8k TVs and Monitors

Pradeep and our friend from Chicago - I forget his handle, he hasn't been around in a decade - are the original "hawk-eyes".
 
ddrueding said:
Did you mean Pradeep or JTR?
Click to expand...
I want to say for me personally I can't see pixelation above around 300 dpi. Perfect 8K monitor for me then might be about 25" to 27" (also the size which would physically fit on my desk). That said, I can easily live with the same size 4K monitor. I barely notice any pixelation.
 
mubs said:
Pradeep and our friend from Chicago - I forget his handle, he hasn't been around in a decade - are the original "hawk-eyes".
Click to expand...
Timwhit and Mercutio are from Chicago area. I don't know for Timwhit, but Mercutio can't be called hawk-eyes. I don't recall any other Chicagoers.
 
We still don't have 40" 4k displays from Dell or HP yet. We're still 3-5 years away from a graphics card that can drive an 8k display at 60+ Hz for gaming.
 
I for one can't tell much of a difference between 1080p and 4K. I just want more workable space in my monitors, that's the only reason I'd care enough to upgrade to 1080p even. Noticed an interesting comment though:
Even at resolutions where humans can't resolve synthetic patterns of single pixel lines a single pixel apart, they can often see stair-stepping in lines and curves of text. While subpixel rendering and smoothing does help, there are limits to what they can do.

As technology matures, why settle for things that barely outresolves most people most of the time? In most cases 12 bit 24 KHz audio would be enough, but today we use 24 bit 48KHz (or more) audio because it outresolves everybody all the time.

Just as we currently may poke a bit of fun at the "640k ought to be enough" that Bill didn't say, I wouldn't be surprised if we one day will poke a bit of fun at the "300 ppi ought to be enough" that Steve didn't say.
Click to expand...

As someone with a very weak GPU (a GT730 to refresh your memory, supposedly roughly on par with Intel's integrated solutions except with its own dedicated VRAM) I don't expect to be running games easily at even 4K for another ten or 15 years, myself.
 
Last edited:
mubs said:
Pradeep and our friend from Chicago - I forget his handle, he hasn't been around in a decade - are the original "hawk-eyes".
Click to expand...

Ah, the glory days of the Dell Inspiron 8200 with UltraSharp 1600*1200 15" screen :) in I think 2002? Of course these days the smartphone screens have far surpassed that.

Trying to figure out the ideal screen size/rez for a new command center design, issue is that we have to accomodate a couple of guys with less than ideal vision. Currently we have a workstation with four 32" monitors running 1280*720 for them, whereas the other workstation has four 32"ers running at 1920*1080.

May shoot for the moon and propose two Sony 4k projectors running side by side, giving 8 jumbo 1080p equivalent browser windows on the far wall. About $8500 each, and then regular bulb replacements as they will be running 24*7. And then maybe reuse the existing 32s for actual interactive work but mount them lower/canted so the projector images can be seen without craning the neck.
 
Mercutio said:
At $8500 each, surely it would be better/cheaper to just have an array of 1080p projectors, right?
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing. Or a wall of 55" 1080P Televisions. If you go larger 4k and do the math just right, you could get a smooth radius of curved TVs across the front of the room. That would look incrediballs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top