8k TVs and Monitors

[snowhiker]

27" 8k (7680x4320) @ 120 Hz monitor from IGZO. Link.

Quote from article ... "8K120 with HDR is no easy task, suggesting 7680x4320 at 10 bits per color channel (so 30-bit for RGB) at 120 times a second would suggest needing 120 gigabits per second of bandwidth at a minimum (or 15 GB/sec). That's even before you discuss overhead, which will push that higher."

The prototype monitor is being fed by eight display port cables. Crazy.

 

[sedrosken]

Why would you need such a high resolution on such a small display? I figured 27" to be on the small side just for 4k! The pixel density must be mind boggling. Meanwhile I just upgraded to a 21" 1080p panel for a secondary monitor just a couple months ago.

 

[Stereodude]

Why would you need such a high resolution on such a small display?

It's an ePeen enlargement tool.

 

[jtr1962]

Why would you need such a high resolution on such a small display? I figured 27" to be on the small side just for 4k! The pixel density must be mind boggling. Meanwhile I just upgraded to a 21" 1080p panel for a secondary monitor just a couple months ago.

When I looked last time I was at Microcenter, I can definitely still notice pixels on a 4K 27" display, albeit barely, at the distance I sit from my monitor. 8K eliminates that issue altogether. It also eliminates the problem on displays up to perhaps 40".

That said, I'll probably get a 24 to 27 inch 4K OLED monitor once the price drops to something reasonable. To me OLED will be a bigger improvement than the smaller pixels offered by 8K.

 

[sedrosken]

When I looked last time I was at Microcenter, I can definitely still notice pixels on a 4K 27" display, albeit barely, at the distance I sit from my monitor. 8K eliminates that issue altogether.

I guess my eyes just suck then, because I can't notice pixels on my 1080p monitor.

 

[jtr1962]

I guess my eyes just suck then, because I can't notice pixels on my 1080p monitor.

I sit about 15" away from my monitor. Any further and I'll need glasses which introduces its own set of problems (distortion, annoying to wear, etc.). I do have great closeup vision for anyone, never mind someone who's pushing 54. I can read the numbers off 0805 resistors, for example. For those not familiar, these are 0.08" x 0.05" in size. Most people probably wouldn't notice pixels on a 4K 27" monitor at any distance.

Anything 1080P, unless it's the size of a smart phone, looks like a screen door to me. :crap:

 

[ddrueding]

There is something to be said to making the resolution so high that no one notices any scaling issues at any size, ever. Of course, the insane added cost and compute times for everything make this a crazy plan at the moment.

 

[Chewy509]

These types of monitors are loved by medical and defence industries, but if affordable for the consumer, I see this as good for the IT industry in general.

 

[LunarMist]

I sit about 15" away from my monitor. Any further and I'll need glasses which introduces its own set of problems (distortion, annoying to wear, etc.). I do have great closeup vision for anyone, never mind someone who's pushing 54. I can read the numbers off 0805 resistors, for example. For those not familiar, these are 0.08" x 0.05" in size. Most people probably wouldn't notice pixels on a 4K 27" monitor at any distance.

Anything 1080P, unless it's the size of a smart phone, looks like a screen door to me. :crap:

I'm older than you, but could not see such small details clearly at 15" without reading glasses. My distance vision is fine.
If I wanted to view the center of a monitor perfectly at 15" the glasses would probably not focus correctly to the corners, which would be a lot farther than 15".

 

[snowhiker]

The pixel density must be mind boggling.

Article quoted 326 PPI so about what a decent/modern cell phone displays.

I can definitely still notice pixels on a 4K 27" display, albeit barely, at the distance I sit from my monitor. 8K eliminates that issue altogether. It also eliminates the problem on displays up to perhaps 40".

The linked article also mentioned a, "2.87-inch display, offering 1920x2160 resolution and rolling in at ... (1008 PPI)." Small yes, but no "jtr-visible" pixels in sight. My late-40s vision is opposite of yours. Everything is fine 18 inches and further, crap 0-18". Need reading glasses.

There is something to be said to making the resolution so high that no one notices any scaling issues at any size, ever. Of course, the insane added cost and compute times for everything make this a crazy plan at the moment.

Seems that getting the O/S and apps to actually scale properly is a cause of many of the scaling problems, not the actual screen resolution. I have Win7 set to 200% with my 43" 4k monitor and some UI elements don't scale and are tiny compared to things that are scaling properly.

And yes, the "insane added cost and compute times" are an added manufacturer side benefit. Now everybody needs to re-buy all new hardware. AND re-buy apps that scale properly.

These types of monitors are loved by medical and defence industries, but if affordable for the consumer, I see this as good for the IT industry in general.

The medical and defense industries, along with aviation, aerospace, architecture, and pretty much any type of engineering will benefit from 8k monitors. Once all the huge margins are made in those industries, the tech can filter down to up plebes and college students.

 

[mubs]

If you're short-sighted, your close-up vision is generally good; I'n not talking about people with powers like -10 etc. They're blind without their glasses.

I always read newspapers without my glasses, but everything at medium distance and out is blurred without glasses. Heck, even with my glasses I can't read far off signs that my hawk-eye wife without glasses can read perfectly. But, she needs glasses for everything at near distances, nowadays even in the kitchen .

Comparing myself to her, I'd rather be the way I am than be like her. She's totally helpless without glasses for anything close. Can't even operate her phone without them, can't sign anything without them and so on.

 

[Stereodude]

Article quoted 326 PPI so about what a decent/modern cell phone displays.

So it's perfect for viewing from ~12" away. That seems pretty typical for the average 27" monitor user. :rofl:

 

[ddrueding]

8K Gaming

https://youtu.be/211Vdi4oC9o

 

[Mercutio]

https://youtu.be/211Vdi4oC9o

Just what you want: having the intersection of four bezels right at the dead center of your crosshairs in an FPS. Although I'm surprised he only needed two $1600 graphics cards to get playable Crysis 3 at that resolution given that a GTX1080 doesn't even assure a decent 4k experience. That's moderately impressive all on its own.

 

[ddrueding]

Just what you want: having the intersection of four bezels right at the dead center of your crosshairs in an FPS. Although I'm surprised he only needed two $1600 graphics cards to get playable Crysis 3 at that resolution given that a GTX1080 doesn't even assure a decent 4k experience. That's moderately impressive all on its own.

Clearly the solution is a 3x3 matrix of 4k screens.

 

[jtr1962]

Clearly the solution is a 3x3 matrix of 4k screens.

A 12K display? Don't give the panel makers any more ideas. I have a gut feeling we're at the start of a resolution war where things will get crazy. I can see it now-try our new 50K 55" panel with a resolution of 1000 ppi AND 16 bits per color. Never mind that you probably don't need anything better than maybe 200 ppi if you're far enough away to see the entire display. No, we want you to be able to view our panel from 2 inches away and still not notice any pixels. Of course, you'll need to push a TB/sec out to the display to drive it.

As much as I think increased resolution is a great thing, probably 4K is all we'll ever need for TVs. I can see 8K being useful for monitors but probably not anything more. I'd love to be proven wrong of course.

 

[ddrueding]

640k should be enough for....

 

[Mercutio]

You guys are missing the obvious outcome of 8k displays: They'll be widely available on shitty 5" phones while 24" desktop screens at higher than 1080p are still considered exotic.

 

[DrunkenBastard]

As much as I think increased resolution is a great thing, probably 4K is all we'll ever need for TVs. I can see 8K being useful for monitors but probably not anything more. I'd love to be proven wrong of course.

8K tvs are inevitable, just as 4k tvs are common place now and have basically displaced 1080p tvs. 2-3 years and they'll be sitting on Best Buy shelves. Content will be the harder nut to crack.

My understanding is that 8k per eye resolution is required to prevent visible pixels in VR applications, otherwise you see the screen door effect.

 

[snowhiker]

8k Dell monitor.

From blurb, "Dell today announces a new 32-inch, 8K desktop monitor with 1.07 billion colors, aluminum construction, 100 percent coverage of the AdobeRGB and sRGB color gamuts, and a monster $4,999 price. The UP3218K has a resolution of 7680 x 4320..."

 

[Handruin]

I'm conflicted with the announcement of this monitor. I like that they're trying to make higher resolution monitors but 8K on a 32-inch is going to need scaling. A 32-inch 4K without scaling is just barely usable.

 

[snowhiker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjpqQwhAVE4

Linus is excited!

 

[Santilli]

What do you need for a video card to drive a 4k, 55 inch TV?
295 enough?

What's the value for a large screen, 4k TV, at this point? No small stuff. Old and 45" minimum.

 

[DrunkenBastard]

What do you need for a video card to drive a 4k, 55 inch TV?
295 enough?

What's the value for a large screen, 4k TV, at this point? No small stuff. Old and 45" minimum.

The major issue is that to drive a 4k TV at 60Hz using HDMI your video card will need to support HDMI 2.0.

In the case of the 295, you would need to use a Display Port to HDMI dongle (active is recommended) with which you can drive 4k at 30Hz. For video playback or 2D work 30Hz should be ok.

Depending on how far you sit from the 4k tv, you may or may not benefit from the additional rez over say 1080p.

 

[Stereodude]

What do you need for a video card to drive a 4k, 55 inch TV?

To do what? Game?

 

[snowhiker]

HDMI v2 or DP v1.2 needed for 3840x2160 @ 60 Hz. I think HDMI v1.4 and dual-link DVI can do push 4k res but only at 24 Hz and 33 Hz.

 

[Handruin]

What do you need for a video card to drive a 4k, 55 inch TV?
295 enough?

What's the value for a large screen, 4k TV, at this point? No small stuff. Old and 45" minimum.

The built in graphics on a modern Intel CPU will display 4K but not much more than that. Even at that I find it choppy.

I'm assuming you're referring to an AMD R9 295 X2? As other's mentioned, you'll want to target a TV that has the right port configuration to get 60Hz support.

You could check out rtings 2016 fall review to get started on researching 4K TVs and their price points. If you want to get more in-depth we can go from there.

 

[snowhiker]

HDMI v2.1 looks like a huge jump up from HDMI v2.0. 48Gbps bandwidth and support for 8K60Hz and 4K120Hz displays. Now the long wait for displays and vid cards to implement the new standard.

 

[LunarMist]

Does Windows 10 natively support scaling of the 8K?

 

[DrunkenBastard]

Yes looks like they have caught up with display port 1.3 in that regard. - to snowhikers post

 

[Handruin]

HDMI 2.1 has caught up and surpassed DP 1.3 a bit, no? I'm looking at the Wikipedia page on DP 1.3 and I'm unclear if this cable revision can sustain the video resolution, color depth, and refresh in addition to the high quality audio. Their 8K max refresh is listed at 30Hz. DP 1.4 looks to have added Display Stream Compression to achieve higher refresh on 8K but the overall cable bandwidth remained unchanged. I realize that DP 1.3 was approved in September 2014...so it's been a while.

 

[DrunkenBastard]

Yes, sorry my mistake. HDMI 2.1 has exceeded DP 1.3 and 1.4.