Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: 8k TVs and Monitors

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,170

    8k TVs and Monitors

    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.
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q & ZR24w, Unicomp/104, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  2. #2
    Allergic to Sunlight Storage is cool sedrosken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Trapped Sometime in the Last Decade
    Age
    18
    Posts
    934
    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.
    Phone: Moto Z Droid Force (didn't pay for it, can't complain) 32GB, 128GB microSD -- on my uncle's plan with Verizon.
    T450: 4300U, 16GB 3L-1600, HD 4400, 14" 1366x768, 128GB M.2 SSD/320GB SATA HDD, Win10Ent64, 6-cell extended batt (10hr avg)
    Stonehold: i5-7500, 16GB 4-2400, GTX1060 6GB, 120GB SSD/4TB HDD, 600W EVGA 80+B semi-modular PSU, Arch-OpenRC/Win10Ent64

  3. #3
    Not really a Hairy Aussie
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    9,148
    Quote Originally Posted by sedrosken View Post
    Why would you need such a high resolution on such a small display?
    It's an ePeen enlargement tool.

  4. #4
    Storage Is My Life jtr1962's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Flushing, New York
    Age
    54
    Posts
    3,462
    Quote Originally Posted by sedrosken View Post
    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.
    We shall turn you into gas and pour you into the stratosphere. Nothing will remain of you, not a name in a register, not a memory in a living brain. You will be annihilated in the past as well as in the future. You will never have existed.
    -1984


    I'm a seeker too. But my dreams aren't like yours. I can't help thinking that somewhere in the universe there has to be something better than man. Has to be.
    -Planet of the Apes ( 1968 )

  5. #5
    Allergic to Sunlight Storage is cool sedrosken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Trapped Sometime in the Last Decade
    Age
    18
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by jtr1962 View Post
    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.
    Phone: Moto Z Droid Force (didn't pay for it, can't complain) 32GB, 128GB microSD -- on my uncle's plan with Verizon.
    T450: 4300U, 16GB 3L-1600, HD 4400, 14" 1366x768, 128GB M.2 SSD/320GB SATA HDD, Win10Ent64, 6-cell extended batt (10hr avg)
    Stonehold: i5-7500, 16GB 4-2400, GTX1060 6GB, 120GB SSD/4TB HDD, 600W EVGA 80+B semi-modular PSU, Arch-OpenRC/Win10Ent64

  6. #6
    Storage Is My Life jtr1962's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Flushing, New York
    Age
    54
    Posts
    3,462
    Quote Originally Posted by sedrosken View Post
    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.
    We shall turn you into gas and pour you into the stratosphere. Nothing will remain of you, not a name in a register, not a memory in a living brain. You will be annihilated in the past as well as in the future. You will never have existed.
    -1984


    I'm a seeker too. But my dreams aren't like yours. I can't help thinking that somewhere in the universe there has to be something better than man. Has to be.
    -Planet of the Apes ( 1968 )

  7. #7
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,153
    Quote Originally Posted by jtr1962 View Post
    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.
    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".
    --Lunar

  8. #8
    Fixture ddrueding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Age
    36
    Posts
    18,992
    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.
    Work1: i7-5930K@4.57Ghz, 64GB, 512GB Samsung XP941, 2x 290X
    Home1: i7-7700k@5Ghz, 32GB, 1TB 960 Evo, 2x 1080
    Home2: i7-6700k@4.4Ghz, 32GB@3Ghz, 2x SM951, 2x Titan X

  9. #9
    Wotty wot wot. Storage Is My Life Chewy509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Gold Coast Hinterland, Australia
    Age
    39
    Posts
    2,693
    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.
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

  10. #10
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,170
    Quote Originally Posted by sedrosken View Post
    The pixel density must be mind boggling.
    Article quoted 326 PPI so about what a decent/modern cell phone displays.

    Quote Originally Posted by jtr1962 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ddrueding View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chewy509 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by snowhiker; 10-08-2016 at 02:09 AM. Reason: spelling
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q & ZR24w, Unicomp/104, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  11. #11
    Not really a Hairy Aussie
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    9,148
    Quote Originally Posted by snowhiker View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    Storage? I am Storage! mubs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in time.
    Posts
    4,908
    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.

  13. #13
    Fixture ddrueding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Age
    36
    Posts
    18,992
    Work1: i7-5930K@4.57Ghz, 64GB, 512GB Samsung XP941, 2x 290X
    Home1: i7-7700k@5Ghz, 32GB, 1TB 960 Evo, 2x 1080
    Home2: i7-6700k@4.4Ghz, 32GB@3Ghz, 2x SM951, 2x Titan X

  14. #14
    Fatwah on Western Digital Fixture Mercutio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    I am omnipresent
    Posts
    20,329
    Quote Originally Posted by ddrueding View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Fixture ddrueding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Age
    36
    Posts
    18,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercutio View Post
    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.
    Work1: i7-5930K@4.57Ghz, 64GB, 512GB Samsung XP941, 2x 290X
    Home1: i7-7700k@5Ghz, 32GB, 1TB 960 Evo, 2x 1080
    Home2: i7-6700k@4.4Ghz, 32GB@3Ghz, 2x SM951, 2x Titan X

  16. #16
    Storage Is My Life jtr1962's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Flushing, New York
    Age
    54
    Posts
    3,462
    Quote Originally Posted by ddrueding View Post
    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.
    We shall turn you into gas and pour you into the stratosphere. Nothing will remain of you, not a name in a register, not a memory in a living brain. You will be annihilated in the past as well as in the future. You will never have existed.
    -1984


    I'm a seeker too. But my dreams aren't like yours. I can't help thinking that somewhere in the universe there has to be something better than man. Has to be.
    -Planet of the Apes ( 1968 )

  17. #17
    Storage is cool DrunkenBastard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    on the floor
    Posts
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by jtr1962 View Post
    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.

  18. #18
    Fixture ddrueding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Age
    36
    Posts
    18,992
    640k should be enough for....
    Work1: i7-5930K@4.57Ghz, 64GB, 512GB Samsung XP941, 2x 290X
    Home1: i7-7700k@5Ghz, 32GB, 1TB 960 Evo, 2x 1080
    Home2: i7-6700k@4.4Ghz, 32GB@3Ghz, 2x SM951, 2x Titan X

  19. #19
    Fatwah on Western Digital Fixture Mercutio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    I am omnipresent
    Posts
    20,329
    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.

  20. #20
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,170
    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..."
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q & ZR24w, Unicomp/104, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  21. #21
    NVIDIA> AMD Fixture Handruin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    12,242
    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.

  22. #22
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,170
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q & ZR24w, Unicomp/104, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  23. #23
    Storage? I am Storage! Santilli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,928
    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.
    Intel i7 940 @ 3.11GHZ 8 GB DDR3 DRAM, Gigabyte GA EX58 UD5 , Nvidia GTX 295, 2 x 160
    GB Intel X-25M 2's, IN RAID 0, 3 hot swap bays, and a USB toaster for two more drives,
    LG WH16NS40 Super Multi Blue Internal SATA 16x Blu-ray Disc Rewriter, Antec P 183 Chassis, Seasonic 700 PS, 7 Ultimate
    Klipsch 4.1 Promedia speakers loud and clear.

  24. #24
    Storage is cool DrunkenBastard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    on the floor
    Posts
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by Santilli View Post
    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.

  25. #25
    Not really a Hairy Aussie
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    9,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Santilli View Post
    What do you need for a video card to drive a 4k, 55 inch TV?
    To do what? Game?

  26. #26
    NVIDIA> AMD Fixture Handruin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    12,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Santilli View Post
    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.

  27. #27
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,170
    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.
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q & ZR24w, Unicomp/104, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  28. #28
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,170
    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.
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q & ZR24w, Unicomp/104, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  29. #29
    Storage is cool DrunkenBastard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    on the floor
    Posts
    526
    Yes looks like they have caught up with display port 1.3 in that regard. - to snowhikers post

  30. #30
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,153
    Does Windows 10 natively support scaling of the 8K?
    --Lunar

  31. #31
    NVIDIA> AMD Fixture Handruin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    12,242
    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.

  32. #32
    Storage is cool DrunkenBastard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    on the floor
    Posts
    526
    Yes, sorry my mistake. HDMI 2.1 has exceeded DP 1.3 and 1.4.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •