Japan Display Crammed 8K Into A 17-Inch LCD

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
That’s 510 PPI. I really hope this doesn’t give smartphone display manufacturers any ideas; my battery life needs to go up, not down.

The manufacturer says that the high resolution will offer an element of depth to images, and that it could be ideal for video-editing, medical displays and even as gaming screens. Unfortunately, that's all we know for now, but the LCD will be at CEATEC 2015 with all its millions of pixels on show.
 
This stupid article broke all of its http links by making them mailto links. How inconvenient. The announcement states that on top of being 8K, it's also 120Hz! I'm not sure how you would connect that right now.

8K 120Hz gaming would be a bit difficult to drive on the GPU side - you'd have to hope Pascal exceeds the most optimistic estimations of performance improvement over the current generation cards.
 
Make it 4 logical 4K screens with 8 physical Displayport 1.2 inputs. 4x Titan X will drive that nicely, TYVM. You won't be playing The Witcher 3 at 120 Hz, of course.

We better scratch DP 1.3 and move to superMHL.

3 meters for passive cables and longer for active ones will be all to the good.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041890834 said:
But why?
Click to expand...

I can see if an OS designer created REALLY high-quality graphics and webpages were scaled with great filtering, an 8K screen at that size would essentially be the pinnacle of pixel density, however, a single icon on a desktop would take up nearly a 720p's screen worth of pixels.

I would rather have a curved, 65 inch screen with 125 DPI scaling.
 
Dang impressive.

Well btw check out my thread in General Gaming, Im in a hurry for an answer so shoot back quickly for me :$
 
IMHO, there is no point in going above ~100 ppi on the desktop.

Upping the resolution is great if the size goes with it though. (I love my 48" 4k screen)

What's the point of upping the resolution and them having to scale everything up so you can see it?

100 ppi or so is the sweet spot for normal computer use. Get much higher than that and all you are doing is scaling.

Even if you designed am os specifically for high ppi use, the added pixel density would mostly be wasted, as the appearance wouldn't be significantly improved over ~100ppi unless you are sitting VERY close.

The only reason we go higher on phones is because we tend to hold them much closer to our faces, but even on phones the higher ppi levels are mostly wasted. On a typical 5" phone it isnt even really possible to tell the difference between 2560x1440 (~585 ppi) and 1920x1080 (~400ppi)

The highest resolution screens on smartphones these days have become more for bragging rights and marketing purposes than they have for any real benefit. All higher pixel density does is drain batteries and require more powerful gpus, while.looking mostly if not exactly the same to the human eye.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041890834 said:
But why?
Click to expand...

This would be my personal holy grail of monitors because I am not able to use monitors larger than 18" due to tunnel vision, but that is particular to me only. I do not expect this to hit a market that I can purchase from or in a form that I would be able to use.
 
That's roughly the same PPI as the Galaxy Note 5, they haven't really done anything special here outside of not cutting a panel down to a couple of phone screens.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041890951 said:
IMHO, there is no point in going above ~100 ppi on the desktop....

What's the point of upping the resolution and them having to scale everything up so you can see it?
Click to expand...

Because it's a qualitatively better experience. You prefer 600 dpi printout to 300 dpi printout, don't you? Of course, if the application is hard-coded to 72 dpi, then you'll have problems, but that's not the fault of the monitor.
 
Quartz-1 said:
Because it's a qualitatively better experience. You prefer 600 dpi printout to 300 dpi printout, don't you? Of course, if the application is hard-coded to 72 dpi, then you'll have problems, but that's not the fault of the monitor.
Click to expand...

Sorry but this is pretty much untrue. Much like the super high resolution phones, for this size you are well beyond what the human eye is capable of. Now if we start getting cyborg eyes here in the near future, then sure. At this point though, 8k on anything sub 60" is just pure bragging rights.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Sorry but this is pretty much untrue. Much like the super high resolution phones, for this size you are well beyond what the human eye is capable of. Now if we start getting cyborg eyes here in the near future, then sure. At this point though, 8k on anything sub 60" is just pure bragging rights.
Click to expand...

Your argument reminds me of the people who said the human eye cannot tell the difference between 60hz and 144hz.. As I get older, I still don't need glasses/contacts/lasik and notice differences in PPI.
 
med1kl said:
Your argument reminds me of the people who said the human eye cannot tell the difference between 60hz and 144hz.. As I get older, I still don't need glasses/contacts/lasik and notice differences in PPI.
Click to expand...
Difference is my argument is true. Big difference in smoothness of frames vs detail you can actually see in that small of a size. Sorry but you aren't superman, you cannot see that level of detail, no matter how good you think your eyes are. Your argument reminds me of audiophiles who claim tiger can hear shit the human ear flatly isn't capable of. Gotta justify that purchase!
 
I do agree that at 17", its too small to be practical for normal viewing, but I wonder how it would do as a VR Headset display, and if all those pixels could be put to a more practical use?
 
I can easily see individual pixels on my 4K 40" from a 2ft normal viewing distance. That means 4K is inferior for that size and viewing distance. Until single pixels are indistinguishable, the resolution needs to be increased. Period. Bring on the 8K and 16K.
As far as I know 8K on a 17" may be just right - I'd have to see one. Now what we do, er what Microsoft and everyone else does with that resolution to make it usable is an entirely different matter.

When I look at the world, I don't see pixels. I shouldn't see them on my monitor/phone/TV either. Until I don't, we're not there yet.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Difference is my argument is true. Big difference in smoothness of frames vs detail you can actually see in that small of a size. Sorry but you aren't superman, you cannot see that level of detail, no matter how good you think your eyes are. Your argument reminds me of audiophiles who claim tiger can hear shit the human ear flatly isn't capable of. Gotta justify that purchase!
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Sorry but this is pretty much untrue. Much like the super high resolution phones, for this size you are well beyond what the human eye is capable of.
Click to expand...

It may be true that I cannot pick out single pixels any more on my 28" 4K display but I can tell that the text etc is much more aesthetically pleasing.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Difference is my argument is true. Big difference in smoothness of frames vs detail you can actually see in that small of a size. Sorry but you aren't superman, you cannot see that level of detail, no matter how good you think your eyes are. Your argument reminds me of audiophiles who claim tiger can hear shit the human ear flatly isn't capable of. Gotta justify that purchase!
Click to expand...

^This
 
Brahmzy said:
I can easily see individual pixels on my 4K 40" from a 2ft normal viewing distance. That means 4K is inferior for that size and viewing distance. Until single pixels are indistinguishable, the resolution needs to be increased. Period. Bring on the 8K and 16K.
As far as I know 8K on a 17" may be just right - I'd have to see one. Now what we do, er what Microsoft and everyone else does with that resolution to make it usable is an entirely different matter.

When I look at the world, I don't see pixels. I shouldn't see them on my monitor/phone/TV either. Until I don't, we're not there yet.
Click to expand...

Of course you would see it from 2 feet. Don't tell me you are actually sitting 2 feet from a 40 display to work on?
 
Brahmzy said:
I can easily see individual pixels on my 4K 40" from a 2ft normal viewing distance. That means 4K is inferior for that size and viewing distance. Until single pixels are indistinguishable, the resolution needs to be increased. Period. Bring on the 8K and 16K.
As far as I know 8K on a 17" may be just right - I'd have to see one. Now what we do, er what Microsoft and everyone else does with that resolution to make it usable is an entirely different matter.

When I look at the world, I don't see pixels. I shouldn't see them on my monitor/phone/TV either. Until I don't, we're not there yet.
Click to expand...

Some of that is not the PPI itself, but the technology of the pixel. There are hard borders between the pixels, and you are seeing that. On something like CRT or DLP, the borders between pixels were not as defined, or rather they were blurred. This gave a very different viewing experience. Even though the PPI was the same as other technologies.
 
trentchau said:
Of course you would see it from 2 feet. Don't tell me you are actually sitting 2 feet from a 40 display to work on?
Click to expand...

I sit an arms length (~2.5ft) away from my 48" 4k screen.

It's actually a quite good experience. More real estate, as opposed to wasting those pixels on higher pixel density (with respect to my seating position)

I don't know what screen Brahmzy is using, but unless I move REALLY close (like, less than a foot) I can't see the individual pixels on my Samsung JS9000
 
40" Curved Samsung 7500 4K. Yes 2-2.5ft NORMAL viewing distance. Yes I can easily see pixels. Take a white pixel on a black background. You'll see it. When you can't, that means we've arrived at the right size, resolution, viewing distance etc. think about it - it's not rocket science.
 
Brahmzy said:
40" Curved Samsung 7500 4K. Yes 2-2.5ft NORMAL viewing distance. Yes I can easily see pixels. Take a white pixel on a black background. You'll see it. When you can't, that means we've arrived at the right size, resolution, viewing distance etc. think about it - it's not rocket science.
Click to expand...

No, that would be extreme overkill. If I had know that is what you meant by seeing an individual pixel, then I I would have typed a different response above.

The important part is that when looking at an image (lets say a digital photograph) it doesn't look pixelated, or that detail isn't visible. This simply does not happen at 100ppi and 2-2.5ft viewing distances.

It really doesn't matter that you can create a single pixel that stands out and is visible.

The way I think of it is the opposite.

If we get to the point where you can't see a single white pixel on a black background, this
only means that that pixel is completely pointless. If you can't see it, it isn't adding anything useful to the image. And you don't even have to go all the way down to that level for a pixel to be more or less useless.

As long as you don't have loss of detail, or your image looks pixelated, then there is nothing to be added by increasing pixel density.

At normal 2-2.5ft viewing distances, ~100ppi is the sweet spot. There is no reason to ever go above this. Even 90ppi is good enough in most cases.
 
As soon as you can see the pixel, detail has been lost. If you build something visible with 2-3-4 pixels that's visible, that's where we need to be. Again, think about it.
 
Brahmzy said:
As soon as you can see the pixel, detail has been lost. If you build something visible with 2-3-4 pixels that's visible, that's where we need to be. Again, think about it.
Click to expand...

Being able to see a white pixel on a black background is a loss of detail? How are you supposed to discover Pluto then?
 
Awesome. Maybe that will push some progress towards getting more pixel real estate on a single monitor. It seems this is something that has stagnated for a while. More pixels means more work area, when it comes to a desktop. Though 17" is a tad small for that many pixels, I'd want it to be bigger and maybe ultra wide. Of course you can do multi monitor but if you could have that much real estate on a single screen, even better.
 
SCSI-Terminator said:
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/part-viii-gabac-receptors/visual-acuity/

I would probably pick the grating vs. checkerboard test outlined in the link, rather than just trying to see if you can see a single white pixel on a black background, but whatever.
Click to expand...

We can always use science.

It has been established that the resolution detectable by the human eye is 1 pixel for 0.6 of an arc minute.

My trigonometry is a little rusty, but 0.6 arc minute = 0.01 degrees.

So Pixel Size Ps is:

Ps = D * tan (0.01)

And Ps = 1/PPI

So,

PPI = 1 / (D * tan (0.01))

If we assume a distance of 2.5ft, this is 30in.

Then the highest PPI that will make a difference to human perception is:

191 ppi

Higher than I thought, but well lower than this screen :p

So for a phone, that I am guessing is typically used at ~ 12 inches distance, we are talking 477 ppi.


If I had to guess, the reason why to my own eyes ~100ppi seems OK is one of diminishing returns. You see a much bigger improvement going from 75ppi to 100ppi, than you see going from 100ppi to 125ppi
 
Zarathustra[H];1041892228 said:
It has been established that the resolution detectable by the human eye is 1 pixel for 0.6 of an arc minute.
Click to expand...

If you look at a 200 ppi screen and a 400 ppi screen in a blind test, I'll bet you'll think that the latter looks better because of the qualitative difference.
 
It occurs to me that doing 8K at 120Hz implies 4K at 240Hz and 1080p at 480Hz, but can the monitor actually do that, or your video cards and video drivers?
 
Quartz-1 said:
If you look at a 200 ppi screen and a 400 ppi screen in a blind test, I'll bet you'll think that the latter looks better because of the qualitative difference.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking that at a fixed 30" viewing distance, if two digital images are show to people at random and they are asked to pick the one that looks better, it will start being a wash over 100ppi or so.

I suspect that people - if they really study the images carefully at 30 inches - will be able to pick out up to 200ppi, but that the difference between 100ppi and 200ppi will be difficult to pick out. Above 200ppi, I expect that all images would be perceived the same.

A lot of the higher PPI figured are probably - just like in the Audiophile world - placebo effect.

The only reason we talk about super high ppi figures on phones, is because we hold them much closer to our faces.

Per the trigonometry above, 191ppi at 30" is equivalent to 477ppi at 12", and higher if you move the phone even closer to your face.

Math doesn't lie.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041890834 said:
But why?
Click to expand...

Probably just to show the technology is coming along. A lot of people were predicting 8K monitors being available 3-4 years after 4K became cheap so it's about time.
 
Ryokurin said:
Probably just to show the technology is coming along. A lot of people were predicting 8K monitors being available 3-4 years after 4K became cheap so it's about time.
Click to expand...

IMHO, good 4K only just got cheap enough earlier this summer, so by that reasoning 8k is a 2018 - 2019 technology :p

I have to admit, if I had a 518ppi screen like the above, I would probably be running it at a lower resolution, to save computer resources.

Something lower, but of an even multiplier. At 17, a custom 1536x864 would probably be more appropriate. That way the scaling works out at 5x5 per rendered pixel.
 
evilsofa said:
It occurs to me that doing 8K at 120Hz implies 4K at 240Hz and 1080p at 480Hz, but can the monitor actually do that, or your video cards and video drivers?
Click to expand...

Actually, assuming the same aspect ration, 8K should equal four 4K screens. That 8K at 120Hz would imply 4K at 480Hz and 1080p at 1920Hz.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041890834 said:
But why?
Click to expand...

Thats the kind of WindowsPocket PC thinking that left us at 320x240 resolutions from 1996-2003 before we saw any kind of improvement... :p

I will agree though, that the law of diminishing returns is pretty apparent with that kind of display. But I do think that in 20 years.... we will most likely all have 8K screens since that is finally the point where it becomes indistinguishable from reality, not to mention the push that we have for 4-8K screens because of VR technology.

I guess my real point is

Why Not?

I'll never stand in front of the way of technological progress, even if it is progress for progress's sake. (doesn't mean I will spend money unless it makes sense either though)
 
oh hecks yeah.

as a graphics whore, i cant wait for the day AA becomes needless.

and i love me some big ol screens (50"+) so resolution becomes is that much more important.

onward, progress!
 
Zarathustra[H];1041893021 said:
I suspect that people - if they really study the images carefully at 30 inches - will be able to pick out up to 200ppi, but that the difference between 100ppi and 200ppi will be difficult to pick out. Above 200ppi, I expect that all images would be perceived the same.
Click to expand...

You can test this yourself with text on a piece of paper. Try it with various dpi settings. You will find that you can easily pick out text printed at a higher dpi.
 
Quartz-1 said:
You can test this yourself with text on a piece of paper. Try it with various dpi settings. You will find that you can easily pick out text printed at a higher dpi.
Click to expand...

Those comparisons are not equivalent. The difference is that ink is either on or off whereas screen pixels have at least 256 levels of variation per sub-pixel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top