplayPort 1.3 was released a few months ago, and supports 8K@60Hz.
Upscaling to 1080 did wonderful things to DVDs for years before HD content became more than a fringe novelty.
A 4K 40" monitor has barely the same resolution as a decade-old 20" HD monitor, and that was a step down from the high-def CRT monitors of 20 years ago, which had plenty of people were anxiously awaiting the final end of the clearly visible pixel which seemed to be
LOL ... (Score:3)
Fuck it, we're going to 5K ...
I predict that this technology will be adopted for computers FAR before it is adopted for TV in any meaningful sense.
Know why? Consumers got raped in the last HD format war. People bought gear which subsequently wasn't supported.
I have no intention of lining the electronics industry with the money to replace my TV, my amp, my DVD player. The stuff I own is relatively new, and works just fine.
The reason content for 4K is slow catching on because consumers are all thinking "why the hell would I switch to yet another format?" I expect we'll see 5K, 6K, 8K, 10K ... and all before the vast majority of consumers give a damn.
My view of 4K for TV is a big "I don't care, because it's expensive, pointless, and pretty removed from being a need".
I won't be surprised if it flops.
Where's my iPhone with UltraRetina? (Score:2)
Come on, Apple, when are we going to see our 5" 8K displays? Imagine how clear that will be!!
monitor of my dreams (Score:2)
and then some. I do hope they bring this to displays in the mid 30" range. But have to wonder if scaling issues are going to be a big concern.
Hyperacuity. It's real. (Score:2)
Visual hyperacuity [sinauer.com] is one factor that often gets ignored in "how much resolution do you need" calculations. You'll see those "bumps" in nearly-flat diagonal lines much more readily than the simple calculations would suggest. Anti-aliasing everything tends to take care of that problem, but it's still pretty unusual to anti-alias everything. For example, does your system allow fractional-pixel cursor movements?
Re: (Score:2)
For example, does your system allow fractional-pixel cursor movements?
Do any? That would be very nice. I'm just glad that it gets updated at 60Hz. For that matter, if you get your monitor to hit 120Hz, you'll see smoother movement just for the higher temporal resolution.
What's state of the art in UI scaling? (Score:2)
It doesn't seem to be in Windows 8.1 from my experience on a Surface Pro 2 -- it's a nice display and very high resolution, but it's scaling options leave a lot to be desired.
I can only imagine the same phenomenon would be true on super high resolution screens, although a lot of people seem to like 4k monitors, but it's hard to know what these would be like in day-day usage.
Incredible pixel density is nice, but it seems like (IMHO, anyway) that UIs and applications need to have a lot more flexibility about
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 7 introduced "Zoom" under the advanced display settings. It works well enough. Essentially scales everything (except improperly designed programs) perfectly. And a lot of the Windows UI elements scale well - most of Windows 8's new UI is vector-based anyway (or it appears to be). Similar to how Mac OS X handles "Retina" displays but with more fine-grained controls.
Throw away your ancient out of date 4K sets! (Score:2)
Only losers have 4K... 8K is the way to go!
Sadly you cant get 4K content yet, Although a 50 inch 8K display on my desk would be a wonderful thing for my work computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly you cant get 4K content yet,
You can't? I thought there were some [engadget.com] services [cnet.com] providing 4K.
7680 <> 8K (Score:3)
The problem isn't that people don't understand the difference between linear and area measurement scales (so 8K is four times the number of pixels as 4K), but the fact that anyone lets these marketing drones get away with calling 7680 pixels "8K". 8K is either 8192 in binary terms, or 8000 in decimal terms.
Can it play DVDs? (Score:2)
I, for one, am looking forward to watching my DVDs with 10x10 pixels per pixel.
Re: (Score:2)
An array of 1600 of these 8k monitors? Okay...that's really only 163' across and 92' high - barely in the top 20 of the largest screens in the world - but at 156ppi I'd say you're probably sitting too close to the screen if you can see the pixels. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's easier to understand in terms of total pixels. 2K is ~ 2MP, 4K is ~ 8MP. A 4x increase in resolution does correspond to a 4x increase in MP.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, resolution is a measurement and MP is a unit for that measurement.
That's like saying a 4x increase in length corresponds with a 4x increase in meters.
Re: (Score:2)
My post was a response to megapixels being somehow "broken." I don't know what they meant, but thought it worth defining MP for them.
Re: (Score:2)
4K is UHD and 8K UHD is called Super-Hi Vision in Japan. And the 2012 Summer Olympics were shot in that 8K format and displayed at that size at a few places around Great Britain.
You're way too late to the naming game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I love that they're still using mid-20th century naming conventions for new whiz-bang technology.
"Super-Hi Vision" sounds a lot like the old film technologies of the 40's and 50's, like Super Cosmocolor and Super Panavision 70 or CinemaScope.
Re: (Score:2)
It's NHK who named it. And it beats the FUHD that others are using. Just not a great acronym that time.
Re:(^*@$# marketing numbers... (Score:5, Informative)
So what genius decided to switch us over to the horizontal resolution?
Digital theater projection has used the 2K and 4K terms for a very long time. Nevermind that going to a 2K digital theater is little better than watching a 1080p TV, 4K is the gold standard for theater because it approaches/surpasses the projection quality limit for 35mm (by the time you account for grain, film copying, and sharpness). I'm not saying 35mm can't hold more detail, but the signal to noise ratio is low beyond that.
4K is a big deal because it matches the best visual experience you can get in the theater. You may say that you don't even need higher than 1080p, but Apple started it with their "retina" display. We've hit and surpassed the Nyquist limit in digital sound a long time ago. Apple's phone display reminded people that this is now getting very possible with video.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Will never EVER happen. Comcast (and other cable companies) will not upgrade bandwidth unless someone holds a gun to their head after being beaten bloody.
Re: (Score:2)
I would - I want a decent large, high-res computer monitor. And even if we could get streaming up to blueray standards, there would still be lots of room for a higher resolution display - just look at the dramatic improvements good upscaling brings to DVDs: often better than the current streaming options.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. May as well say:
It might not be immediately clear, but 55" is far more screen area than 27.5", which suggests this whole "inches" system of measuring size is a little odd. On paper, you might imagine that 55" has twice the area of 27.5", but instead, it's 4x.
Re: (Score:2)