LG leaks 8K iMac info

E

evilsofa

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
10,078
LG leaked the following statement on one of its blogs;

"It has become clear that Japan is planning to launch an 8K SHV test broadcast and then promptly restructure the UHD service. Apple has also announced that they will release the ‘iMac 8K’ with a super-high resolution display later this year. Korea is also preparing to offer an 8K service demonstration at the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics. LG Display displayed a new beacon of the 8K era by revealing their 98-inch 8K Color Prime Ultra HDTV at CES 2015."

The statement was removed after everybody noticed.

All of the industry gossip sites seem to assume it will be the Super UHD resolution 7680x4320, but I think it could be 8192x5120 instead. That would be a 16:10 resolution, which Apple favors so video applications can show full video as well as application tools, and it would be a true 8K resolution which Super UHD is not. UHD, which everyone refers to as 4K, is 3840x2160 instead of 4096x2304 (16:9) or 4096x2560 (16:10), and with the 5K iMac, Apple chose to go with a true 5K resolution of 5120x2880 instead of a lower resolution.
 
Great to hear about some 8K-related progress!

But unless the iMac ends up being 55" or bigger, a horrible waste of 8K :p
 
I just hope its not 8k screen but the hardware is set to render at 4k, like the new macbook...
 
I just hope the rush to 8K doesn't hold back OLED. Let's get display quality up before pushing the resolution envelope further.
 
Can't wait for [H] to go crazy for 60hz 8k LCDs without motion compensation and low frequency PWM for gaming with V-Sync disabled.
 
While 8k is great news and all, if 8k monitors start to pop up that would have to mean DP 1.3 since dual DP 1.2 tops out at 5k. And DP 1.3 means 4k @ 120Hz which is what I'm more excited for even though I just bought a 1440p 144Hz monitor lol.
 
evilsofa said:
I would hardly call what has been happening since the first consumer 2560x1600 monitor was released in 2004 a rush to higher resolutions, but OLED isn't being held back by that.
Click to expand...

There has definitely been a resolution push recently, 4K only recently got affordable and there are already 5K monitors coming out now at prices that aren't much more expensive either: the 27" 5K HP will cost $1299. It doesn't look like it's going to stop anytime soon now with talk of 8K. And hell, you can now find 2560x1440 displays in smartphones now.

I don't mean there has been a push since 2004 but only in the past couple years, however it shows no signs of stopping.

Also, the 4K rush did lead LG to halt 1080p OLED production for next year. If we see 8K overtake the LCD market just as quickly that IMO will further set back affordability of the tech, since I'm sure it won't want its top-tier displays to have a lower resolution than LCD. Marketing reasons and all that...

Maybe 8K won't happen anytime soon for TVs though considering how slow HDMI is to adopt new standards.
 
evilsofa said:
All of the industry gossip sites seem to assume it will be the Super UHD resolution 7680x4320, but I think it could be 8192x5120 instead. That would be a 16:10 resolution, which Apple favors so video applications can show full video as well as application tools, and it would be a true 8K resolution which Super UHD is not. UHD, which everyone refers to as 4K, is 3840x2160 instead of 4096x2304 (16:9) or 4096x2560 (16:10), and with the 5K iMac, Apple chose to go with a true 5K resolution of 5120x2880 instead of a lower resolution.
Click to expand...

Panels for 8K will originate from the TV standard 7680x4320, anything else is highly improbable. The 5120x2880 also has its origin in the 1280x720 TV standard, just quadrupling it.

x3sphere said:
Maybe 8K won't happen anytime soon for TVs though considering how slow HDMI is to adopt new standards.
Click to expand...

In Japan they start 8K public test transmissions in 2016, first 8K TVs should be then in shops. In parallel there should be coming 8K monitors, NVidia and AMD announced they are working on 8K technology.

How much 8K is needed one can see by comparing Apple 27"@1440 and 27"@5K monitors. The difference is such small that practically it is easy to forget. 8K will be negligible difference.
 
MistaSparkul said:
While 8k is great news and all, if 8k monitors start to pop up that would have to mean DP 1.3 since dual DP 1.2 tops out at 5k. And DP 1.3 means 4k @ 120Hz which is what I'm more excited for even though I just bought a 1440p 144Hz monitor lol.
Click to expand...

I'd love a 40" 8K monitor. 40" display at 220 DPI would be insane for desktop stuff.

DP 1.3 cannot do 8K at 60 Hz. The monitor will need dual DP 1.3 inputs.

To put the bandwidth requirement into perspective, 8K at 60 Hz requires four times the bandwidth of 4K displays and two times the bandwidth of native 120 Hz 4K displays which don't even exist yet.
 
They can make displays of whatever resolution they like but that doesn't mean they're going to be practical. There is still no real way to get 4K content, the little that is available is via online sources that are heavily compressed. Hypothetical 8K content would be compressed even more. 4K blurays still don't exist and won't until the end of this year at the earliest. 8K would be nice on the desktop for >30" monitors, but that's about it. It's not a practical resolution to drive in 3d games, and won't be for many years.
 
Vega said:
I'd love a 40" 8K monitor. 40" display at 220 DPI would be insane for desktop stuff..
Click to expand...

Can you explain this part? Reviews of 27"-32" 4k monitors have led me to believe that 135 PPI is about as small as one wants its desktop without resorting to scaling for reading, which defeats the purpose of going for a higher resolution in the first place:mad:.

Now i am reading the all [H] Vega defending 220 PPI as the next s[H]it.

considering neither the 24" 4k nor the 27" 5k screens have been a market success, why the sudden enthusiasm for 8k?

i still bet that the future is to use VR headsets as computer monitors :cool:, not build gigantic screens for neck pain and humongous carbon footprints :(
 
geok1ng said:
Can you explain this part? Reviews of 27"-32" 4k monitors have led me to believe that 135 PPI is about as small as one wants its desktop without resorting to scaling for reading, which defeats the purpose of going for a higher resolution in the first place:mad:.

Now i am reading the all [H] Vega defending 220 PPI as the next s[H]it.

considering neither the 24" 4k nor the 27" 5k screens have been a market success, why the sudden enthusiasm for 8k?

i still bet that the future is to use VR headsets as computer monitors :cool:, not build gigantic screens for neck pain and humongous carbon footprints :(
Click to expand...

Scaling is perfectly fine. I did some tests with my 19.8" (viewable) monitor cranked up to 3840x2880/interlaced, which gives 242PPI. Windows 10 handled scaling perfectly. People complain all day about scaling when it really is no issue.
 
While 8k sounds awesome after using phones with 200+ PPI for years, it's hard enough to drive and find content for 4k with current GPU tech.

With that said, I own both 40" and 24" 4k displays, and the difference in sharpness is definitely noticeable on an OS that properly scales.
 
Vega said:
I'd love a 40" 8K monitor. 40" display at 220 DPI would be insane for desktop stuff. DP 1.3 cannot do 8K at 60 Hz. The monitor will need dual DP 1.3 inputs.
Click to expand...

There is superMHL connector specs ready which goes up to 8K@120Hz

Sancus said:
They can make displays of whatever resolution they like but that doesn't mean they're going to be practical. There is still no real way to get 4K content, the little that is available is via online sources that are heavily compressed. Hypothetical 8K content would be compressed even more. 4K blurays still don't exist and won't until the end of this year at the earliest. 8K would be nice on the desktop for >30" monitors, but that's about it. It's not a practical resolution to drive in 3d games, and won't be for many years.
Click to expand...

Note that 8K is coming to Japan in quite another style than the typical 'cart-before-horse' elsewhere. Japanese are preparing complete chain, from content, cameras, broadcasting to displays. When 8K TVs show up in Japan there will be available stuff to watch.



geok1ng said:
Can you explain this part? Reviews of 27"-32" 4k monitors have led me to believe that 135 PPI is about as small as one wants its desktop without resorting to scaling for reading, which defeats the purpose of going for a higher resolution in the first place:mad:. Now i am reading the all [H] Vega defending 220 PPI as the next s[H]it.
considering neither the 24" 4k nor the 27" 5k screens have been a market success, why the sudden enthusiasm for 8k?
Click to expand...

This is enthusiasm of people who go just for bigger numbers. There is absolutely no real advantage of 8K in monitors. Anyone not convinced should go to an Apple store and look into the 27"@1440 and 27"@5K monitors to see that the difference in resolution is miniscule. The difference between the 5K and 8K could only be seen with maginifying glass.
That said we are living in an era where pixel density is free, and thus 8K may cost the same as 4K. Then people will buy 8K no matter if they can see any difference.

geok1ng said:
i still bet that the future is to use VR headsets as computer monitors :cool:, not build gigantic screens for neck pain and humongous carbon footprints :(
Click to expand...

This will not happen., at least not with the VR we currently know. This VR is obtrusive and tiring. It can be used for limited time, not the way people use monitors.
 
geok1ng said:
Can you explain this part? Reviews of 27"-32" 4k monitors have led me to believe that 135 PPI is about as small as one wants its desktop without resorting to scaling for reading, which defeats the purpose of going for a higher resolution in the first place:mad:.

Now i am reading the all [H] Vega defending 220 PPI as the next s[H]it.

considering neither the 24" 4k nor the 27" 5k screens have been a market success, why the sudden enthusiasm for 8k?
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with properly implemented scaling. Text on native 135 PPI and below looks like crap. Time to move out of the stone age. Once you reach 200+ PPI on scaled text it looks beautiful, zero aliasing like high end magazines. People that don't know what they are doing don't know how to set up scaling properly.

Not sure what your reference for high DPI displays not being a "market success" is.

rabidz7 said:
Scaling is perfectly fine. I did some tests with my 19.8" (viewable) monitor cranked up to 3840x2880/interlaced, which gives 242PPI. Windows 10 handled scaling perfectly. People complain all day about scaling when it really is no issue.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

wirk said:
There is superMHL connector specs ready which goes up to 8K@120Hz
Click to expand...

Have you ever used MHL before? I have, it's a joke.

MHL Consortium today announced the superMHL™ specification, the next-generation of MHL® technology for CE and mobile devices.

Has nothing to do with computer connection standards and has laughable fantasy bandwidth goals which we probably won't see until the start of the next decade on actual shipping input and output devices. :rolleyes:
 
Vega said:
Have you ever used MHL before? I have, it's a joke.

Has nothing to do with computer connection standards and has laughable fantasy bandwidth goals which we probably won't see until the start of the next decade on actual shipping input and output devices. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

superMHL is not really unrealistic, even if it's coming from a weird place. It's ~36 Gb/s over 6 lanes on 32 pins, while DP 25.92 Gb/s over 4 lanes on 20 pins.
I'd prefer DP 1.4/2.0 drop the 8b10b coding for a ~20% bump in speed and up the clocks to get at least twice DP 1.2 speeds (34.56 Gp/s), but that's probably years out at least.

I'm more curious whether the next generation of GPUs like the R9 3xx series will support VESA Display Stream Compression, since it didn't get made a mandatory part of DP 1.3.
 
Vega said:
Have you ever used MHL before? I have, it's a joke.
MHL Consortium today announced the superMHL™ specification, the next-generation of MHL® technology for CE and mobile devices. Has nothing to do with computer connection standards and has laughable fantasy bandwidth goals which we probably won't see until the start of the next decade on actual shipping input and output devices. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You grossly underestimate the drive which is in Japan to introduce the 8K TV chain. It seems that superMHL will be the connector used for 8K devices there and first devices may appear in 2016. Will this connector be used in computer monitors? Computer equipment manufacturers are reacting slowly to changes and are trying to protect their turf. One can thus expect they will try to utilize double DP 1.3 connectors before moving to a single connector. If superMHL picks up, they may be forced to put it, like it happens with the HDMI.
 
wirk said:
You grossly underestimate the drive which is in Japan to introduce the 8K TV chain. It seems that superMHL will be the connector used for 8K devices there and first devices may appear in 2016. Will this connector be used in computer monitors? Computer equipment manufacturers are reacting slowly to changes and are trying to protect their turf. One can thus expect they will try to utilize double DP 1.3 connectors before moving to a single connector. If superMHL picks up, they may be forced to put it, like it happens with the HDMI.
Click to expand...

Pre-produced video content doesn't really need fat uncompressed inputs on consumer devices, especially when AVC/HEVC engines are being put into an increasingly large number of displays.
Super Hi-Vision (7680x4320x120Hzx36b) requires a staggering 143Gb/s, and the maximum achievable bitrate over a single shielded copper pair is on the order of 10Gb/s.
Compression has to come into play somewhere, and putting it on the display link might not make sense at that point.

For workstation monitors, 4320p96@24bpp could be done this coming generation with DP 1.3 plus DSC, which would keep almost anyone happy, especially with 2160p120+ modes for gaming, but there's no indication that the Japanese or anyone else in the entertainment sector wants to go this way.
 
evilsofa said:
I would hardly call what has been happening since the first consumer 2560x1600 monitor was released in 2004 a rush to higher resolutions, but OLED isn't being held back by that.
Click to expand...

There was certainly a rush to higher resolution that started to really push and it really started pushing right at the time that OLEDs were proving themselves in phones. The reason this happened was because LCD makers realized they were going to get destroyed on black levels, contrast and many other issues so the only option they saw was to try to use their more proven technology to increase pixel density faster. This is exactly what they did and ultimately this push would result in such industry buzzwords as retina. Fortunately for all of us Samsung has proven to be a very adept OLED maker and was able to push OLED up in resolution quickly to and didn't fall too far behind. Now that they have proven themselves in phones I think they will be able to scale up to monitors and TVs. But LCD makers will keep trying to stay one step ahead.

This 8K push is awefully premature though, one would have to say that a very small market share even has 4K yet. ROFL the consoles don't even really support it now they want 8K ready only a year after 4K came down to affordable prices.
 
geok1ng said:
Can you explain this part? Reviews of 27"-32" 4k monitors have led me to believe that 135 PPI is about as small as one wants its desktop without resorting to scaling for reading, which defeats the purpose of going for a higher resolution in the first place:mad:.

Now i am reading the all [H] Vega defending 220 PPI as the next s[H]it.

considering neither the 24" 4k nor the 27" 5k screens have been a market success, why the sudden enthusiasm for 8k?

i still bet that the future is to use VR headsets as computer monitors :cool:, not build gigantic screens for neck pain and humongous carbon footprints :(
Click to expand...


There are many different types of "scaling" what you are thinking of is simply upscaling you render at a lower resolution and stretch the image which usually does look like crap. But there is native proper scaling where the image is actually rendered bigger at the higher resolution and this is where we should be taking all things. The problem isn't that we cant do the problem is lazy ass programmers have caused the need to build in backwards compatibility. As far back as windows vista. we saw problems with this where some applications would scale fine as they supported MSs built in scaling and others would look like a burry mess. And apple does this by pixel doubling which is hilarious because people are paying X amount more for a high dpi display then its only rendering everything at half the resolution. But at least it doesn't look as blurry. I think that high PPI displays will help push developers to properly implement scaling. And we need to move forward to force developer to properly implement it.
 
rudy said:
And apple does this by pixel doubling which is hilarious because people are paying X amount more for a high dpi display then its only rendering everything at half the resolution.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should look into how Apple does it before scoffing at what you apparently don't understand.
 
jts888 said:
Pre-produced video content doesn't really need fat uncompressed inputs on consumer devices, especially when AVC/HEVC engines are being put into an increasingly large number of displays.
Super Hi-Vision (7680x4320x120Hzx36b) requires a staggering 143Gb/s, and the maximum achievable bitrate over a single shielded copper pair is on the order of 10Gb/s.
Compression has to come into play somewhere, and putting it on the display link might not make sense at that point. For workstation monitors, 4320p96@24bpp could be done this coming generation with DP 1.3 plus DSC, which would keep almost anyone happy, especially with 2160p120+ modes for gaming, but there's no indication that the Japanese or anyone else in the entertainment sector wants to go this way.
Click to expand...

Obviously content has to be heavily compressed for distribution. But for the display remember there is lossless compression with the factor of 4 achievable. Then 8K@120Hz can be compressed to about 35 GHz/s which is quite manageable.


rudy said:
There was certainly a rush to higher resolution that started to really push and it really started pushing right at the time that OLEDs were proving themselves in phones. The reason this happened was because LCD makers realized they were going to get destroyed on black levels, contrast and many other issues so the only option they saw was to try to use their more proven technology to increase pixel density faster. This is exactly what they did and ultimately this push would result in such industry buzzwords as retina. Fortunately for all of us Samsung has proven to be a very adept OLED maker and was able to push OLED up in resolution quickly to and didn't fall too far behind. Now that they have proven themselves in phones I think they will be able to scale up to monitors and TVs. But LCD makers will keep trying to stay one step ahead.
Click to expand...

You are kind of rewriting history :D. OLED has been pushed by Samsung which put it into phones but badly failed in scaling it up to bigger displays. Yields in their RGB process for bigger displays were very low and made it uneconomical forcing Samsung to stop manufacturing big OLED displays. They are not giving up but next time they will most likely use technology in development by the US company Kateeva. On the other hand, LG made brilliant development of their technology called WRGB and it is now manufacturing and selling big OLED displays in volumes. LG has clear path to big OLED expansion projecting triple growth in 2016. Regarding the resolution LCD was first in increasing it and OLED followed. Now higher resolution is not a problem and has not real impact on manufacturing yields and costs.

jts888 said:
This 8K push is awefully premature though, one would have to say that a very small market share even has 4K yet. ROFL the consoles don't even really support it now they want 8K ready only a year after 4K came down to affordable prices.
Click to expand...

4K and 8K are results of dog-eat-dog competition and consumer ignorance. But 8K will not be premature in Japan. In Japan they prepare not only displays but complete 8K chain, this is completely different from the 4K craze seen in the West with displays becoming available without proper connectors and no ready content. But of course the real question is how much 4K and 8K are needed. Paradoxically 4K is needed in computer monitors and even curved is nice there. For TV 4K and 8K are mostly gimmicks.
 
NCX said:
Can't wait for [H] to go crazy for 60hz 8k LCDs without motion compensation and low frequency PWM for gaming with V-Sync disabled.
Click to expand...

Text so small you need a microscope.... what happens when your photo editing software can't scale...
 
evilsofa said:
You upgrade to photo editing software that was released in this century?
Click to expand...

Agreed. I love when people say "well photoshop doesn't scale". So who needs a 8K display? I couldn't give a crap about photoshop.

lol @ people talking about 8K @ 120 Hz. Fantasy land. Current consoles are at 1080p at 60 Hz, 1/16th that of 8K and 1/32nd the bandwidth of 8K at 120 Hz. 4K is just now in the crawl stage. The display sector moves very slowly. The display connection sector even slower still. DP 1.3 is a marginal increase and HDMI 2.0 was obsolete the day it was announced.

I predict a 8K display at 60 Hz running dual DP 1.3 inputs in 2016. Years beyond that for any meaningful increase to the GPU-Monitor connection chain.
 
At this time, 8K is putting the cart a mile before the horse. There's a whole lot of ducks to be lined up before we should even consider going there. We still don't have the ubiquity of 4K content, OLED, Rec2020, IPS @ 120/144Hz, DP 1.3, or HDMI 2.0. Not to mention being able to drive a 8K display adequately (or affordably) from a PC.
 
i do not doubt that existing hardware can solve the connection side of the 8K displays.
that does not solves my doubts about the real benefit of 8K on PC monitors:

" text will look beautiful with edges or aliasing"

BIG DEAL! That is the equivalent of choosing 1280x720 on my 4K Tv for desktop use, so "text does not show aliasing and looks beautiful".

On the PC desktop i use higher resolution primarily for increased working area, not looks. What vega is proposing is using 5k/8k devices just for better look, even if desktop real state area is equivalent to today's resolutions.

I hate being in the position of nay sayer to Vega, it feels somehow blasphemous :( but that is how i feel.

Under 4k my wife puts 10 word pages at the same time on screen. going 5k/8k will at most make text "more sharp", not increase the number of simultaneous pages being displayed significantly. we are very close, if not already at, the limits of the human body: we can not read a PC monitor with PPI much smaller than 135PPI and we can not sustain the use of a screen bigger than 40" for long stretches of time without neck pain.

The 24" 4Ks do not sell like hot bread. Neither do the 27" 5k monitors. they are gimmink products with limited, if any, benefit for the usage scenario of a PC monitor. On the other hand, people take pre-orders on 40" 4k screens, or, even better, 27-34" 144Hz (super)widescreen monitors.:D

There is no rush towards extremely small PPI.
The rush is towards desktop real state and low motion blur.

On the other way, i totally see people using 5/8k VR headsets: pixels very close to the eye, perfect ergonomics:cool:. Plus this screen size is within the OLED yields right now
 
How hard is it to scale higher resolution technology into a smaller footprint? I'm looking forward to 8K technology on a 5.5 inch screen for VR.
 
THis kinda blows my mind. I play games at 7680x1600 and they are making a single panel with more than that. Good luck playing any games on this sucker.
 
Tech moves fast. I hope this means AMD and Nvidia are preparing for 8K and making their future video cards all that more powerful
 
I think keeping the ideal 120-90ppi is a good idea. Going up to 150-200ppi is pushing it for a 18"-25" (distance from eyes) monitor use. The human eye is awesome, and it can detect even the tiniest details (even 600dpi at arms length), but with a modern OS with a modern GPU, not worth it. Too much horsepower per inch. Now, notice I focus on PPi, not total resolution. 8K is fine at 65-90 inches. Boy, that would be an awesome monitor. Desktop space galore.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top